View Story | 408 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
brown and Muslim or white and Christian, I hate theocrats. Even more than I hate Bush and the Republicans.
No more Republican rule.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:22:07 PM PDT
They are an Islamic Republic. The taliban were theocrats, the Saudis are arguably theocrats, the Vatican is a theocracy. Iran is not a theocracy.
Theocrcies do not have parliaments, newspapers and elections and their leaders are not succeptable to public pressure. Theocracies behead those of other religions whom they consider heretics. Theocracies do not allow women in non-traditional jobs. Theocracies do not have non-religious education for men, and very little education whatsoever for women.
(-9.13, -8.10)
by Florida Democrat on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:45:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
A vestiture of women's rights? Really? Are you sure you want to say that?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:50:32 PM PDT
If you want to go to war based on human rights, then by your logic we should attack Sudan, China, and other such places while you're at it. Which means that your advocacy for continuing the Bush plan of perpetual warfare is reduced to an absurdity.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:51:57 PM PDT
Just the countries that advocate terror and fund it worldwide.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:53:05 PM PDT
So, as far as I'm concerned, he is lying about Iran as well. You've been had.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:55:29 PM PDT
Bush lied on Iraq. But Iran is a different story altogether.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:57:33 PM PDT
Why do you still trust him? Really, WHY?
John McCain on SCHIP
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:58:07 PM PDT
And I trust the theocrats in Iran even less.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:00:34 PM PDT
Then why do you believe him when he says Iran is sponsoring terror worldwide? All we have is his word.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:03:19 PM PDT
a liar?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:17:18 PM PDT
by world wide? All I see is support for Hezbollah and Hamas.... regional organizations. Also there was that one bombing in Argentina. But do you have any proff that they'd strike the US?
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:19:21 PM PDT
It was regional, except for the international attacks?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:21:00 PM PDT
against a jewish compound does not a threat to the US make.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:23:06 PM PDT
You contested "international." Iran does support international terrorism. That is a fact.
As far as a what a threat to the U.S. does make, who the fuck do you suppose blew up our Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1982?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:29:47 PM PDT
And then Reagan 'cut and run' from Lebanon.
And by the way, that was Hezbollah who did it. Just because Iran gives them money doesn't mean they take orders from Tehran.
Do you have any evidence that they (or Hezbollah) have done anything to us recently?
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:32:01 PM PDT
What have you bombed for me lately?
LOL!
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:36:52 PM PDT
I'm asking for proof Iran has directly (or, indirectly through Hezbollah) hurt us in the recent past.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:40:03 PM PDT
you're just anti-clue.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:26 PM PDT
I'm the one asking you to justify your claim that Iran is such a great threat we ought to invade. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. They have not committed terrorist acts on US soil.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:03 PM PDT
Iran should be given the benefit of the doubt? Are you placing your faith in Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs?
Good luck with that.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:47:43 PM PDT
Instead of being paranoid and assuming things where I have no proof.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:49:31 PM PDT
it doesn't mean they're not after you. They've sworn it, since their theocracy's founding.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:51:21 PM PDT
never mind that they have nothing to gain by destabilizing Iraq, because Maliki is a friend of Iran. They actually discussed a mutual defense pact before the US shot it down.
never mind that they've never actually carried out an attack on US forces in recent years.
never mind that the reason they don't like us is precisely because we keep interfering with them.
When did they 'swear' to destroy America? I'd like to see a link please.
Face it, they have nothing to gain. There is no realistic way for them to harm the US without inviting destruction on themselves, even if they dedicated every waking moment to attacking us.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:18 PM PDT
U.S. since their regime took power several decades ago?
How many times has Iran attacked the U.S. homeland since they took power?
How many times has Iran invaded Israel and wiped it off the map since they took power several decades ago?
Yeah, we'd better bomb them now, before its too late?!?!?
"From war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption follows, until all wealth is aggregated, and the Republic is destroyed." Lincoln
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:28:30 AM PDT
Iran has not launched an aggressive war against a neighbor since 1785 and does not have a history of military expansionism.
per Juan Cole...
Too bad America doesn't have this sort of history. Makes me wonder a bit about who might be the real aggressor.
by Jagger on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:33:11 PM PDT
terrorism on a far broader scale for decades. Get this into your head:
War is Terrorism
Maybe you didnt get that, I'll try again:
War is terrorism
A war against Iran will be a terrorist act against every Iranian citizen who also thinks their own government is bullshit. Does that make sense to you?
"Cynicism is a sorry wisdom." - Barack Obama
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:26:18 PM PDT
Argentine right wing may have been responsible. It's a well known controversy in South America, and of course, no one knows about it here.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:05:52 AM PDT
We are discussing your shilling for George Bush. As far as I'm aware, Carter does not advocate an attack on Iran.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:12 PM PDT
I hate George Bush. But I can hate the theocracy in Iran at the same time.
And President Carter did authorize and pursue an incursion (albeit failed) into the Iranian theocracy. That is a fact.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:22:07 PM PDT
Does Carter support an attack on Iran in 2007?
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:25:48 PM PDT
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:32:34 PM PDT
So, you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:44:03 PM PDT
since I cannot give you the full mind of President Carter, he didn't order military hardware into the Iranian theocracy?
WTF?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:45:32 PM PDT
Just because he ordered the attempt to rescue the hostages 30 years ago does not mean that he therefore supports your new friend George Bush's plans to attack Iran with an army that does not exist. Like I say, I asked a simple question, and you don't know the answer.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:47:32 PM PDT
It was a military operation inside the borders of a soverign nation.
It wasn't rolling an ambulance for a traffic accident, exactly.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:49:02 PM PDT
You can play the semantics game all you want. But you can't provide a simple answer over whether Carter supports Bush on Iran in 2007.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:50:42 PM PDT
whether he supports an invasion today. All I know is that when he was President, he did commit U.S. troops to an operation inside the borders of Iran.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:52:19 PM PDT
Given that it was 30 years ago.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:53:38 PM PDT
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM PDT
And President Carter did authorize and pursue an incursion (albeit failed) into the Iranian theocracy.
Carter authorized a mission, the goal of which was to free our hostages from captivity. It wasn't "an incursion into the Iranian theocracy" it was a rescue mission. Leaving that part out is kinda Republican of you. Just sayin'.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:30:27 PM PDT
Did President Carter drive a Country Squire Station Wagon over the fucking border, or order in military hardware?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:33:42 PM PDT
You are using Carter's decision to try rescuing the hostages as some sort of justification or moral equivalent for an invasion today. It doesn't work and you shouldn't be trying it. What happened tonight, this is some seriously strange shit coming from you?
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:38:56 PM PDT
Jesus.
Ordering our military to cross into a foreign, soverign country is not simply a "rescue." It wasn't a traffic accident.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:41:37 PM PDT
preemptive strike and a mission to rescue hostages this really doesn't serve any purpose. Your comment is reactive without being in any way responsive. I gives up.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:51 PM PDT
Gotta do what I gotta do.
This guy's arguing bullshit just to argue bullshit.
I haven't checked his history, but I HAVE to assume troll. Otherwise, he's just drunk, pissy, and wasting everyone's time. His arguments are meant for nothing more than arguing. This isn't an intelligent discussion or even close to it. Carter trying a rescue operation is now Carter attacking Iran? Whatever.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:31:40 AM PDT
a desperate act brought about as a direct result of 30 years of US support for a corrupt dictatorship. Did that ever enter your calculus?
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:08:34 AM PDT
with you on this subject.
You have heard of his opinions stated in his book, The Blood of Abraham?
Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake
by slatsg on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:36:06 PM PDT
Claiming FDR as an advocate for pre-emptive war is ridiculous, and the rest of this mess likewise.
Kill me before I have to think again!
by Jacob Freeze on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:01:25 PM PDT
I think I smell elephant.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:58 PM PDT
Harvey Milk is absolutely a net positive contributor to dKos. So he's wrong here, whoop-dee-do.
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:37:53 PM PDT
His crap is no different than the White House press handouts that the press laps up. I know that might be hard for some to deal with, but some people, for whatever reason, go over to the dark side and drink the kool-aid. Right now, he is a liability.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:45 PM PDT
Many, many Democrats agree with what he says in this diary. I think it's a useful exercise to figure out the best ways to knock this argument down.
Another way of looking at it is that some of our Dems in Congress might be considered trolls around these parts too.
by Simplify on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:48:36 PM PDT
Maybe some of the cowards in Congress, but not rank and file Democrats. Do you have polling data that shows otherwise?
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:30:21 PM PDT
You're surprised that there are Democrats who don't support George W. Bush, don't want to go to war with Iran, but think Iran is pursuing a nuclear program and that this is a bad thing?
Remember, Edwards commands a majority of support on Daily Kos, but in the low teens in polls of all Americans. You may not have your finger on the pulse of the nation or even the party, no matter how certain you are in the rightness of your cause.
Like HarveyMilk, I hate George W. Bush and don't trust him. Unlike you, I can figure out what's going on in Iran and don't like it either. I have no neo-con illusions that war or bombing is a solution, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut or lie about what a wonderful, enlightened regime Iran is for my gay brothers and sisters just because saying otherwise could overlap with what Bush might say.
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:04:27 AM PDT
But what about rank and file Democrats? And he was doing more than just standing up for gay people in Iran -- he was advocating attacking Iran. We've already been there once with attacking a country that was not a threat to us militarily. Why do we want to go there again?
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:56:35 AM PDT
exactly are you using for proof that they do that? Bush's words? Maybe our intelligence That has worked so well in the past.
I like you and all HM, but I think you may have lost it my freind.
Edwards Democrats ActBlue
by LaEscapee on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:55:44 PM PDT
The hijackers? Khomenei's words? Iran's funding and support worldwide of anti-American, Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist?
Was Carter a symp of the right-wing when he sent helicopters into Iran in 1979?
What the hell is wrong with you people? No one hates George W. Bush more than I do. And, yes, he screwed the fuckin' pooch with respect to Iraq. But that does not mean that we face no threats in the world.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:00:03 PM PDT
We would face a lot fewer threats if we did not pander to the military industrial complex year in and year out and build military bases where we are not welcome. If we actually engaged in a peaceful strategy, we would be a lot less likely to be attacked.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:02:28 PM PDT
But it doesn't change the fact that Iran sponsors international terrorism and is a threat to our national security.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:18:34 PM PDT
All we have is your word for it, and the word of your new Republican friends.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:21:44 PM PDT
Iran . . . is a threat to our national security.
I'm still waiting for you to make the case that Iran is a threat to our security. So far I see a lotta words but they signify nothing. Try harder.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:08 PM PDT
Iran sponsors international terrorism (which, in some places, they do) and is a threat to our national security (which they are), this does not mean that Bush is right in how to deal with them or that war is the best way to deal with them.
(In fact, it is off the charts in being irrational and idiotic.)
The Soviets were a far greater threat to our security and we didn't fight a war with them. And we won.
by Justanothernyer on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:15 PM PDT
I can't rec this comment highly enough.
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:05:16 AM PDT
be a bigger threat to our security?
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:29:29 PM PDT
The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.
by Spoc42 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:59:55 AM PDT
I guess we start with an attack on the United Staes of America, which in the last ten years has killed more innocent civilians with weapons of war and terror than all other countries and non-state terrorist organizations combined.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow
by ActivistGuy on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:29:04 AM PDT
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:58:38 PM PDT
The only definition of "vestiture" I can find is "an archaic term for clothing."
http://dictionary.reference.com/...
As far as women's rights, Iran is well behind the West, but it's way ahead of some countries that we consider allies, such as Saudi Arabia. There are women members of the Iranian parliament, women members of the judiciary, and women in important leadership positions in education and health care. If I remember correctly, women actually comprise a majority of the students at Iranian colleges and universities.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin
by leevank on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:11:20 PM PDT
But you won't hear that on American media. We set Iraqi society back several decades because we invaded them. If we invade Iran we'll do the same thing. They may fall short of what we'd like in terms of human rights, but you can't spread those values at the point of a gun.
Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!
by Asak on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:11:33 AM PDT
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:04:10 AM PDT
Theocracies certainly can have parliaments and newspapers. Any authoritarian gov't can -- and htey usually avail themselves of these institutions to manipulate public opinion. Of what significance is a Parliament, when the religious leaders decide which parties may field candidates, and which candidates are suitable?
As for the role of women in Iran -- the country is a little more enlightened than the countries in the Arab world. The oppression of women is a cultural thing that has little root in Islam.
And as to the question of other religions -- ask the members of the Ba'hai faith how comfortable they feel in the homeland of their religion -- ask how free they are to practice their faith, and ask how safe they feel?
Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:52:34 PM PDT
How they feel in Saudi Arabia.
At least in Iran Christians and Jews (Yes, Jews. They have a Jewish member of Parliament) can practice freely.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:55:00 PM PDT
"practice freely." they happen to not be actively killed like the bahai are.
but they can't pray where they want, they can't build places of worship where they want, they can't preach to whom they want, they can't say what they want.
if thats freedom then stalin was an awesome dude.
by bobisbob on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:59:45 PM PDT
They're doing better than some countries.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:01:37 PM PDT
but yes, I don't happen to think they are dead last out of all countires on the planet.
by bobisbob on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:04:10 PM PDT
Jewish schoolkids are compelled to join in the daily "Death to Israel! Death to the Zionists!" chants at school. Sound like freedom of religion?
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:26:05 PM PDT
We're discussing Iran. If you're point is that Saudi is a theocracy, I would agree. Next non-sequitur, please....
Is there a point there? I don't think anyone suggested that we attack Iran because they have a religious government. So, if you're trying to make some analogy here, it's a completely pointless one.
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:00 PM PDT
sorry if you don't. This thread is getting kind of confusing.
But anyway, Saudi Arabia is our 'ally' but is far more of a threat to us than Iran.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:26:34 PM PDT
I suppose if the Saudi leadership were overthrown, then the chickens they've laid will come home to roost -- Saudi schools are certainly doing the devil's work. But, the leadership isn't threatening anyone outside of the country, except for the concerns they express about Iran. Unlike Iran, they are trying to make peace with Israel. And, they are allied with us militarily.
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:37:04 PM PDT
wahhabiist schools across the arab world, spreading their ideology and encouraging future AQ members.
Meanwhile, Iran has yet to actually bomb us.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:38:33 PM PDT
"Saudi schools are certainly doing the devil's work."
You keep telling me things I already know.
Iran has yet to bomb us? The IRG is suspected of complicity in a number of incidents against Americans in Lebanon, including the Marine barracks bombing.
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:13 PM PDT
IRG is suspected of complicity in . . . the Marine barracks bombing.
That was in 1983, right? Don't you think the 24 year wait for revenge kinda undermines whatever point we may have had. Oh, and no need for facts, the suspicion is enough to go to war on?
by MajorFlaw on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:13:53 AM PDT
and installed the Shah. I wonder why they wouldnt want us in their country.
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:32:28 PM PDT
You don't think Iran has been involved at all in the mess in Iraq?
I don't think it's a casus belli for us, because we created the mess and they've just jumped in to influence the course of their neighbor, but... Iran is certainly not ignoring opportunities to shape events in Iraq. No country would. And in this case, it means they're adding to the violence that targets Americans. (Which, I repeat, we set ourselves up for through Bush's lousy planning.)
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:07:33 AM PDT
That you think we'd be shocked to learn there are Jews in Iran. I know a number of Iranian Jews -- well, they used to be Iranian. There is some fraction of the community left there -- about one-quarter of its former size. And, I believe there is more than one Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. Whoop-de-doo!
Iran's gov't PR is never slow to remind foreign press of that. I wonder why that is? Of course, the elections are rigged, so I guess we should be pleased the leaders approve of having Jews in their parliament.
It's only coincidence that it makes it almost plausible for them to claim their pathological hatred of Israel isn't anti-Semitism. It's merely anti-Zionism, right?
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:33:09 PM PDT
They aren't rigged. And yes - while anti-semitism is there, their opposition to Israel has more to do with the government of Israel and its actions than the Jews themselves.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:35:15 PM PDT
http://www.nytimes.com/...
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:36:21 PM PDT
I read the article when it first ran. Heard the subsequent piece on NPR, I think one of the networks did a story, too. Really interesting -- they invent a history of some Iranian diplomat saving lots of Jews for public consumption. This is supposed to say what to me?
And the elections are incredibly rigged. Most of the opposition parties weren't even allowed to compete in the last election. There was no serious opposition to Ahmadinejad -- at least none from the moderate elements or the secular left. Even with that, the opposition believes the vote count was falsified -- and with good reason.
Why in God's name would you say that the elections aren't rigged?
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:27 PM PDT
The ayatollah picks which candidates are allowed to run... but then the people elect whichever they want. There were six candidates in the last election. That is certainly not a free democracy, but neither is it really rigged.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:50:43 PM PDT
And you might also click this link:
Wiki on the Iranian election
You make these strong, sweeping claims -- do you have any hasis for them, or do you just feel like they're true?
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:00:34 PM PDT
college class on the Middle East. And my teacher didn't say the elections were rigged.
I guess my Rice University dollars are wasted, huh?
Well, Khamenei denied it, though that doesn't prove much, but looking at that it does look like the Guardian Council stacked the deck for him. Too bad he turned out to be a loose cannon, then.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:05:39 PM PDT
yes obviously because you paid for school and your teacher had an opinion it is of course the correct opinion.
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:24:55 AM PDT
I'm just going on what I know, okay? I admitted that they might have been rigged.
by Hobelhouse on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:26:53 AM PDT
=D
iran is not a friendly place.
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:38:40 AM PDT
you won't be laughing when your kids are sent to fight there.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:20:33 AM PDT
Recognizing that the leadership in Iran is a bunch of ruthless, bad guys is NOT the same thing as saying we must go to war with them. Conversely, just because you thinks war would be a bad thing, it doesn't mean you have to defend the indefensible.
by FischFry on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:48:32 AM PDT
We live in a country where 70% of people thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Some 30% STILL think this. Propaganda is an integral part of the war. What you call "defending" is in fact a term used by BushCo to stifle debate.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:39:22 AM PDT
What I called "defending" was your b.s. defense of Iranian gov't., claiming their elections are open and honest. That's not using it to stifle debate -- and I'm not sure how your linguistic legerdemain is supposed to get us the notion that what I call "defending" is a term used by Bushco to stifle debate.
If by "propaganda," you mean bullshit, you are one mean practitioner of the art.
by FischFry on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:01:29 PM PDT
I said their elections "are open and honest"
and after you fail, can you kindly apologize for YOUR BS?
OK, I get your game. Spew insults so you don't have to answer the questions or communicate any substance. I gave you an example of what demonization can do (Iraq, Bombing, War 2003, any of this familiar to you?) Anyone who tried to dispute the reality on Iraq was labeled "defender" of Saddam. This is how debate was stifled. Do you understand?
Whatever... you are hell bent on being Cheney's foot soldier on this one. Fine, have a nice day.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 05:19:24 PM PDT
If you want to argue that there is no justification for a war with Iran, or argue it's unwise, go ahead and do so. If you argue it on those terms, rather than try to defend the indefensible Iranian regime, with complete b.s. -- then, I'll stand with you. Just don't expect me to stand with you, when you offer the b.s. instead.
by FischFry on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:04:46 PM PDT
having a guardian council to vet candidates is hardly "rigging," that's how it works according to their constitution.
The point is the people REJECTED the establishment candidate and even the candidates favored by the Supreme leader.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:18:54 AM PDT
this so depressingly illiberal. where are we if we have to go around defending iran's "democracy."
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:37:38 AM PDT
it comes in shades. Iran is more democratic than, say, North Korea, but far less democratic than the US. Some progress is still better than none at all.
by Hobelhouse on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:30:07 PM PDT
before I'm willing to give it what I consider to be a term of value(democracy). otherwise I"d walk around calling mugabe in zimbabwe a democracy, which I don't.
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:53:43 PM PDT
That the Guardian Council was announcing partial results of the election (the first one, not the run-off) with Ahmadinejad finishing much better than he was in the even more-partial official tallies that the Inerior Ministry had. It seemed that they knew something about the way the vote was going to go, even before the votes were counted.
And the reformist candidate that many thought would win, or at least make the run-off, finished third (notwithstanding that he early returns had him in first).
I really don't understand why you wrote the Iranian elections aren't rigged. Were you writing out of complete ignorance, or do you have some reason for discounting these curious events?
by FischFry on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:04 PM PDT
Well, Khamenei denied it, though that doesn't prove much, but looking at that it does look like the Guardian Council stacked the deck for him. Then again, it could just be the other candidates being sore losers.
The thing is though that the 'Axis of Evil' speech did do a lot to push Iranian support to anti-American candidates like Ahmedinejad.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:09:45 PM PDT
...the Supreme Religious Council of Iran disallows many candidates from appearing on the ballot, regardless of popular support. So, while the elections may not be rigged per se, they are hardly open or honest.
That's hardly a reason to invade or attack Iran, of course.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken
by Jay Elias on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:19:24 PM PDT
but I thought the people are still allowed to choose from the 'safe' candidates. I mean, I don't think it's completely rigged. Look at the results - Ahmedinejad came in second in the first round. Things change when you do a partial count - just look at Florida in 2000. The two reformist candidates (Moenn and Karroubi) canceled each other out, and then Ahmedinejad picked up their votes to win the presidency (he ran as a populist). Rafsanjani picked up the conservative vote from Ghalibaf.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:27:39 PM PDT
...that would be my assessment as well. That being said, the line between limiting the candidates to the "safe" ones and outright rigging is pretty thin. Ask Gary Kasparov about it. And of course, Ahmedinejad isn't the real executive of Iran anyway.
Of course, none of this is relevant. Not one bit. Even if, as HarveyMilk claims, Bush was right about Iran, that doesn't mean that we could win an armed conflict against them. Sun-Tzu said over two thousand years ago that wars are won and lost before a single battle is fought. Can anyone make a valid case that the US would be certain to win such a war?
If not, then what the hell are we even talking about this for?
by Jay Elias on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:35:38 PM PDT
And I think the fears about Iran are pretty overblown, considering the situation.
A war with Iran would be an unmitigated disaster.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:41:42 PM PDT
but I thought the people are still allowed to choose from the 'safe' candidates.
That was the situation in East Germany, too.
If you're a college student, that's probably pre-history for you, but dictatorships often maintain a facade of democracy to make it look like there's a real choice.
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:10:59 AM PDT
it'd be like voting between bush and cheney every election cycle.
or are we operating on some new definition of rigged that excludes all pre-vote, how shall i say....rigging?
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:26:03 AM PDT
There was Rafsanjani (the conservative), Ahmedinejad (the populist), and Moenn and Karoubbi (both reformers). It's certainly not a free system, but it's not rigged (as in, one candidate is basically selected beforehand.)
In other words, it's semi-rigged, but the people still have some choice.
by Hobelhouse on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:42:31 AM PDT
its all different shades of deep ass black.
thats like saying bush is the moderate version of cheney. better vote for bush, because he believes in liberalism!*
*compared to cheney.
but yes the ppl have a choice.
by bobisbob on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:45:39 AM PDT
Can you name one candidate with even 1% support who was rejected? No you can't because anyone who showed even that little was actually accepted.
The council tried to disqualify 2 reformists but it was forced to reinstate them due to public outcry.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:23:18 AM PDT
...how about Ali Farabakhsh? Oh no, he wasn't rejected - they simply dumped him in prison and have kept him there for over three years without charging him. Ahmad Batebi, one of the main leaders of the 1999 student protests, has been in prison for eight years. Meanwhile, they dealt with Dariush Forouhar, the founder of the Mellat Iran party, more directly - he and his wife were assassinated in 1998 and Mellat Iran is still banned.
Nice try though.
by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:46:04 AM PDT
Not that these cases weren't tragic, but please, try to stay on topic.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:31:33 AM PDT
...any candidate from a political party that isn't banned by the government? Of course, considering they have the leaders of the transit union in prison, we can all gather fairly easily what kind of standard that is.
I'm all for normalizing relations with Iran. But this kind of bullshit is so pernicious. I almost feel badly having to call you on it.
by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:50:43 AM PDT
who WANTED to run but was not allowed to. There was a long period BEFORE the rejections where candidates announced. It was quite a diverse group actually. But the top eight who were chosen also just happened to be the ones polling highest.
There were a total of almost 1000 people who were rejected. I simply challenged you to find one of them who had significant support. But you have failed so far.
I couldn't agree more, I'm against bullshit. So put up your proof.
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:35:10 AM PDT
...was that many members of Mellat Iran and so on would like to have run, and Mellat Iran does have significant support. But as the party is illegal, no one can poll Iranians on their preference for a candidate for that party.
You cannot possibly be this obtuse.
by Jay Elias on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:06:42 PM PDT
the Supreme Religious Council of Iran disallows many candidates from appearing on the ballot, regardless of popular support.
This was your original point. And you are wrong about it.
Sure, many people would love to have run, and many did register. I sincerely doubt that a group called "Mellat Iran" had significant support in the 05 elections. Show me some evidence, and we'll talk.
There is no requirement to register to be a candidate. All candidates are essentially independent, there is not western-style "parties." So Mellat could've supported
