Iran is 'out of step' with region: US State Department

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iranvoteusreax_050625134616

Iran is 'out of step' with region: US State Department

Sat Jun 25, 9:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Iran is "out of step" with a trend toward freedom and liberty in its region, the US State Department said, after hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad won a presidential election condemned by Washington as "flawed".

"With the conclusion of the election in Iran, we have seen nothing that dissuades us from our view that Iran is out of step with the rest of the region and the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in
Iraq,
Afghanistan and
Lebanon," State Department spokeswoman Joanne Moore said late Friday.

"These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

"We will judge the regime by its actions. In light of the way these elections were conducted, however, we remain skeptical that the Iranian regime is interested in addressing either the legitimate desires of its own people, or the concerns of the broader international community," Moore said.

"The United States believes in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future, and as the Iranian people stand for their own liberty, we stand with them."

Hardline Tehran mayor Ahmadinejad swept to a shock victory in Friday's second round vote in Iran, a win set to spell an end to years of difficult reform and place the Islamic republic on a collision course with the West.

The interior ministry said Ahmadinejad, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist seeking a return to the moral "purity" of the early years of the Islamic revolution, thrashed his more pragmatist rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Ahmadinejad's victory leaves anti-Western ultra-conservatives in complete control over every elected and unelected institution in Iran, and Rafsanjani's humiliating defeat will remove what has been a moderating influence within the 26-year-old theocracy.

In Los Angeles, exiled Iranian opposition leaders hailed Ahmadinejad's victory, saying it would bring Tehran's Islamic regime a step closer to collapse.

While the election of the conservative Islamist might bring tough times for Iranians in the short term, they said, it will ultimately fuel internal opposition, put external pressure on the government and expose cracks within the regime.

Some 400,000 to 600,000 Iranians live in the United States, most of them in California.

Earlier Friday, before the result, a senior State Department official speaking on condition of anonymity said Washington would watch carefully the policies crafted and actions taken by the new Iranian president.

"It goes back to policies and actions as opposed to personalities," he said, not expressing any preference for Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad.

Asked whether the United States would be "engaging" with the new Iranian president, the US official said: "The issue of who wins is not going to determine whether we engage or not.

"The issue of engagement will be a factor (based on) policy decisions the Iranian government makes and specific actions that it takes," he said. "That will be the criteria by which we decide what we do."

US officials including
President George W. Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice repeatedly heaped scorn on Iran's presidential poll in recent days.

"Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy," Bush said in a statement last week.

How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"

Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iranvoteusreax_050625134616



How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"

I don't get what your getting it outside of you not liking the war in Iraq.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement.

Huh?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't get what your getting it outside of you not liking the war in Iraq.

I think it's funny how our guv'ment heads slam the democracy in other systems. As if ours truly gives the same chance to everyone...or that every country should follow the same exact standards as ours.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement.

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

[CraigSca]

It's called politics. What's the confusion here?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Huh?

Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

[sovereignstar]

Good lord. So they beat us in the '98 World Cup and knocked us out of contention. There will be other days.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

Uh...the reason I edited was to fix a tag and add a quote to make my POV better understood. Sorry if you don't like that.

As far as theocracy - didn't they just hold democratic elections? You can have a democratic theocracy, no?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

Aha yes, the ever popular "love it or leave it" line - still without an ounce of understanding of the irony of the arguement.

btw Duckman- quick history lesson; Why is Iran a theocracy today ? Who was the previous government ? Was it a democracy, or was it a dictatorship held up by (amongst others) the CIA ?

The Iranian system is awful, but the presidential elections allowed some of the reformist candidates to run - hell, the current president is a reformist. If you argue that the president holds very limited power, I would agree completelty. However, In this election, if you had done the research, you'd find that Moin ran as the reformist candidate - but didnt make it out of the first ballot. Rafsanjani was the popular Western choice, but got thrashed in the run-off - this may have been ballot fraud, but his biggest supporters appeared to be outside Iran, and it could well have been a case of highlighting the popular Western candidate, as opposed to the popular Iranian one.Amusingly enough, much like the election here, polling badly underestimated the conservatives.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Uh...the reason I edited was to fix a tag and add a quote to make my POV better understood. Sorry if you don't like that.

As far as theocracy - didn't they just hold democratic elections?

It's not a democracy if a body of priest, who were not elected, can override any law that doesn't fit with their ideology. It's really no different than the Soviet elections which had only one candidate on the ballot. It's not really a choice.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by duckman

It's not a democracy if a body of priest, who were not elected, can override any law that doesn't fit with their ideology. It's really no different than the Soviet elections which had only one candidate on the ballot. It's not really a choice.

Can you not have a democratic theocracy?

BTW, they had more than one candidate on the ballot

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

Roffle- if you bother to read, you'd recognize that I don't see Iran as a democracy in the American sense- but America isn't a democracy in the Swiss sense. In fact, I made the point that the president in Iran is a semi-token position, with Khomeni holding the real power. That being said, this was, to the best of our current knowledge, a democratic election, which is why the statement regarding the outcome of the elections is horseshit. There are plently of flaws with the Iranian system, and Iran is not a conventional democracy. The American system, with its disproportionate power to small towns and rural America isn't a pure democracy either - though we both agree its closer to that "ideal" than Iran is. On the other hand, if you'd done your research, you'd know the information regarding Algeria - the classic 90's example.

Now, regarding your little jab - I'm a psuedo-intellectual elitist ? Actually, you're more of an anti-intellectual - anything involving thinking appears to cross thresholds you don't wish to cross. The fact that I know more about a subject than you do makes me psuedo-intellectual ? I think you knowing less makes you an ill-informed idiot, but again, there I go - being an "psuedo-intellectual." "I'm not a racist" - is this the "redneck" bit again ? if you'd done the research there (beyond your sociology teacher - if I recall correctly), I refuted you, and others pointed out that its a term regarding attitude, provincial in nature- but once again, that's "intellectualism", a point you don't wish to cross.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

btw Duckman- quick history lesson; Why is Iran a theocracy today ? Who was the previous government ? Was it a democracy, or was it a dictatorship held up by (amongst others) the CIA ?

So that makes it okay then? Give me a break.

[quote=Crapshoot]I don't agree with the way their past government system was held together by the CIA. That's why we are in this mess with Iran in the first place. However, it shouldn't persuage me from believing that their government is worthless and is not a true democracy.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Iranian system is awful, but the presidential elections allowed some of the reformist candidates to run - hell, the current president is a reformist.

They "allowed" them because they (the priests) knew any law that underminds their control on the Iranian people can be simply extinguished.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

If you argue that the president holds very limited power, I would agree completelty.

They don't have any power. The priest holds "all the cards" and will do anything in their power to keep their boots on the neck of the populace.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

However, In this election, if you had done the research, you'd find that Moin ran as the reformist candidate - but didnt make it out of the first ballot. Rafsanjani was the popular Western choice, but got thrashed in the run-off - this may have been ballot fraud, but his biggest supporters appeared to be outside Iran, and it could well have been a case of highlighting the popular Western candidate, as opposed to the popular Iranian one.Amusingly enough, much like the election here, polling badly underestimated the conservatives.

On the run-off, there is no evidence to suggest ballot fraud at this time and will likely not be found since the Iranian government will allow any kind of auditing. Could it be possible? Sure, but we will never see the evidence to prove otherwise.

I believe that the conservative promised further loosening of certain customs, but I will have to go back and make sure. There is a large number of younger Iranians who are pro-democracy, but have been effectively silenced by the priests. People have been thrown some "crumbs" hoping to keep the pro-democracy movement under wraps.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

I believe that the conservative promised further loosening of certain customs, but I will have to go back and make sure. There is a large number of younger Iranians who are pro-democracy, but have been effectively silenced by the priests. People have been thrown some "crumbs" hoping to keep the pro-democracy movement under wraps.

Yes he did, with regards to internet access and what not. He also promised to give the poor a larger say (a classic politicians' statement) and do better in making sure the social institutions work.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Roffle- if you bother to read, you'd recognize that I don't see Iran as a democracy in the American sense- but America isn't a democracy in the Swiss sense.

Actually, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic. Now, some will give it the term "representative democracy", but it's a rehash of an older government system. Most, if not all, states practice some direct democracy through state questions and such, and some towns practice direct democracy, but those are few and far between.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

There are plently of flaws with the Iranian system, and Iran is not a conventional democracy.

It's not conventional because it's not a democracy.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Now, regarding your little jab - I'm a psuedo-intellectual elitist ? Actually, you're more of an anti-intellectual - anything involving thinking appears to cross thresholds you don't wish to cross. The fact that I know more about a subject than you do makes me psuedo-intellectual ? I think you knowing less makes you an ill-informed idiot, but again, there I go - being an "psuedo-intellectual." "I'm not a racist" - is this the "redneck" bit again ? if you'd done the research there (beyond your sociology teacher - if I recall correctly), I refuted you, and others pointed out that its a term regarding attitude, provincial in nature- but once again, that's "intellectualism", a point you don't wish to cross.

I'm an anti-intellectual? That's funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what the US government system really is.

On the subject of "redneck", I believe that several people backed my definition. You gave some pull-out-your-ass explanation while I used not only my professor, but the wikipedia. Face it, you're a bigot, Mr. Intellect. If someone doesn't share your little obscure view of the world, they are "rednecks". That makes you a idiotic, psuedo-intelligent bigot. Maybe I'll start calling people I don't agree with "towelheads" since it's all about the attitude, right?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Actually, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic. Now, some will give it the term "representative democracy", but it's a rehash of an older government system. Most, if not all, states practice some direct democracy through state questions and such, and some towns practice direct democracy, but those are few and far between.

No shit - yet in convential sense, when the State Department is referring to a Democracy, it is referring to a sytem akin to that of the US. You're attempting to play games with semantics, and poorly so.

It's not conventional because it's not a democracy.


I'm an anti-intellectual? That's funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what the US government system really is.

Funny - see above.

On the subject of "redneck", I believe that several people backed my definition. You gave some pull-out-your-ass explanation while I used not only my professor, but the wikipedia. Face it, you're a bigot, Mr. Intellect. If someone doesn't share your little obscure view of the world, they are "rednecks". That makes you a idiotic, psuedo-intelligent bigot. Maybe I'll start calling people I don't agree with "towelheads" since it's all about the attitude, right?

While your proficiency at using the rolleyes smiley is not in question, the rest of your arguement is. As I fucking explained ad nauseum to you, a redneck describes a socially conservative, provinicial minded, simplistic, nationalistic
hick who isn't the brightest bulb. A redneck is an anti-intellectual - a cross-race disease (Chris Rock actually hits upon this fairly well in "Bigger And Blacker") . Thomas Sowell, amongst others, addresses the ideas of "black rednecks" - discussing the cultural attributes that make one a Redneck, and he addresses the impact of that attitude on Black America. Its a class of people, mr "I looked at wikipedia" - at least learn the difference between surface knowledge and investigating the issue. I will concede that there is some debate as some sociologists (though not Sowell) have attempted to portray the phrase "redneck" as a race based statement - that is hardly a definitive conclusion. "Towelhead", on the other hand, describes nothing about attitude, but refers specifically to Muslims or Sikhs as a group, without any cultural ramifictions. Your hostility towards me because I call your proverbial spade a spade is hilarious - as is your attempt to claim expertise on a subject you know very little about. I'm no sociologist, but then again - neither are you. As for my obscure view of the world- read the Pew surveys on world opinion (The Economist has a nice writeup this week, if you're interested- but again, that's psuedo intellectualism) , given that you're dumb enough to be arguing purely on a "majority basis."

[Dutch]

Here's another article from the AFP parading around on Yahoo! News headlines like actual news and not hard-liberal activism. People do read this and assume because it's on the news, that it's fact.

Witnesses at anti-war tribunal slam US actions in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625...turkeytribunal

ISTANBUL (AFP) - The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an anti-war grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intellectuals and writers, heard witnesses condemn the United States for rights abuses and the worsening plight of Iraqi women.

A former US Air Force pilot called on US troops in Iraq to "resist" the orders of their superior officers in an "illegal war".

"Today Iraq has been turned into a vast prison," lawyer Amal Sawadi told the hearing.

"They come to people's houses in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep, blow in the door. They point their weapons in people's faces ... they search women in front of their families, they smash everything in the house."

She said lawyers had problems getting news of their imprisoned clients and spoke of rapes and humiliations which amounted to the "systematic practice of torture."

The only journalist present in the city of Fallujah when it was attacked in April and November 2004 said the assault on it amounted to "genocide".

Fadhil Al Bedrani, of the Al-Jazeera network, told how a 70-year-old man died for lack of medical supplies and of the stench of rotting bodies "abandoned in the streets and eaten by animals."

The plight of Iraqi women has worsened badly since the occupation, Hana Ibrahim, an Iraqi feminist said.

"From the day the occupation started there have been systematic violations of women's rights. They have been kidnapped, raped and even taken to other countries by criminal networks," she said.

She said 90 percent of women were out of work, women were now "almost non-existent in social life" while "prostitution was developing" and more and more women were reduced to begging.

Former pilot Tim Goodrich said US troops should realize they were taking part in an illegal war and resist.

"There are some people that have, there are pieces of resistance that people don't know about... some soldiers who refuse to go on a mission," he said.

"The military is part of the problem, not of the solution."

"Some people accuse us of being against the troops or antipatriotic but we are the troops. How can I be antipatriotic by asking our soldiers to come back home alive?"

About 200 non-governmental organziations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalisation ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here's another article from the AFP parading around on Yahoo! News headlines like actual news and not hard-liberal activism. People do read this and assume because it's on the news, that it's fact.

Firstly, why did you post that in this thread as opposed to the other one ?

Secondly, The article starts by describing the group who's organizing it, and then goes on to describe what they were talking about. All the "juicy" parts are in quotes, making it clear its the views of the speakers Where is the bias there ? Should they be condemning the group in the news article ?

Fyi, you ought to read what Karl Rove said about the media- they weren't anti-conservative, but rather, anti-power. I'll try and find the link, but I recall thinking that he captured it fairly well.

[duckman]

Crapshoot, why the fuck am I resorting to childish name calling when it doesn't do any good? Probably the obvious "I can't articulate my point of view without resorting to name calling".

Life is too short to be getting into these stupid squabbles, so I'm going to be the "bigger man" and stop this nonsense. I apologize for my comments, and I will lay off with the "bigot" comments because in all honesty I don't know you. You are obviously an intelligent person who does a much better job of explaining your point of view than can I. Who knows? Maybe I need to bury my nose into a book a little more often, so I can have a better understanding of myself and my philosophy.

Anyways, I'm bowing out of this lively discussion that I've been the cause of. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

[sovereignstar]

Diet Mountain Dew is horrible.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Diet Mountain Dew is horrible.

Those are fighting words!!!!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Crapshoot, why the fuck am I resorting to childish name calling when it doesn't do any good? Probably the obvious "I can't articulate my point of view without resorting to name calling".

Life is too short to be getting into these stupid squabbles, so I'm going to be the "bigger man" and stop this nonsense. I apologize for my comments, and I will lay off with the "bigot" comments because in all honesty I don't know you. You are obviously an intelligent person who does a much better job of explaining your point of view than can I. Who knows? Maybe I need to bury my nose into a book a little more often, so I can have a better understanding of myself and my philosophy.

Anyways, I'm bowing out of this lively discussion that I've been the cause of. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

No need- its a forum, and you are as entitled to your views as a I am to mine.
I am particularly aghast at the Iranian election, especially because the current President was a step in the right direction. however, I'm convinced the more the State Department squawks, the more it helps the hardliners - who can then go to Khomeni and cite the "increased American threat" to further their oppression- much like its generally understood that another attack here or increased hostility to the US convinces more people here to lean to the right.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Firstly, why did you post that in this thread as opposed to the other one ?

Secondly, The article starts by describing the group who's organizing it, and then goes on to describe what they were talking about. All the "juicy" parts are in quotes, making it clear its the views of the speakers Where is the bias there ? Should they be condemning the group in the news article ?

Fyi, you ought to read what Karl Rove said about the media- they weren't anti-conservative, but rather, anti-power. I'll try and find the link, but I recall thinking that he captured it fairly well.

The other one is about respected AP writers gone wrong. This is about goofy AFP stories that Yahoo! News loves to put on their web-site. It just fits better here.

[ISiddiqui]

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Oh, and as bad as the Iranian government is, it is far better than the previous one. Theocracy, yes, but there is a lot of democratic institutions, which would not be there in autocratic states (no dictator wants to legitimize dissent to their rule). Definetly not as bad as a dictatorship.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by duckman

Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

But the US is also not a democracy. It's a federal republic, right?

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch approved, centrist AFP article:

ISTANBUL (AFP) - The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an anti-war grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intellectuals and people who hate freedom, heard witnesses condemn the United States for some tiny infractions that were nothing worse than fraternity pranks.

A supposed former US Air Force pilot, who may very well be an Al Queda double agent, called on US troops in Iraq to "resist" the orders of their superior officers in an "illegal war".

"Today Iraq has been turned into a vast prison," lawyer and known sodomizer Amal Sawadi told the hearing.

"They come to people's houses in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep, blow in the door. They point their weapons in people's faces ... they search women in front of their families, they smash everything in the house."

Amal did not produce anything written directly by George W. Bush [pause for genuflect] that says that the United States does anything like that, so, obviously, the accusation is made up.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

That's exactly why nobody in the middle east takes our rhetoric seriously. People in Saudi Arabia and Jordan wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they had the freedome to have even a semi-sham of an election like Iran just had. It makes you think that the American people are the REAL audience for this stuff, drumming up support for another intervention.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

But the US is also not a democracy. It's a federal republic, right?

