• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

Khayembii Communique said:
I didn't know that the appointment of officials was democracy.
Click to expand...

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...

Khayembii Communique said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wasnt referring to you personally at all actually. I was referring to democracies in Europe and the US as generally accepted.


Khayembii Communique said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Khayembii Communique said:
You clearly know nothing about Iran, then. Unless people love being oppressed? Perhaps they're all masochists.:roll:
Click to expand...

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:
Maximus Zeebra said:
They had elections.. There is no way to spin around this,.....
Click to expand...
The only thing that I can add here is that I have a friend who is a native Iranian and still has contact with relatives there, and according to him everyone hates the little bastard that was elected. I'm not talking like in the US where Democrats hate Bush but a large majority prior to and after the election, so that tells me that the results were probably rigged.
 
Southern Man said:
The only thing that I can add here is that I have a friend who is a native Iranian and still has contact with relatives there, and according to him everyone hates the little bastard that was elected. I'm not talking like in the US where Democrats hate Bush but a large majority prior to and after the election, so that tells me that the results were probably rigged.
Click to expand...

Well if your friend says so, they must be rigged.
 
They had elections..
Click to expand...

So? So did Iraq. Was Saddam democratically elected?

Yes the final candidates were still approved, so what
Click to expand...

Because the approval means that ultimate power resides with the Supreme Council and therefore the candidates are appointed.

The final elected president is not approved in any other way than in monarchies, ceremonial.
Click to expand...

Except it's not similar at all, considering the fact that in countries that still have monarchies the monarchy doesn't hold any considerable power, whereas in Iran the Supreme Council has all ("supreme") power.

I wasnt referring to you personally at all actually. I was referring to democracies in Europe and the US as generally accepted.
Click to expand...

Yes, you clearly were:

I am just trying to show ho biased you are against Iran and how biased you are in favor of your own version of democracy.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that at all
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't say it. That's just how you work. You don't need to say it.

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.
Click to expand...

Well no **** the US is anti-Iran, but that doesn't change the fact that Iran isn't a democracy. If you knew anything about Iran then you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things. Want to argue now that China is democratic? Or the DPRK?

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.
Click to expand...

The fact that you think the Council of Guardians is in any way comparable to a ceremonial head of state is laughable.

You seem to have blind love for the US
Click to expand...

HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!! I actually chuckled a bit at this. It's funny that someone that doesn't fit into your Manichean paradigm of "pro-US/anti-US" completely blows your mind. You're completely delusional if you think I'm "pro-US". At least you confirmed what I said earlier about how your entire outlook is based around being anti-US.

Hilarious!:lol:
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Because the approval means that ultimate power resides with the Supreme Council and therefore the candidates are appointed.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the SUPREME court in the US.

Khayembii Communique said:
Except it's not similar at all, considering the fact that in countries that still have monarchies the monarchy doesn't hold any considerable power, whereas in Iran the Supreme Council has all ("supreme") power.
Click to expand...

Except it is, the king is the supreme head of state.


Khayembii Communique said:
Yes, you clearly were:
Click to expand...

No, dont tell me what I was.. I was generalizing. You is also a word to use when generalizing.


Khayembii Communique said:
Of course you didn't say it. That's just how you work. You don't need to say it.
Click to expand...

Just like you dont need to say that you are clearly blindly in love with the US..
I can assume a bunch of things about a bunch of people, yet I try to avoid that, while you seem to love that concept, something that makes my opinion of you pretty low.



Khayembii Communique said:
Well no **** the US is anti-Iran, but that doesn't change the fact that Iran isn't a democracy. If you knew anything about Iran then you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things. Want to argue now that China is democratic? Or the DPRK?
Click to expand...

Why do you draw ridiculous parallels.. I am talking about Iran, he was elected, so was the parliament. Thats democracy, there just isnt any way for you to spin this anymore, however much you feel like it because of your different biases.


Khayembii Communique said:
The fact that you think the Council of Guardians is in any way comparable to a ceremonial head of state is laughable.
Click to expand...

It is COMPARABLE to both the supreme court in the US and the supreme head of state in monarchies which is the king.
No I am not saying its the same.




