Destination: Iran

Remove all ads!

He was not elected in a landslide. He was elected in the second ballot. I personally think a system that envisions a first round with about a dozen canditates that requires the absolute majority and a second round with only two or three candidates pretty dangerous. It's not the first time that in a system like this, that a random freak gets close to become president. A Prime-Minister would be much wiser.

Therefore, the term "Landslide" is inadequate in this case. This case being: Get a fifth of the votes and make it to round two.

But then, the President of the Republic of Iran is more like a President of a European Republic and not like the US-PResident. The US-Presidency is molded after the King of England (Yes I've read the Federalist papers and they strictly adhere to Montesquieu) while a European President has nothing else to do than look good and talk nice.

Which of course the random freak in case does not. It's bad, but this guy came through with a platform of food for the poor and closer to me and my buddy god. While the Republicans were in a crisis, the guy was the surprise winner of the final ballot.

My understanding is that the stand of the Iranian President domestically is getting weaker and weaker because is stories about him and his close buddy god the almighty have become more and more obscure.

I don't see how this can be resolved. Maybe if the President resigns and they have a new vote. That would be the best they could do now, I think.

Edit: The domestic situation of the President has to be considered too, I think. It's not like they are raving about him at home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525656.stm

[ December 15, 2005, 16:30: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I fail to see why an invasion would be any better? They'd still launch those missiles against Israel, plus we'd have a big mess in our hands with the occupation. Bombing the facilities is the best option out of a number of bad options. Of course diplomacy would be great and all but somehow I'm a bit sceptical as Iran seems to see nuclear weapons as essential for their own security and I can't really blame them for thinking that way.

It has worked well enough for us. No nutjobs as presidents, atleast not yet.

 

I thought all conservatives stuck together and there are few politicians more conservative than the president of Iran.

Ergo nuke conservatives!

 

@ Cuch

Saddam had a chance to avoid war - he passed on it. More Iraqi's are dying now as a result of the civil war than at the hands of US soldiers (i.e., Iraqis killing Iraqis), so please stop trying to imply that the only reason civilians are dying in Iraq right now is because of the US. It can also be argued that Americans (both civilian and military) have been put in unnecessary danger because of Bush's extremely poor choice of words on several occasions. Anyone remember "Bring 'em on" and "this is a crusade?"

So it's not that a leader in Iran can shoot his mouth off and result in the suffering of his people - that applies to ANY leader. Such rhetoric is extremely careless, even if you happen to have the military might to back up the words.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this sentence - please clarify, because it doesn't sound like you do either.

@ Iago

Thanks for the info - I was under the impression that Ahmadinejad was indeed elected in a landslide, and was extremely popular with most of Iran. Good info.

However, that doesn't mean I think his comments should be taken any less seriously.

 

My wording was not the best, so let me phrase this differently. Americans, living in the US or elsewhere can send funds to Irish terrorists, with full knowledge of what the funds are being used for (the Omagh bombing for example), and this is not illegal in the US, but actually encouraged. 'Irish-Americans' or whatever they want to be known as, think that sponsoring terrorists will somehow validate their 'Irishness'.

My point is that you are fine with civillians getting punished for someone else's empty threats, while you make no mention of civillians that actually sponsor terrorism.

 

First off:

That's what I thought you were getting at - please substantiate it. If you are implying that Americans are "free" and "encouraged" to sponsor any form of international terrorism, I will glady resubmit my statement that you don't know what you're talking about. Or are just making things up. Even if what you say is accurate, Americans are not encouraged by our government to do such things, and anyone who would support such acts are extremist kooks, NOT average Americans. Anyone who is caught sponsoring any form of international terrorism here in the states is tried and jailed for it.

Second:

I resent this comment immensely.

NOT ONCE have I ever stated that I'm okay with civilians dying for ANY reason. What I said was that if the leader of any nation provokes violence from another nation - whether that violence comes in the form of war, public unrest or terrorism - by specifically threatening death and destruction, the responsibility is HIS for making the situation worse with his mouth and endangering his people. Empty threats or not - you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

 

And since it is the god-given right of the US (Hmm? UNO? Insignificant, sez the Bush.) to decide when the time for war has come, or what risk of future repercussions of war are acceptable, there is no arguing with this.

 

Sorry, Dendri - but Saddam deserves more blame than anyone for what's happening in Iraq right now. Unrest and bitter ethnic divides have been stirring there long before we got there, and they will be there long after we're gone. I have stated on many occasions that I disagree with the war and wish we'd never gotten involved. Bush is ultimately responsible for "the straw that broke the camel's back" in the disaster that's become Iraq. But Saddam set the stage for it. The US didn't create this chaos on our own. We opened Pandora's Box, I admit and regret that - but Saddam, fanatic islamists and good old-fashioned Arab vs. Arab strife have filled it for decades.

 

Actually I think Saddam was more a symptom of cultural strife, rather than a cause of it. Maybe I am just naive, but I can't imagine him waking up in the morning and saying, "Hmm...nice morning today...oh whimsy, I'll kill 50 Kurds!" Rather, much like in the Godfather, "Sometimes you have to kick a little ass to make things run right!"

 

That's probably a fair observation, LNT.

 

DR, I agree. Blaming the US for the religious tensions would be, well, simply unfair. However, there were those who warned the US administration away from getting involved as the consequence would probably be catastrophic for the Iraqis. Civil war? It was in anyone's mouth here before the war - and still is.
Everything was brushed aside, rather those cautioning were insulted and derrided.

Also, the post-war situation was handled so poorly (like fully disbanding the Iraqi army, security and Baath party) that the Iraqis found themselves in a destabilized situation. Not to speak of the other incidents that really not served to instill confidence in the US and her plans.

How to divide the blame for todays Iraq between Hussein (or the American's boy, as the Iraqis used to call him) and the US? Anyone can make up her/his mind about that themselves.

But I guess I am just being a pessimist. Hack said Iraq appears to be heading in the right direction. And you better believe it.

 

True on all counts.

 

@ Morgoroth

France has the same system and the last time they had a very interesting second turn. Chirac vs. Le Pen. Chirac won with an overwhelming majority because there was no real choice, just the peculiar result that numbers sometimes yield.

@ Death Rabbit

I don't think the comments aren't serious. I think that this is diplomatic worst case scenario which makes the whole region more unstable and more nasty and more complicated to handle. Everyone is worse off than before after this comments.

 

All that said, who actually support that Iran is invaded next?

 

I will agree to an invasion of Iran by Americans, but only on the condition that we get to publicly disparage all other nations that side with the Axis of Boogey Men.

Italian Dressing ---> Invasion Dressing

 

Well, presuming the aggressor party gets to be sued by an international tribunal, I don't mind.

 

No need for a war of Aggression...let it be a war of economics. We've got the burdgeoning democracy of Iraq on one border to dominate and control the regional oil industry (when's the last time anyone heard from OPEC, btw? Anyone notice how the Bush Administration has cleverly wrested the control of oil pricing away from OPEC? Damn, GW's a genius), and the burdgeoning democracy of Afganistan on another border to dominate and control the regional...regional...

Hmmm...what industry does Afganistan have to dominate?

Oh, yeah...poppies.

Actually, if the US were to invade a third consecutive Middle-Eastern Islamic country, it would probably be too much bad press. We most likely need to take out an African despot with excessive genocide or and Eastern European Puppetship with missing Soviet era weapons.

Just to keep things on an even keel, you know.

 

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Rather, it is sandwiched between the steppes of Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent along the ancient "Silk Route". Also, the various Afghan tribes are of Indo-European stock and are not Arabs.

 

Heroin actually. I should have known that Bush was a addict, that would explain how God speaks to him though.

 

Ever heard of N.O.R.A.I.D., 'Friends of Armagh', and 'Friends of Sinn Fein'? I bet they are still legal organisations.

Its strange that N.Ireland was warned over treatment of terrorist prisoners in the 80's by the US, when places like Guantánamo Bay exist today. People randomly rounded up and if they are lucky, they are freed without charge after several years.

As for Iran, well I can think of several countries that are more deserving.