metadigital Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 "yes, they have a democracy" Yeah, and so did Iraq under Hussein. R00fles! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't be an ass, Volo. The democracy in Iran is less of a pork-barrel than the US "electoral College" system. To compare it to a totalitarian regime just makes you look as ignorant as you are, which is something you should avoid, methinks. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 "Don't be an ass, Volo. The democracy in Iran is less of a pork-barrel than the US "electoral College" system. To compare it to a totalitarian regime just makes you look as ignorant as you are, which is something you should avoid, methinks." Wrong. To compare the 'democracy' of Iran to the US democracy only makes YOU look ignorant. 1. When the US voted in the President of the US; the Presdient has actual power and say on how the country is run. That's what democracy is - the people voting on who has the power. 2. When Iranians vote in the President; they voted in the Lap Dog for the Religious Rulers. The President of Iran is not the head cheese in Iran. Someone who is UNELECTED holds the power in Iran. Thereby, making Iran anything *but* a Democracy. Only someone who is naive, or blind to the actual facts believes Iran is a democracy. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted April 4, 2006 Author Share Posted April 4, 2006 With all the fancy electronics nowadays would armies start war with sending in electronic disruptors (EMP bombs?) that take out everything (sure, the ICUs going down would be tough) before sending in their real troops? Spreading beauty with my katana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 ... I think Volo just presented a better argument than meta. It is truly the end of the world. RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 "Don't be an ass, Volo. The democracy in Iran is less of a pork-barrel than the US "electoral College" system. To compare it to a totalitarian regime just makes you look as ignorant as you are, which is something you should avoid, methinks." Wrong. To compare the 'democracy' of Iran to the US democracy only makes YOU look ignorant. 1. When the US voted in the President of the US; the Presdient has actual power and say on how the country is run. That's what democracy is - the people voting on who has the power. 2. When Iranians vote in the President; they voted in the Lap Dog for the Religious Rulers. The President of Iran is not the head cheese in Iran. Someone who is UNELECTED holds the power in Iran. Thereby, making Iran anything *but* a Democracy. Only someone who is naive, or blind to the actual facts believes Iran is a democracy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. The US President does not have carte blanche to create and/or change legislation ("the Presdient has actual power and say on how the country is run"); rather it is a bicameral structure where the legislature (i.e. House of Representatives) create legislation for approval, which must be agreed by the Senate, before the figure head of the President can rubber stamp it into law. Further, it is then interpreted by the judiciary, which makes up the third pillar of the democracy. To illustrate the fallacy in your statement: How many citizens of the US, in 1953, voted to remove from power Iran's prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh? This was a plot orchestrated by British and U.S. intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). (The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.) Following Dr. Mosaddegh's fall, the Shah's rule became increasingly dictatorial, particularly in the late 1970s. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. An Islamic republic was soon established under the Ayatollah Khomeini. So the creation of the modern day Iranian political scenario was down to the US and UK, trying to increase their hegemony and safeguard their interests. 2. Just because the US elections are a popularity contest between two people who want to be supreme dictator for four years, doesn't mean that other systems don't work in an equal or more democratic manner. I'm not saying that Iran is a perfect democarcy, mind you, but I am suggesting that you take the log out of your own eye before you made a big song and dance about the mote in someone else's eye ... Some background, for all of us: Valiye Faghih or The Jurisprudent Guardian, more commonly known as the Supreme Leader is the head of state in Iran (as opposed to head of government which is the President). The concept of velayat-e-faqih or the guardianship of the jurisprudent was introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini and was included in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the revolution. According to the constitution the Supreme Leader is in charge of co-ordinating and solving disputes between the 3 branches of the state (Executive, Legistative, Judicial). The constitution gives the Supreme Leader vast powers, which include:Appointing the head of the Judicial Branch Supreme command of the armed forces Issuing decrees for national referenda Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces Dismissal of the President, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Parliament testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Leader is not an unelected post. According to the Iranian constitution (having mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini exempt from this rule as the founder of the revolution), the Supreme Leader is elected by a congress-like body called the Assembly of Experts (whose members are elected by direct public vote to 8 year terms). The Supreme Leader is appointed for life after being elected; however, the Assembly, which is also in charge of making sure that the Leader complies with his legal duties, has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time. The point that has caused the Iranian political system to be known by many as an undemocratic system, is in fact an ordinary (not constitutional) law which creates a closed loop of power ... The closed loop of power According to current election laws, a body of 12 experts called the Guardian Council are in charge of overseeing and approving electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The majority of the members of this body are appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, this council vets candidates of the Assembly of Experts too, which are in turn in charge of supervising and electing the Leader, which eventually creates a closed loop of power. In addition, the current elections law requires the candidates of Assembly of Experts to be religious mujtahids which greatly narrows down the list of possible candidates. Neither of these two laws are mandated by the constitution and are ordinary laws passed by the Parliament or the Assembly of Experts, which therefore can theoretically be reversed easily. However despite the efforts of many political activists, it has proven to be practically impossible to do so until now. Many Iranian reformists (including Abdollah Noori) consider this to be the core legal obstacle for a truly democratic system in Iran. So it is quite simple to make the almost perfect democracy of Iran a perfect democracy. Now, please explain to me how the US Electoral College works, and why there isn't a one-vote-one-value system for federal elections? And how many presidents of the US have been from minorities? Like black, hispanic, jewish, catholic or women? The US has a class system: the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males are the ruling caste. Useful References Iran Politics of Iran OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I'm not ruling very much. RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I'm not sure why they deicded to try out their fancy radar cloaked warhead carrying missiles after the Security Council asked Iran to stop enrichment within 30 days. It seems the bravado's egging the Security Council on which I thought would be a bad idea since they could get Russia and China to cover them as long as things didn't get out of hand. ME go boom? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They are afraid and are trying to warn us off our plans to attack and kill them. Seems reasonable to me. Meanwhile I hear we are demonstrating a 700 ton explosive. Can that be conventional? Seems like it has to be a nuke. What carries a 700 ton (1,400,000 pound) warhead? Must be a nuke, right? Here's a ditty: George says bad dreams may cause him to kill again. Democrates and media are struck dumb. Iranians are terrified. Satan is pleased. As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiser_Cain Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 If I want to kill them all does that make me a bad person? And do I care? Yaw devs, Yaw!!! ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 If I want to kill them all does that make me a bad person? And do I care? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. I don't know. Probably not. Some say that many of those who go to hell go willingly. Makes sense. As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 If I want to kill them all does that make me a bad person? And do I care? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By the way, Weiser, you may want to be careful you don't go about issuing terrorist threats without meaning them just to be a jerk. Someone might not understand and take you seriously. :angry: As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellester Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 By the way, Weiser, you may want to be careful you don't go about issuing terrorist threats without meaning them just to be a jerk. Someone might not understand and take you seriously. :angry: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would take a guess and say he was serious. Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 If I want to kill them all does that make me a bad person? And do I care? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. You should, if you want to keep posting here. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Very poetic for a psychopath! OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Fortunately that won't ever be a problem. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts