Fox News Strikes Again...

[Zaknafien]

Ugh, the noise machine is spinning up again for another round of fear-mongering. Do people actually believe this stuff?:thumbsdown:

http://foxattacks.com/iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs&v3

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, it's all Fox's fault.

Nevermind Iran has taken British troops hostage, attacked US troops, attacked Iraqi towns in the north, is working on a nuke program, is behind a lot of the terrorists in Iraq, supports terrorist attacks against Israel,etc...

Nope, it's just all Fox News :dizzy2:

CR

[rory_20_uk]

Where America has helped care for bunnies who have broken their legs? Please some perspective!

There are few countries who have not done something that others view as threatening, from Russia's resumption of patrols to testing cruise missiles, Israel, the "democratic coalition" in the Far East upsetting China, China upsetting everyone else, and most of Africa.

The news is responsible for providing us with most of the population's information: there is a difference between Russia flying planes close to Europe, to Russia used to do this all the time until the money ran out, the USA still does, and now they are doing it with planes that were constructed about 50 years ago.

~:smoking:

[drone]

Well, now that Murdoch has completed the WSJ buyout, Fox reporting can get back to normal! ~D

[Zaknafien]

I laughed out loud when that dude said Al Qaeda was working with Iran.. lol!

[Marshal Murat]

It's too bad that Iran has nukes, a strong anti-Israeli stance, the capability and ability to strike Israel, and is almost supporting terrorist.

None of that matters.

[CrossLOPER]

////////
and is supporting terrorist.\\\\\\\\\

[Tribesman]

Nevermind Iran has taken British troops hostage, attacked US troops, attacked Iraqi towns in the north, is working on a nuke program, is behind a lot of the terrorists in Iraq, supports terrorist attacks against Israel,etc...

How many other feet can fit in that shoe ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Media likes conflict. Without conflict, they don't sell advertising. Some have gone so far as to actively work to create a conflict (W.R. Hearst) but the more common strategy is to emphasize the conflictual elements of ANY subject during the broadcast. Whatever bleeds, leads.....

[Geoffrey S]

Convenient, blaming Fox for opinions held by the viewers. Sure, media has a fair amount of influence, but I'd rather blame a largely dumb and captive audiance willing to take news broadcasts as facts without even a blink, let alone critical thought or own background checks. People choose to watch particular channels, ones that reflect their own views.

[Zaknafien]

Fox blatantly lies though.

In any case, the brainwashing that the American administration is putting out through media soldiers like Fox is mind boggling. You never hear about how Iran is the only democratic country in the middle east with a politically active population that votes in much larger numbers than the U.S. And of course they are anti-Israel, Israel has been occupying Shia lands for decades. There are reasons behind these things, you know. And why shouldnt they be allowed to develop nuclear power? America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on earth and several combined, and no one is rattling their sabres at the US regime.

[Ice]

I laughed out loud when that dude said Al Qaeda was working with Iran.. lol!

It's not that far fetched to believe. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, but I have yet to see any evidence saying they are.

Besides, that foxnews hate site is a load of a crap. Likewise with the video.

Foxnews may not be the best or fairest new site, but it's not evil. I especially liked the tense music playing in the background.

Yeah right, we are going to launch an identical invasion into Iran, just like Iraq. That's entirely feasible. DUN DUN DUN DUH!

Yes, we are going to attack Iran, and disrupt the world's oil supply over a nuclear program that is far from being finished in which we could most likely destroy within a few days if need be.

This actually makes fox news look fair and balanced.

[Ice]

Fox blatantly lies though.

In any case, the brainwashing that the American administration is putting out through media soldiers like Fox is mind boggling.

All news networks lie. This is nothing new. Fair and balanced news doesn't exist.

Media soldiers, that's a new one.


You never hear about how Iran is the only democratic country in the middle east with a politically active population that votes in much larger numbers than the U.S.

Democratic? Hardly. The people they can elect are puppets. The real power is held by the Supreme Leader who is elected by the Assembly of Elders, who is elected by the people from a SCREENED LIST. I see how that is vastly superior to our system.

Not to mention that Turkey puts Iran to shame as a secular democracy.


And of course they are anti-Israel, Israel has been occupying Shia lands for decades

Yes, that's usually what happens when you win a war. Would it hurt them to recognize Israel and make peace instead of supporting terrorists and insurgency groups?


There are reasons behind these things you know.

Yes, obviously. They aren't black and white either.



And why shouldnt they be allowed to develop nuclear power? America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on earth and several combined, and no one is rattling their sabres at the US regime.

Because they will destabilize the entire region. Not to mention they will directly threaten our ally, Israel, with these such weapons. Any country that has public rallies chaning "Death to Isreal", does not need nuclear weapons.

Not all countries are created equal. The big will always have power over the small. It is in this country's best interest that they do not develop such a weapon. It's that simple.

[Geoffrey S]

Fox blatantly lies though.
Yes, it's blatant: that makes it all the more clear that the fault doesn't lie with the network, but the captive audience who so willingly and blindly believes what Fox says. Where there's a will, there's a way.

And as for the rest of your post on Iran, I've rarely seen such a self-deluding, one-sided defense of that morally bankrupt theocracy. Do you seriously believe what you just wrote?

[Zaknafien]

All news networks lie. This is nothing new. Fair and balanced news doesn't exist.

Media soldiers, that's a new one.



Democratic? Hardly. The people they can elect are puppets. The real power is held by the Supreme Leader who is elected by the Assembly of Elders, who is elected by the people from a SCREENED LIST. I see how that is vastly superior to our system.

Not to mention that Turkey puts Iran to shame as a secular democracy.



Yes, that's usually what happens when you win a war. Would it hurt them to recognize Israel and make peace instead of supporting terrorists and insurgency groups?



Yes, obviously. They aren't black and white either.


Because they will destabilize the entire region. Not to mention they will directly threaten our ally, Israel, with these such weapons. Any country that has public rallies chaning "Death to Isreal", does not need nuclear weapons.

Not all countries are created equal. The big will always have power over the small. It is in this country's best interest that they do not develop such a weapon. It's that simple.


Hm, I see you are misinformed. Firstly, Turkey is not in the Middle East proper which is why I did not include it. Secondly, sure, the elected candidates are screened by the ulemma but this perfectly acceptable within Shiism. I might remind you that Iran is the only country in the Middle East where a former head of state stepped down peaceably after his term in office expired and still lives at his residence to this day. Not to mention, the only state where a candidate publicly backed by the Ayatollah LOST the election to a rival by popular choice.

Regarding this little gem:


Any country that has public rallies chaning "Death to Isreal", does not need nuclear weapons.


Replace "Israel" with "Iraq" and you're talking about the United States. All things are relative, and no country is "Good" or "Evil". Iran is just another target for the wealthy to exploit in their "War on Terror" (i.e. War for Profit), or "lets get back at those crooks for stealing our oil money in the 70s.":thumbsdown:

[drone]

And why shouldnt they be allowed to develop nuclear power? America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on earth and several combined, and no one is rattling their sabres at the US regime.
Nuclear power, yes. Nuclear weapons, no. Until they decide to withdraw from the NPT, nukes are verboten for Iran. When they turn in their notice and wait the required time, then they can do what they want. Until then, they are subject to the mandated inspections, etc.

That said, FoxNews makes my head hurt. I think they have the volume turned up a little, and it's always so over-the-top. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the Dems take over the White House in 2009. Their ratings took a big hit with the last mid-term (although they still beat CNN). They will need to rethink their programming when they are no longer speaking for the party in charge. I'm thinking they will suffer, since people here don't like being associated with "the loser". Hopefully they tone it down some, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Tribesman]

Nuclear power, yes. Nuclear weapons, no. Until they decide to withdraw from the NPT, nukes are verboten for Iran.
Doesn't the NPT have a thing about America and other countries getting rid of their nukes ? are they complying or should they withdraw from the treaty as well ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hm, I see you are misinformed.

Did you forget about Israel? They're certainly in the middle east, and they have a democracy.


Secondly, sure, the elected candidates are screened by the ulemma but this perfectly acceptable within Shiism.

That doesn't make it acceptable for a real democracy.


I might remind you that Iran is the only country in the Middle East where a former head of state stepped down peaceably after his term in office expired and still lives at his residence to this day.

So all the former Israeli PMs have been exiled? Now, would they take kindly to the shah living in Iran?


Replace "Israel" with "Iraq" and you're talking about the United States.

Please show me any protest, much less state sponsored, where people were yelling 'death to Iraq'. A cheap trick to take attention away from the anti-semitic and hateful comments made by the Iranian leadership.

Are you even aware of the oppression going on in Iran? You make them seem like a model for the middle east, when they get more oppressive every day. They ban music, dissent, clothes, even hairstyles. How in the world can you call that a democracy?!?!

CR

[Marshal Murat]

I figure that Fox will keep on rolling, broadcasting their news to anyone who will listen. While Fox is biased (there, I said it) there isn't much in way of unbiased outside of PBS (which no one watches unfortunately).


Iran is the only country in the Middle East where a former head of state stepped down peaceably after his term in office expired

May I point to Rome? While Sulla may have stepped down, that doesn't make him a virgin lamb.


Doesn't the NNPT have a thing about America and other countries getting rid of their nukes ?
Theoretically, no. We can keep the nukes. "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

On the one hand, the wording of Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament. Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."

So we can theoretically keep our nuclear devices as long as we negotiate in good faith to disarm them, or something like that.

Also, Iran could soon be supporting a terrorist group, called the 'Iranian Revolutionary Guard'.

Back to topic.
I really wish that Iran wasn't so belligerent, but they are, and with saber-rattling comes the response. Iran is a valuable ally, no doubt there, but it's a deal with a wolf. He may either become your friend and ally, or he could bite you if you let him have some of your meal. It is a precarious line, and if the Iranians do commit some overt act against Americans (not just providing IEDs and weaponry to Iraqi Shi'ite militia, but something big) then they have stirred the hornets nest against themselves.

The Congress won't approve any military action, the President won't declare war. This is just Fox News rattling the media saber, shaking things up. CNN and ABC will probably pick it up now, but like most stuff (trapped miners) they will cut it out after the public loses interest.
Fox has a viewer base, they will provide programming that suits the viewers.

[Ice]

Hm, I see you are misinformed. Firstly, Turkey is not in the Middle East proper which is why I did not include it.

Misinformed? I think not.

Besides, you never said Middle East proper. You said, Middle East. Turkey is considered by most to be in the Middle East. Also, I forgot about Israel like CR added.


Secondly, sure, the elected candidates are screened by the ulemma but this perfectly acceptable within Shiism.

And this makes it acceptable as a good democracy, how...?



I might remind you that Iran is the only country in the Middle East where a former head of state stepped down peaceably after his term in office expired and still lives at his residence to this day.

Yes, and your point being what?



Not to mention, the only state where a candidate publicly backed by the Ayatollah LOST the election to a rival by popular choice.

Who cares. They are puppets. The Ayatollah can override any decision by the lower government body.


Regarding this little gem:



Replace "Israel" with "Iraq" and you're talking about the United States. All things are relative, and no country is "Good" or "Evil". Iran is just another target for the wealthy to exploit in their "War on Terror" (i.e. War for Profit), or "lets get back at those crooks for stealing our oil money in the 70s.":thumbsdown:


Stop ranting. I have yet to see a state sponsored event where "Death to Iraq" was chanted.

I never said Iran was evil. I would never claim that. I do think their leadership is terrible though.

I like how you call me misinformed but you naturally assume any aggression towards Iran has to do with a War for Profit or revenge from 27 years ago.

[Zaknafien]

I could show you plenty of evangelical Christian rallies that were vigorously pro-invading Iraq, so there's your 'death to israel' analogy. Its all a part of the bringing about of Armaggedon and the end times and such nonsense---Which, ironically, is the same thing the radicals Shias in Iran believe about the Twelth Imam and the End Times. Point is, there are crazies on both sides, and it does everyone well to view the hyperbole with a pound of salt.

The question of religious screening being "acceptable" in a "True" democracy is ludicrous. Who is to say what is a true democracy and what is not? Certainly not the West. Cultural Relativism and tolerance is a beautiful thing. "True" democracy in the Western definition will not work everywhere in the world. Cultures are different. Period.

Name a country that Iran has invaded in the past, I dont know, say 100 years. Then compare that with the number of countries the US has invaded in half that time. Who is belligerant?

By the way, Bush did take the US out of the non-proliferation agreement, If I recall correctly. I may have been in Afghanistan about that time though so I may not remember rightly.

Of course its a war for profit, what other possible reason would the corporate media neocon puppets have for going into Iran? It is certainly no threat to America. Being pissed off at Israel is certainly not an excuse to obliterate a nation of people like we did in Iraq. When will they learn from their mistakes? Not bloody soon, most likely.

[Xiahou]

Iraq was another democracy, until we overthrew the regime. Sure, Saddam always did very will at the polls, but he was a popular guy afterall. :beam:
Iran has some democratic trappings, but they are far from a free/open democracy.

I love the site that's linked though. Exposing distortion via even more distortion. Pot? Meet kettle. :dizzy2:
I think most everyone knows that FNC leans Republican, just like most people know many other media outlets tend to lean Democrat. However, anyone that thinks all the media outlets marched enthusiastically and unquestioningly to war has a very short-term memory.

[Ice]

[QUOTE=Zaknafien]I could show you plenty of evangelical Christian rallies that were vigorously pro-invading Iraq, so there's your 'death to israel' analogy. Its all a part of the bringing about of Armaggedon and the end times and such nonsense---Which, ironically, is the same thing the radicals Shias in Iran believe about the Twelth Imam and the End Times. Point is, there are crazies on both sides, and it does everyone well to view the hyperbole with a pound of salt.

No, the point is there are crazies on both sides, but one side is state sponsering these crazies.


The question of religious screening being "acceptable" in a "True" democracy is ludicrous. Who is to say what is a true democracy and what is not? Certainly not the West

... I never said the word true. Check my post again.

What is ludicrous is you lumping the half arse "democracy" Iran has with the democracies in most of the free world.


Cultural Relativism and tolerance is a beautiful thing. "True" democracy in the Western definition will not work everywhere in the world. Cultures are different. Period.

.... Again, what is your point? You are giving Iran credit for having a democracy, but then justifying their not so democracy based on them being a different culture.



Name a country that Iran has invaded in the past, I dont know, say 100 years. Then compare that with the number of countries the US has invaded in half that time. Who is belligerant?


A loaded question here. It's kind of hard to compare Iran to the United States. A better question would be "Do you think Iran would have invaded less, more, or the same amount of people the US did if they had the capability ?"


By the way, Bush did take the US out of the non-proliferation agreement, If I recall correctly. I may have been in Afghanistan about that time though so I may not remember rightly.


That was the anti ballistic missile treaty. Either you got the two confused or just made that up on the spot right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty



Of course its a war for profit, what other possible reason would the corporate media neocon puppets have for going into Iran?

Lol


It is certainly no threat to America. Being pissed off at Israel is certainly not an excuse to obliterate a nation of people like we did in Iraq.

I agree it's currently not a threat, hence me saying before that i don't think any military action will be taken.

Can Iran be a threat? Yes, if they develop nuclear weapons and destablize the Middle East by creating a massive arms race.



When will they learn from their mistakes? Not bloody soon, most likely.

I disagree.

[Marshal Murat]

To Zak's most recent post...
Talk about a strawman argument.
Are we talking about Fox or invading Iran here?
If it is Fox, stick to spinning it about how 'Fox is biased'
If it is about invading Iran, then why didn't you say so?
But I'll bite

You are comparing a lion and a leopard with Iran and America. You could say the same about North Korea. They haven't 'invaded' anyone in the past 50 years, but that doesn't mean they are the most peaceful people.

What ever happened to your rants about separation of church-and-state? Why is acceptable for imams and religiously driven groups to screen candidates in Iran, when Southern Baptists can't do the same about state senators? Democracy is where everyone gets a vote, no matter their race, sex, or religion. To screen it is comparable to Jim Crow laws in the South. Just because the South is a 'different culture' doesn't mean they should be able to discriminate based on skin color. Does that mean that because Canada is of a different culture, they can start discriminating against people of Inuit or Eskimo heritage, and that would be okay?

Could you get us Youtube clips of those 'Death to Iraqi' marches with Iraqi flag burning and stomping? Then I will believe you.


2nd - If this was a 'profit driven war' then why isn't there a peep about
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Bahrain, Oman, Mexico, Nigeria, or Canada?
EIA Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)
3rd - If you think that America has pulled out of the NNPT, then go find a source and show it to us, and update Wikipedia.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I could show you plenty of evangelical Christian rallies that were vigorously pro-invading Iraq, so there's your 'death to israel' analogy.
No, it most certainly isn't. Show me where they said the words 'Death to Iraq' or drop the argument.


The question of religious screening being "acceptable" in a "True" democracy is ludicrous. Who is to say what is a true democracy and what is not? Certainly not the West.

Bleargh. What a load of relativistic baloney. A democracy (or more accurately, a Republic) allows everyone of age to vote for anyone they please.


Cultural Relativism and tolerance is a beautiful thing. "True" democracy in the Western definition will not work everywhere in the world.
So don't call them a democracy.


Cultures are different. Period.
And their's is bad. The country isn't less bad if they use the excuse of a different culture for the harm they inflict.


Of course its a war for profit,
How would invading Iran be profitable? We're spending billions in Iraq and I don't see the US gov't getting oil checks.


what other possible reason would the corporate media neocon puppets have for going into Iran?
Gee, that's not begging the question. Maybe something to do with Iranian weapons killing US soldiers in Iraq, and Iran trying to get nukes.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

I could show you plenty of evangelical Christian rallies that were vigorously pro-invading Iraq, so there's your 'death to israel' analogy.
Pardon me. I thought you'd said you could replace 'Israel' with 'Iraq' in the following quote and you'd be talking about the United States. . .

Any country that has public rallies chaning "Death to Isreal", does not need nuclear weapons.
Apparently, I misread, and you actually meant some US Christian groups were vigorously supportive of the Iraqi invasion, not that there were public rallies chanting 'Death to Iraq' in America. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

I'll agree that Iran has one of the best working democracies in a Muslim middle-eastern nation. That's largely because they have so little competition, namely a bunch of dictatorships/kingdoms and Turkey, which both is in the middle east and is the best example of a secular democracy in a Muslim nation in the region. Israel of course also has a much better-functioning democratic government, as previously pointed out, but is not Muslim.

Oh, and of course I'll agree that Fox News is pretty pathetic, and that invading Iran would be moronic.

Ajax

[Spetulhu]

Religious nutcases? Do you honestly think anyone could run for US President without being blatantly religious? In Iran the religious "advisory council" screens candidates first, in the US neither major party will sponsor you if you don't pray. What's the difference?

[Geoffrey S]

Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
Movie got a lot of things wrong, but that I liked.

[naut]

Would it hurt them to recognize Israel and make peace instead of supporting terrorists and insurgency groups?
It depends on who you mean by them. It would hurt those in power, because hatred of Israel is so endemic amongst the population they would most likely be overthrown and replaced by more radical and violent groups.

Much like in the Lebanon War of 1982 (Operation Peace for Galilee), where Israel invaded Lebanon to push PLO terrorists further North and prevent them undertaking raids into Israel. However, this destabilised the region, and the refugees lost the simple unity and security that the PLO organised camps had offered. Thus they turned to more violent measures, and hey presto Hizbollah/Hezbollah was created, and this time with direct Syrian funding. Which turned out to be much worse than the rather "moderate" PLO, who received no Syrian backing (because Syria saw them as too moderate, and too open to negotiate with Israel) and who's attacks were much less of a threat than the constant rocket attacks of Hizbollah/Hezbollah. Not to mention that Syria became more likely to use or let terrorists use their Soviet armed missile batteries in the Bekka Valley.

So by removing the loose bonds of a quasi-government, a more radical and psychotic group was created and installed.

However, it would be nice if they did recognise Israel, like Egypt did in the 1970s with the Camp David Accords, but that isn't going to happen. The reasons Egypt made peace are simply not relevant for contemporary Iran:


Egypt has a direct boarder with Israel, Iran does not.
Egypt was economically crippled after the War of Independence, the Suez Crisis, the War of Attrition, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Iran's economy is stable at the moment.
Egypt wanted to get out of the Soviet's sphere of influence, so they could receive US aid and financial support to develop and stabilise their country, through the construction of the Aswan dam and other industrial schemes. Iran does not need to get out of Russia's orbit, and they certainly won't get/don't need US aid.
Egypt wanted the Sinai Peninsula returned so they could once again get valuable income from the running of the Suez Canal, (which was nationalised in 1953). Iran doesn't have any territory to be returned.


And whoever mentioned that Iran's government is not entirely Democratic is absolutely right, have a virtual cookie. The Iranian Government works like this:


https://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2952/schemagvtiranenek6.png


They ban music, dissent, clothes, even hairstyles. How in the world can you call that a democracy?!?!
The main problem is that traditional Islamic culture is patriarchal and the leaders of society are Muslim clerics or Imams, which is not easily translated to Democracy. Khalifahs were direct descendants of Mohammed (the Royal Family of Jordan are related to Mohammed for example) and ruled the nation by divine right, and all law was the law of Allah. This view has carried through in the perceptions of modern Islamists, who believe that the only law is Sharia Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_Law) and that the heads of state should be the wisest Imams, a view that does not favour a Democratic system. Simply put a large percentage of Muslims who follow the traditional belief structures of Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist) see Democracy as unnecessary and unfaithful -- wrong in the eyes of Allah.

I also question the mention of dissent, as Muslims generally aren't quiet if they feel wronged. Look at Syria, in the 1960s they had 3 coups in the space of 5 years to replace the Ba'ath party and then the military regime(s). And look at regular insistence of Muslims of the wrong-doing of Israel and the West. So the lack of action against the current Theocratic Government, which has strains of Secular Government as-well, indicates to me two things:


Either the opposition is divided and unable to unite to overthrow current institutions.
Or, more likely, the majority of the population follows and believes in Sharia Law, Theocratic Government and leaders being Imams appointed by Allah.

[Zaknafien]

Islamism doesnt apply to Iran for the most part, however. Most Shia have always been traditionally leftist leaning and prone to Socialism and are recently seeing Democracy as an important tool in brinigng around the proper rule of state along Shia doctrine. The teachings of important Ayatollahs like Sistani, for instance, are in direct opposition to the rule of jurists as laid out by Khomeini.

[Geoffrey S]

Rythmic, nicely balanced post. :2thumbsup:

[naut]

Iran is an Islamic Republic, which is a de-facto Democracy. It is generally stable and quite secular. However, it has undeniable roots with Islamism, look at how Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, a role that was created for a Marja, in which he can make legal decisions based on Islamic law. This combined with the head of the Judiciary being unelected means that secular laws and cases can be overruled by Islamic law.

I agree with you that many Shia have been left leaning, mostly in the hope they would gain USSR support and arms during the Cold War era. However, "socialism" within the Middle East truly died as an effective political stance in the 1960s, after the Six Day War and The Camp David Accords which signal the "defeat" of Pan-Arab Nationalism. Nasser was the beacon for a United Arabia and socialism in the Middle East, but Israel's humiliating victory really signed the death certificate. The socialist Syrian Ba'ath Party was overthrown, and similar coups happened in places like Yemen. Yet, socialism does not automatically mean democracy, Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath party, but not exactly democratic.


and are recently seeing Democracy as an important tool in brinigng around the proper rule of state along Shia doctrine.
This statement completely lacks any proof. If anything, sections of democracy are absorbed into Islamism, (with Iran being an exception), but it is:


Either for show and not actually practised.
Or sections of it to decide minor Party elements, and the input of the general populace is limited.


