Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Jun '13 19:25
    Good news, surely?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    16 Jun '13 19:26
    I was going to post this but I forgot. This happened a day or two ago didn't it?

    Let's see whether the Imams permit him to serve.
  3. 16 Jun '13 19:47
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Good news, surely?
    A bit early to say. At least he looks like less of a douche than Ahmadinejad.
  4. 16 Jun '13 20:09
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    A bit early to say. At least he looks like less of a douche than Ahmadinejad.
    Well, I'm quietly hopeful.
  5. 16 Jun '13 21:38
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Good news, surely?
    How is it good news when he is subject to the approval of the
    supreme religious leader who alone can validate the result
    despite the will of the people?

    Are you stupid enough to think that the election of this man
    is a positive move over what went before?

    Iran is not a democracy despite what you might think.
  6. 16 Jun '13 22:16
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    How is it good news when he is subject to the approval of the
    supreme religious leader who alone can validate the result
    despite the will of the people?

    Are you stupid enough to think that the election of this man
    is a positive move over what went before?

    Iran is not a democracy despite what you might think.
    Believe it or not, I am well aware that Iran is a theocracy whose elections are deeply flawed. But the president is not an inconsequential figure in Iran, and I think Rouhani is likely to be a considerable improvement on Ahmadinejad. Can you imagine Ahmadinejad saying any of the following?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22921680

    In an election debate on Iranian TV, Mr Rouhani said that "upholding justice across the country and civil rights" were issues he would focus on if elected. He called for "rationality and moderation" in policies and warned against a hardline approach. (IRTV1, 7 June)

    "What I truly wish is for moderation to return to the country. This is my only wish. Extremism pains me greatly. We have suffered many blows as a result of extremism." (Interview with Iran's reformist daily Sharq, 12 June)

    "Social woes have been on the rise over the past years. I do believe that the only way to resolve these problems is decentralisation. Our problems will not be resolved as long as only the government is in charge of our cultural affairs." (IRTV1 election debate, 5 June)
  7. 16 Jun '13 23:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Teinosuke to johnnylongwoody
    Believe it or not, I am well aware that Iran is a theocracy whose elections are deeply flawed. But the president is not an inconsequential figure in Iran, and I think Rouhani is likely to be a considerable improvement on Ahmadinejad. Can you imagine Ahmadinejad saying any of the following?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-2 ...[text shortened]... i]In an e government is in charge of our cultural affairs." (IRTV1 election debate, 5 June)[/i]
    "I am well aware that Iran is a theocracy whose elections are deeply
    flawed."
    --Teinosuke

    In their recent book, _Going to Tehran_, Flynt and Hillary Leverett argue
    that Iranian voters might still have more diverse choices among their
    several vetted candidates than American voters have under their very
    narrow US 'two-party system of democracy' (which most Americans have
    been long conditioned by their propaganda to believe must be ideal).

    While, if I had been a German voter in 1932, I would not have been
    delighted by having to choose between Hindenberg and Hitler, I believe
    there would have been a clear choice about who was less dangerous.

    'Every day is Ashura, and every place is Karbala.'
    --Shia proverb (a popular slogan of the Iranian revolution)
  8. 17 Jun '13 00:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Good news, surely?
    Is this Iran's version of the GOP?

    God help us all!!

    I think this helps illustrate how "democracies" are but a sham world wide.
  9. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    17 Jun '13 01:17
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Good news, surely?
    Seems like a small step in the right direction, but it's hard to predict the future.
  10. 17 Jun '13 07:43
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In their recent book, _Going to Tehran_, Flynt and Hillary Leverett argue
    that Iranian voters might still have more diverse choices among their
    several vetted candidates than American voters have under their very
    narrow US 'two-party system of democracy'.
    OK, but Americans are not bound to vote for one of the two main parties. Third party candidates have won significant support at times (eg, 1992) or exercised an arguably decisive influence in shifting the outcome of an election (eg, 2000). Even last year, with no "major" third party candidate, Gary Johnson took more than a million votes for the Libertarian Party.

    There's surely a moral difference between Iranians being denied the opportunity to vote for secular or liberal candidates by a vetting process, and Americans having the opportunity to vote outside the two main parties, but choosing not to exercise it.
  11. 17 Jun '13 21:53
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    OK, but Americans are not bound to vote for one of the two main parties. Third party candidates have won significant support at times (eg, 1992) or exercised an arguably decisive influence in shifting the outcome of an election (eg, 2000). Even last year, with no "major" third party candidate, Gary Johnson took more than a million votes for the Libe ...[text shortened]... having the opportunity to vote outside the two main parties, but choosing not to exercise it.
    "Even last year (2012), with no 'major' third party candidate,
    Gary Johnson took more than a million votes for the Libertarian Party."
    --Teinosuke

    What percentage of the popular vote did Gary Johnson win?
    How many American voters would know (without looking it up) that
    Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party's candidate for US President?
    Indeed, how often did American political journalists or pundits even
    mention that Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party's candidate?

    "There's surely a *moral difference* between Iranians...and Americans..."
    --Teinosuke

    My post was about the *practical difference*, *not* the 'moral difference'.
    How much do 'moral victories' count? The Polish Home Army claimed to
    have won a 'moral victory' in the 1944 Warsaw uprising, but Warsaw was
    still devastated and many Polish civilians were killed. The anti-Nazi German
    resistance claimed to have won some 'moral victories', but it failed to kill
    Hitler or to remove him from power or to stop his crimes against humanity.

    Moon1969's a 'patriotic' American, who apparently disagrees with you.
    "Are you (Sasquatch672) thinking to waste your vote on a third party?
    Same as staying home and not voting."
    --Moon1969 (13 June 2013, 'Follow Snowden to ends of earth to bring to justice'
  12. 20 Jun '13 23:38
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    OK, but Americans are not bound to vote for one of the two main parties. Third party candidates have won significant support at times (eg, 1992) or exercised an arguably decisive influence in shifting the outcome of an election (eg, 2000). Even last year, with no "major" third party candidate, Gary Johnson took more than a million votes for the Libe ...[text shortened]... having the opportunity to vote outside the two main parties, but choosing not to exercise it.
    "...Iranians being denied the opportunity to vote for secular or liberal
    candidates by a vetting process..."
    --Teinosuke

    As an atheist, of course, I would prefer that Iranians have opportunities
    'to vote for secular or liberal candidates'. To be realistic, however, a
    a secular or liberal candidate was not going to be elected president by
    most Iranians in 2013. The winner seems to be the most 'moderate'
    (your term) candidate who had a realistic prospect of winning this election.
    So, practically speaking, I doubt that the 'vetting process' altered this
    election's outcome. Notwithstanding any unhappiness with the 'vetting
    process', there still was large participation by Iranians in this election.
    Like it or not, most Iranians evidently approve of the concept, though
    not necessarily the current implementation, of an Islamic Republic.

    And I note that no Western government ever has claimed that Iran's
    elections were 'illegitimate' on account of the fact that Tudeh, a
    Communist party, has been outlawed and its members persecuted by
    the Islamic Republic. Shouldn't Iranians also have the right to vote for
    the Tudeh Party too? But I suspect that Western governments would
    prefer that Iran be an Islamic Republic rather than a Communist state.
  13. 21 Jun '13 14:25
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...Iranians being denied the opportunity to vote for secular or liberal
    candidates by a vetting process..."
    --Teinosuke

    As an atheist, of course, I would prefer that Iranians have opportunities
    'to vote for secular or liberal candidates'. To be realistic, however, a
    a secular or liberal candidate was not going to be elected president by
    most Ira ...[text shortened]... nts would
    prefer that Iran be an Islamic Republic rather than a Communist state.
    It's entirely possible that Rouhani, whose election I broadly welcomed, was indeed the most moderate candidate who was likely to be elected. But until the Iranian electoral process allows the full range of candidates to compete, we cannot be certain of this.

    The Islamic Republic may well have majority support, but the fact that the turnout was high does not in itself necessarily indicate approval of the concept of an Islamic Republic, even though Khamenei said he would take participation of evidence of such approval. Despite such provocations, secular Iranians may have decided that disenfranchising themselves would be more dangerous than participating and supporting the most moderate candidate.
  14. 21 Jun '13 20:01
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    It's entirely possible that Rouhani, whose election I broadly welcomed, was indeed the most moderate candidate who was likely to be elected. But until the Iranian electoral process allows the full range of candidates to compete, we cannot be certain of this.

    The Islamic Republic may well have majority support, but the fact that the turnout was high does ...[text shortened]... emselves would be more dangerous than participating and supporting the most moderate candidate.
    In the 1920 US Presidential election, Eugene Victor Debs, who was in
    prison for having opposed US conscription during the First World War,
    ran as the Socialist Party's candidate and received almost one million
    *write-in votes*, 3.4% of the popular vote. Earlier, the US Attorney
    General (a fierce anti-Communist) had recommended that Debs be released
    from prison, but US President Wilson hated Debs personally as well as
    politically and regarded him as politically dangerous. Do you (Teinosuke)
    believe that, if he had been released from prison and free to campaign,
    Eugene Victor Debs could have been elected as the US President in 1920?

    I note that you (Teinosuke), given your loathing of Communism, have
    expressed no objection to the Islamic Republic of Iran's banning of Tudeh,
    a Communist party, and its persecution of suspected Tudeh members.

    "...the fact that the turnout was high does not in itself necessarily
    indicate approval of the concept of an Islamic Republic..."
    --Teinosuke

    There are other reasons besides the high turnout in this election to
    conclude that most Iranians approve of the concept of an Islamic Republic.
    Even several of my secular Iranian emigre acquaintances have conceded
    that their wish for a liberal secular Iranian state is a minority view.
  15. 24 Jun '13 17:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In the 1920 US Presidential election, Eugene Victor Debs, who was in
    prison for having opposed US conscription during the First World War,
    ran as the Socialist Party's candidate and received almost one million
    *write-in votes*, 3.4% of the popular vote. Earlier, the US Attorney
    General (a fierce anti-Communist) had recommended that Debs be released
    f ances have conceded
    that their wish for a liberal secular Iranian state is a minority view.
    I don't believe Debs would have won, no. I assume you'd agree that he should still have been allowed to campaign freely in the 1920 election.

    Yes, the banning and persecution of the Tudeh party is reprehensible (though Communist sympathies are presumably also a minority opinion in Iran). Unlike the Western governments whose opinions in the subject you suspect you know, I think I would marginally prefer a Communist regime to Velayat-e faqih.