Khayembii Communique said:
HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!! I actually chuckled a bit at this. It's funny that someone that doesn't fit into your Manichean paradigm of "pro-US/anti-US" completely blows your mind. You're completely delusional if you think I'm "pro-US". At least you confirmed what I said earlier about how your entire outlook is based around being anti-US.

Hilarious!:lol:
Click to expand...

Actually I am not anti-US at all, thats just something you assume, just like I assume you are blindly in love with the US for the sake of demonstrating.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Because the approval means that ultimate power resides with the Supreme Council and therefore the candidates are appointed.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the SUPREME court in the US.

Khayembii Communique said:
Except it's not similar at all, considering the fact that in countries that still have monarchies the monarchy doesn't hold any considerable power, whereas in Iran the Supreme Council has all ("supreme") power.
Click to expand...

Except it is, the king is the supreme head of state.


Khayembii Communique said:
Yes, you clearly were:
Click to expand...

No, dont tell me what I was.. I was generalizing. You is also a word to use when generalizing.


Khayembii Communique said:
Of course you didn't say it. That's just how you work. You don't need to say it.
Click to expand...

Just like you dont need to say that you are clearly blindly in love with the US..
I can assume a bunch of things about a bunch of people, yet I try to avoid that, while you seem to love that concept, something that makes my opinion of you pretty low.



Khayembii Communique said:
Well no **** the US is anti-Iran, but that doesn't change the fact that Iran isn't a democracy. If you knew anything about Iran then you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things. Want to argue now that China is democratic? Or the DPRK?
Click to expand...

Why do you draw ridiculous parallels.. I am talking about Iran, he was elected, so was the parliament. Thats democracy, there just isnt any way for you to spin this anymore, however much you feel like it because of your different biases.


Khayembii Communique said:
The fact that you think the Council of Guardians is in any way comparable to a ceremonial head of state is laughable.
Click to expand...

It is COMPARABLE to both the supreme court in the US and the supreme head of state in monarchies which is the king.
No I am not saying its the same.




Khayembii Communique said:
HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!! I actually chuckled a bit at this. It's funny that someone that doesn't fit into your Manichean paradigm of "pro-US/anti-US" completely blows your mind. You're completely delusional if you think I'm "pro-US". At least you confirmed what I said earlier about how your entire outlook is based around being anti-US.

Hilarious!:lol:
Click to expand...

Actually I am not anti-US at all, thats just something you assume, just like I assume you are blindly in love with the US for the sake of demonstrating.
 
Iran is a democracy like China is a country known for it's civil liberties.

You are taking the terms "Supreme Court" and "Supreme Council" and attempting to say that they are equivilent. That shows your lack of comprehension between the two systems right there.

"Well Bob, they both have "surpeme" in their titles, so they are alike!"

That's the level of understanding you have shown.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Yet in the primaries there are just a dusin or so candidates for each party. Where are all the others? And how were they rooted away? I can imagine thousands of people sign up like you say, but all those arent in the primaries, are they? The primary candidates are somehow approved by the party, and not the whole party electorate.
Click to expand...

They are rooted away by the fact that they can't get enough signatures from party members to get on the ballot in all states. Generally this comes to being a political unknown.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Come on.. Iran is a democracy, the US is known to be biased against Iran, and if a US agency says the election is not free and fair, then that doesnt really count as it not being free and fair in my eyes when the people elect the president.

I blame the people of Iran for electing the mr president moron.

I am really trying to show that their leader represents them, and that there is a larger problem than him being a moron alone.
Click to expand...

It's not even a US agency that says this. By any objective standard of a free democracy Iran doesn't make the cut.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
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.
Click to expand...

KC is a communist man. He doesn't like any of the world's capitalist systems. And he still sees through the crap your selling.
 
MrVicchio said:
Iran is a democracy like China is a country known for it's civil liberties.

You are taking the terms "Supreme Court" and "Supreme Council" and attempting to say that they are equivilent. That shows your lack of comprehension between the two systems right there.

"Well Bob, they both have "surpeme" in their titles, so they are alike!"

That's the level of understanding you have shown.
Click to expand...

Did I ever say they were the same? No..

But Iran is a democracy, not matter how much Americans want to keep denying that.
 
RightOfCenter said:
KC is a communist man. He doesn't like any of the world's capitalist systems. And he still sees through the crap your selling.
Click to expand...

And you didnt see the context I put this in.. Nor do you see beyond your own tainted perspective on this.
The first point is that the Iranian president was elected, and he was, no matter how technical you want to get about it he was elected by the people of Iran, you can try to spin it a billion different ways, but the president of Iran was elected by the people, so was the parliament.
 
RightOfCenter said:
They are rooted away by the fact that they can't get enough signatures from party members to get on the ballot in all states. Generally this comes to being a political unknown.
Click to expand...

Id like to see an official source on these issues before I buy it so easily.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So once again we have Ahmonoajihad in his own words. What say the iranian apoligists to this latest round of "push the jews into the sea"
Click to expand...
It's just a test for Obama and Clinton.
 
shiznit770 said:
It is the topic. You've just already come to the conclusion that he hates Israel because they're Jews. If all you want is a confirmation of your pre-drawn conclusion perhaps you shouldn't be posting in the Breaking News section.
Click to expand...
Please don't hijack the thread.
:eek:t
 
shiznit770 said:
Israel's invasion of Gaza shows again that it only knows how to use overwhelming military force to solve its problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'cuz Israel has never engaged in diplomacy, never offered concessions, never pulled back, never conceded territory....nope...Israel has only relied on overwhelming force.

The terror apologists never cease to amaze me.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Did I ever say they were the same? No..

But Iran is a democracy, not matter how much Americans want to keep denying that.
Click to expand...

What democratic features do you see in Iran?

Specifics, please.

BTW - democracy is not merely conducting elections.
 
But Iran is a democracy, not matter how much Americans want to keep denying that.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now I'm an American. Right.:doh

You shouldn't ASSume.

Anyways, back on topic; has anyone found a source for this quote in the AP article? I haven't been able to find anything, and would tend not to believe it, especially considering the fact that the only part that is quoted is "not feasible".
 
shiznit770 said:
Israel's invasion of Gaza shows again that it only knows how to use overwhelming military force to solve its problems.
Click to expand...
Some problems can only be solved with military force, and when military force is required, it should be overwhelming,
So... what's your point?
And... how is that point relevant?
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
And you didnt see the context I put this in.. Nor do you see beyond your own tainted perspective on this.
The first point is that the Iranian president was elected, and he was, no matter how technical you want to get about it he was elected by the people of Iran, you can try to spin it a billion different ways, but the president of Iran was elected by the people, so was the parliament.
Click to expand...

Dude, when you have a communist, Republicans, and an Ayn Rand libertarian all arguing against you you're probably wrong. Was the USSR a democracy? Is Cuba? Was Saddam's Iraq? All of those countries had elections, just like Iran.
 
Goobieman said:
Some problems can only be solved with military force, and when military force is required, it should be overwhelming,
So... what's your point?
And... how is that point relevant?
Click to expand...

My problem is with your premise that when military force is required it should be overwhelming. There are many more factors in this conflict than one force vs another.

It is relevant because it sets back diplomacy, angers many of Israel's neighbors, and show's that Israel's attempt to solve the problem only makes it worse. Thus it is not possible to attain peace in the ME with Israel's strategy.
 
shiznit770 said:
My problem is with your premise that when military force is required it should be overwhelming.
Click to expand...
Anything less than overhwleming force unnecessarily prolongs the conflict and creates unnecessary casualties. To use less than overwhelming force is irresponsible.

It is relevant because it sets back diplomacy...
Click to expand...
It is impossible to engage in diplomacy with a foe whose entire goal is to destroy you, and who will not rest until that goal is reached.
 
shiznit770 said:
My problem is with your premise that when military force is required it should be overwhelming. There are many more factors in this conflict than one force vs another.

It is relevant because it sets back diplomacy, angers many of Israel's neighbors, and show's that Israel's attempt to solve the problem only makes it worse. Thus it is not possible to attain peace in the ME with Israel's strategy.
Click to expand...

Huh...despite the overwhelming force being applied by Israel diplomacy is still happening as we speak, shiznit. I guess that kinda wrecks your argument, no?

And I see you're still blaming the victim here. Why is Israel to be condemned because she can more effectively defend herself? The proportionality nonsense is just that...nonsense.

Israel's strategy is and has been a response, a reactive strategy. Peace cannot be achieved in the ME because Israel's neighbors, possibly except for Egypt, don't accept Israel's right to exist.

Maybe you don't, either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom