- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,588
- Reaction score
- 468
- Location
- Western Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I didn't know that the appointment of officials was democracy.
They had elections.. There is no way to spin around this, just give up.. Yes the final candidates were still approved, so what, there was still elections.. The final elected president is not approved in any other way than in monarchies, ceremonial.
In Norway and other countries the prime minister have to be approved by the king...
You haven't clarified at all. If "my view" of democracy is the "generally accepted" version of democracy, then what is the "generally accepted" version?
I wasnt referring to you personally at all actually. I was referring to democracies in Europe and the US as generally accepted.
Here is your logic spelled out:
1. The US says Iran is a dictatorship.
2. I am anti-US and disagree with everything they say.
3. Therefore, I think Iran is a democracy.
Didn't say that at all, your assumptions and misquotations and spinning is really starting to annoy me, and makes me think a lot less of you every time.
1. The US is anti-Iran
2. The US says Iran is not a democracy with a free electoral process
3. Therefore I think the view is clouded by biased against Iran.
You clearly know nothing about Iran, then. Unless people love being oppressed? Perhaps they're all masochists.:roll:
Maybe its oppressed 100%(completely irrelevant) but their leader was still democratically elected, so was their parliament..
If you cant see that, then I dont know why we should continue this debate.
You seem to have blind love for the US, and we all know both hatred and love makes blind. I have not love(except women and family) nor hatred(except evil and low moral) for anything, I just view things in a neutral perspective and then decide if it sucks or doesnt.
Last edited: