Iranian leader denies Holocaust

[Judge Hades]

The Un has jack for powre. If the US and GB was against it, Israel would never form.

[Gfted1]

Every member nation is afforded a vote on whatever the subject is. Majority rules.

[Gabrielle]

So was George W. Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We the People have the power to remove his sorry ass. Germany had no such power.

[Meshugger]

Just make sure he doesn't get any hand any WMD or economic priviliges, and let him be an **** as much as he want.

 

The rest of the world community should say to him:

 

 

"Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?"

[zer"0"]

AFAIK, there have been Jews living in that part of the world for centuries.

 

 

This iranian fundamentalist is just trying to cause sensation. It probably boosts his ego having the world-news media report on his rants.

 

Most indications point towards him not being overly bright.

E.g. Talking hate propaganda while your country is bargaining nuclear deals.

 

Maybe he has another agenda ... Like focusing Iranians' attention away from problems at home, towards Israel.

 

I see it bolstering the West's view of Iran as a radical fundamentalist state

better suited to the dark ages.

 

WTF is it with some of these middle-eastern countries?

 

Are they so hell-bent on destruction, that they are blind to the fact that a ****ed-up, unstable M.E-region hurts them most of all...

Edited December 15, 2005 by zer"0"

[Judge Hades]

So was George W. Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We the People have the power to remove his sorry ass. Germany had no such power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Such naivity. Do you really that can happen?

[Gabrielle]

They can be removed from power one way or another.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Gabrielle

[Judge Hades]

So was Hitler.

[Gabrielle]

The problem with public figures, they make for easy targets.

[Judge Hades]

True enough though in recent years these pesky leaders are srviving more and more often.

[the dude]

They can be removed from power one way or another. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this an implication of violence...? for shame...

 

Anyway, when I read what Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said, I wasn't at all suprised. Especially coming from the man who quoted ""the occupying regime of Al-Quds" a "disgraceful blot" that ought to be "wiped off the map." (Israel is often referred to by Iranian leaders as "the occupying regime of Al-Quds" to bring focus to their contention that Israel is not a legitimate state.)

Spite, resent, and lust for power rule the world...but its always been this way. Unfortunately, and apparently, no one likes to learn about history.

Edited December 15, 2005 by the dude

[Delta Truth]

Its simple the more Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns up the rhetoric the more it strengthens his and the conservative fundamentalist position in the country. Any reforms that were done in the past governments will be undone because people tend be patriotic - He is no different then the leader of Zimbabwe- Eventually things will turn around one way or another, but it is only gonna get worse before it gets better

[Commissar]

So was George W. Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We the People have the power to remove his sorry ass. Germany had no such power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Such naivity. Do you really that can happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's going to happen in three years. Of course it can happen. What the hell are you smoking?

[Azarkon]

George W. Bush never had as much support in the US as Hitler did in Germany. It would be impossible for him to impose a law granting him additional terms, especially consideing how crappy his public approval rating has dropped to as of late.

 

But GWB isn't the problem. He certainly isn't a Hitler. Hitler was an oratory genius whose political skills made him indispensable to the Nazis, whereas GWB is the pawn of an ascendant Republican party that can just as soon choose another candidate. The party, in this case, is the one you can't get rid of, not the President.

[Raphael]

George W. Bush never had as much support in the US as Hitler did in Germany.  It would be impossible for him to impose a law granting him additional terms, especially consideing how crappy his public approval rating has dropped to as of late.

 

But GWB isn't the problem.  He certainly isn't a Hitler.  Hitler was an oratory genius whose political skills made him indispensable to the Nazis, whereas GWB is the pawn of an ascendant Republican party that can just as soon choose another candidate.  The party, in this case, is the one you can't get rid of, not the President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You wouldn't say....

[Commissar]

The party, in this case, is the one you can't get rid of, not the President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And why can't you get rid of the Republican party?

[Azarkon]

And why can't you get rid of the Republican party?

 

Because it's never been done (nevermind the fact that this particular party hasn't always been called Republican)? Theoretically, they can be removed, but theory has never been a good justification for what can or cannot be done in the real world.

 

Getting rid of Bush is easy: just wait three more years. Getting rid of the political elite who propelled Bush to power? Nigh impossible.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Azarkon

[Reveilled]

And why can't you get rid of the Republican party?

 

Because it's never been done (nevermind the fact that this particular party hasn't always been called Republican)? Theoretically, they can be removed, but theory has never been a good justification for what can or cannot be done in the real world.

 

Getting rid of Bush is easy: just wait three more years. Getting rid of the political elite who propelled Bush to power? Nigh impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh? From what I always understood of US Politics, the Democrats (formerly the Democratic-Republicans) have been around since forever, and their opposition has changed as the base ideology of the opposition has died out. The Federalists gave way to the Whigs, who gave way to the Republicans.

 

And at least according to Wikipedia, the republican party was founded in 1854, and "is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay".

 

 

Getting rid of the Republican party might be impossible (at present), but if Bush continues to manage the country and his popularity as he has done already, the Republican party might be able to force its neoconservative and anti-secularist members back on to the fringes of their party. That might be possible.

 

Besides, getting rid of the Republican party itself wouldn't change anything. After all, as little as 50 years ago the deep south used to give stalinesque returns of >90% of the vote to the democratic candidates, but today the republicans are in charge there, and unless the deep south was a hotbed of free love and bleeding-heart liberalism in the 1950s, I'm betting that if the Republican party just disappeared one day, either a third party would step into the breach as the new second party, or the Democrats would become more socially conservative again to take over the south once more.

[Azarkon]

The problem with the current Republican party is that the Democrats have no real popular platform to stand on. Liberal progressivism has more or less fizzled out for the American public, so the Democrats are left with the choice of either becoming like the Republicans or playing mouthpiece to the anti-Bush brigade. They've done both as of late, and as such I'm not even sure that the Democrats coming to power would change anything with respect to the political climate of the US.

 

Hence, either way, the Republican party and its platform will dominate politics for the forseeable future. But really it's not even the party that's the problem, it's the voters. Not that John Kerry would've done much better (and that *is* a problem with the bipartisan system - the lack of really good leaders to vote for), but the way all democracies fail is through the blessing of the people.

 

I'm content, at this moment, to say that the ultimate purpose of every government system is to ensure that those most fit to be leaders come into power. Democracy wins over systems like feudalism because if a king and his line sucks, there's not much you can do about it in a feudal society whereas in democracy you could pick a better king. But when the process of picking becomes mired in political campaigns and propaganda, when the likes of Bush can be thought of as the person most fit to be leader, then in truth, how much better is democracy at picking leaders?

Edited December 15, 2005 by Azarkon

[~Di]

More proof for my contention that no matter what the initial topic of any thread might be, it always ends up as a Bush-bash.

 

(Not that I particularly mind, since I dispise Bush myself. I'd just like to see other topics once in a while that don't get predictably sidetracked.)

[Commissar]

But when the process of picking becomes mired in political campaigns and propaganda, when the likes of Bush can be thought of as the person most fit to be leader, then in truth, how much better is democracy at picking leaders?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You an American? If so, what exactly have you done to oust Bush? You voted? Please tell me you at least voted. I'm willing to bet you weren't out running a volunteer campaign in either of the last two elections, or even just working for the official Gore/Kerry camp passing out flyers. Apathy will get somebody elected every single time.

 

You know what? Bush is the most fit person to lead the country. Know why I say that? He was elected to do so, twice. There's no other qualification aside from citizenship and age mentioned in the Constitution, and he met both of those, so knock off the unqualified chatter.

 

Democracy doesn't ensure you get the best man for the job. Democracy ensures you get the man that the people want. It's been that way for quite some time now, and you know what? Not a single president has overstayed his term. There has been a peaceful transition of power with every unsuccessful incumbent bid, or the reaching of a term limit. Not many other countries can boast that kind of record, so suggesting that democracy doesn't work as far as allowing the governed to choose their government is a little bit on the crazy side.

[Azarkon]

You know what? Bush is the most fit person to lead the country. Know why I say that? He was elected to do so, twice. There's no other qualification aside from citizenship and age mentioned in the Constitution, and he met both of those, so knock off the unqualified chatter.

 

Democracy doesn't ensure you get the best man for the job. Democracy ensures you get the man that the people want.

 

Qualified != fit. Fit by my definition requires that he be an effective leader, not merely a popular one as written in the Constitution. This gets to the heart of the matter, which is your definition of democracy. It's an accurate one, and hence problematic, because it's partly the democratic system that I'm criticizing here. After all, if a system of government's purpose is merely to appease the will of the majority, then we get into the whole discourse of whether the will of the majority represents a positive or negative force for the rest of human society. We should remember that Hitler was elected to power, as were numerous dictators in the course of history.

 

The only benefit of the democratic system in the US, then, is its history of peaceful transitions. But that's not a product of the democratic system as much as it was a product of the careful power balances America put in place, since democracy elsehwere had less successful results in power transitions. If checks and balances represent a way of ensuring that American democracy is successful, might we not consider making some checks and balances against the stupidity of elected presidents (or the societies that they represent), then? That, in my view, is what's at stake, since in my estimation nearly all the social progress that occured in the US since its inception came about as additions to the checks and balances of the documents we call the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That Bush now erodes such advances through laws like the Patriot Act is a disgrace.

 

You an American? If so, what exactly have you done to oust Bush? You voted? Please tell me you at least voted. I'm willing to bet you weren't out running a volunteer campaign in either of the last two elections, or even just working for the official Gore/Kerry camp passing out flyers. Apathy will get somebody elected every single time.

 

And why exactly did you assume that Gore/Kerry represented me? I didn't vote for either Bush or Kerry, FYI, because neither of them represented what I wanted. That, in turn, is another problem of the bipartisan system: a lack of good choices.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

The popular vote in the presidential elections is meaningless anyway. When the electorial college is abolished is when I will vote for the presidential office.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hades_One

[Gabrielle]

Holocaust? What Holocaust?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Gabrielle

[Lucius]

Oh for crying out loud, don't the two of you want Bush outta office? Can't ya just vote for the democrats next time around instead of 'waiting' for a change of your flawed bipartisan system? Or do you really want Jeb Bush to run the country the next four years?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Lucius