Correct. Some people call it a "representative democracy", but that's just another name for a republic.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Oh, and as bad as the Iranian government is, it is far better than the previous one. Theocracy, yes, but there is a lot of democratic institutions, which would not be there in autocratic states (no dictator wants to legitimize dissent to their rule). Definetly not as bad as a dictatorship.

The US has their sights on Iran because of their potential of making a nuclear weapon which could destabilize the region even further than it is now.

I have to disagree with you about it not being as bad as a dictatorship. It more resembles to me communist Russia and China where a small group of people make the final decision. Basically, the Iranian clerics can abolish any law that will undermind their powers. Because of that, the people are not as free as they are led to believe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It makes you think that the American people are the REAL audience for this stuff, drumming up support for another intervention.

Please let me be the first to say "Well, duh."

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

And

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Please let me be the first to say "Well, duh."

See Jon, this is one thing I like about you, facist that you are...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

See Jon, this is one thing I like about you, facist that you are...

Being honest makes it a lot easier to keep your story straight

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Quite.

Arguably Iran's elections are more free than Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's. Maybe we should invade them?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

Of course, it's realpolitick badly misapplied. Bismarck would have a fit if he saw what the U.S. was doing in the middle east (and not just because he was German).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by duckman

The US has their sights on Iran because of their potential of making a nuclear weapon which could destabilize the region even further than it is now.

I have to disagree with you about it not being as bad as a dictatorship. It more resembles to me communist Russia and China where a small group of people make the final decision. Basically, the Iranian clerics can abolish any law that will undermind their powers. Because of that, the people are not as free as they are led to believe.

Actually I think a nuke would stablize the region further. As we have seen countries with nukes are unwilling to fight against each other (and we know Isreal has them), because of the obvious consequences. Iranian clerics may speak in terms of revolution, but they realize what reality is.

As for the Iranian government. Yes, the clerics can override any law (veto it, if you want), but there are a lot of laws passed by Parliament that the clerics wouldn't even realize (like social programs to help the poor and thus forth). One problem with a dictatorship is that the head of the country doesn't really have a clue what the ordinary people are asking for. The Parliament gives them a voice, at least, even if the clerics are ultimate authority.

[Dutch]

Nukes in Iran would make the region safer? I'm not so sure. The guy in charge may have been an active terrorists in the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1980.

The only way we resolved that crisis was giving Iran $8 Billion in frozen assets (circa 1980 mind you) and immunity to lawsuits from the hostages.

These people were way out there to begin.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

These people were way out there to begin.

I don't think they're more way out there than the rulers of Pakistan.

[Airhog]

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

Why do you hate our freedum?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

Sounds like he makes things happen!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

[Crapshoot]

Firstly Dutch- your average American (and tell if I'm wrong on this) couldn't tell 10 Arabs apart. Secondly - I'd like to see some evidence, not random allegations out of nowhere. Thirdly, I believe flere's picture is the definition of p\/\nage - or does the hypocrisy only apply from one side ?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

They are terrorists now? What did they bomb?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Firstly Dutch- your average American (and tell if I'm wrong on this) couldn't tell 10 Arabs apart. Secondly - I'd like to see some evidence, not random allegations out of nowhere. Thirdly, I believe flere's picture is the definition of p\/\nage - or does the hypocrisy only apply from one side ?

First - I could not tell anybody from anybody else, unless I spent time with them for a long time. I suspect I'll be able to recognize a good deal of my friends I met in Turkey, California, Louisiana and Japan 25 years from now. Will you?

Second - I do agree with proof or evidence. Sorry if "accused" wasn't good enough for ya.

Third - Times change. We were in fact Neutral with that man at that time vs with the Iranians. It's common practice for foreign dignataries to shake hands and smile to one another in public, even when they are Neutral towards one another. Sometimes even when they are enemies.

Stick with me, and I'll keep you boys learned.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are terrorists now? What did they bomb?

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.

Really? That is the standard for a terrorist? So...does that mean that you think that our soldiers are terrorists for doing what they do at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc, which is worse than anything the Iranians did to the hostages?

Originally Posted by BBC interview with a hostage

How were you treated?

Well, the treatment of me in the foreign ministry was better than the treatment of those held in the foreign embassy across the other side of town.

I was held in a room with two of my colleagues, restricted to that space.

I was never physically abused, just denied the fundamental right of freedom.

Eventually I was taken to a prison and spent the last three weeks in solitary confinement, so I got to know what my colleagues had suffered virtually all of the time.

Many of them were held in solitary confinement for long periods of time.

Why don't you support the troops, Dutch? Why do you think they are terrorists?