I agree on you about Sistani, but its not that notable Islamists don't agree with democratic ideals. It's that the "majority" and those with the most influence, political power and those who are actually in power in many Middle Eastern nations don't believe in democratic ideals, and oppose them.

[Tribesman]

How would invading Iran be profitable? We're spending billions in Iraq and I don't see the US gov't getting oil checks.

I know , rather silly wasn't it , what was that bloke called who objected to that ? oh yeah flip flopper .

They put forward a policy where the US government would be getting oil cheques from the new government of Iraq to pay for all the stuff America is doing in that country , and threw it out in favour of paying for everything with US taxpayers money and letting big oil companies buy all the rights to those nice Iraqi oil cheques .
Iraq is profitable , very profitable if you are in the right business and have the right friends , if you are just a taxpayer then its a big drain .

[Ice]

It depends on who you mean by them. It would hurt those in power, because hatred of Israel is so endemic amongst the population they would most likely be overthrown and replaced by more radical and violent groups.

Meh. I don't think it would hurt them to much. I would assume most of the reason why the people hate Israel is due to the government rhetoric spewed out. Mellowing out a little bit and becoming more moderate wouldn't be a bad thing.




However, it would be nice if they did recognise Israel, like Egypt did in the 1970s with the Camp David Accords, but that isn't going to happen. The reasons Egypt made peace are simply not relevant for contemporary Iran:


Egypt has a direct boarder with Israel, Iran does not.
Egypt was economically crippled after the War of Independence, the Suez Crisis, the War of Attrition, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Iran's economy is stable at the moment.
Egypt wanted to get out of the Soviet's sphere of influence, so they could receive US aid and financial support to develop and stabilise their country, through the construction of the Aswan dam and other industrial schemes. Iran does not need to get out of Russia's orbit, and they certainly won't get/don't need US aid.
Egypt wanted the Sinai Peninsula returned so they could once again get valuable income from the running of the Suez Canal, (which was nationalised in 1953). Iran doesn't have any territory to be returned.



I was never attempting to say they were. I was just saying it wouldn't be a bad idea for Iran to.


And whoever mentioned that Iran's government is not entirely Democratic is absolutely right, have a virtual cookie. The Iranian Government works like this:


https://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2952/schemagvtiranenek6.png


Very nice diagram, thanks.


The main problem is that traditional Islamic culture is patriarchal and the leaders of society are Muslim clerics or Imams, which is not easily translated to Democracy. Khalifahs were direct descendants of Mohammed (the Royal Family of Jordan are related to Mohammed for example) and ruled the nation by divine right, and all law was the law of Allah. This view has carried through in the perceptions of modern Islamists, who believe that the only law is Sharia Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_Law) and that the heads of state should be the wisest Imams, a view that does not favour a Democratic system. Simply put a large percentage of Muslims who follow the traditional belief structures of Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist) see Democracy as unnecessary and unfaithful -- wrong in the eyes of Allah.

I also question the mention of dissent, as Muslims generally aren't quiet if they feel wronged. Look at Syria, in the 1960s they had 3 coups in the space of 5 years to replace the Ba'ath party and then the military regime(s). And look at regular insistence of Muslims of the wrong-doing of Israel and the West. So the lack of action against the current Theocratic Government, which has strains of Secular Government as-well, indicates to me two things:


Either the opposition is divided and unable to unite to overthrow current institutions.
Or, more likely, the majority of the population follows and believes in Sharia Law, Theocratic Government and leaders being Imams appointed by Allah.



Again, good post, but that wasn't me who you quoted. I think you have the names confused. :book:

[Xiahou]

That chart is pretty mind-numbing without reading the accompanying Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics) entry and even then, it's pretty convoluted. What an incestuous system of government. Basically it boils down to this: no one gets elected unless the Supreme Leader approves of them. Democracy? :no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It just struck me, on reviewing this chart a second time (saw it a few months back on another Iran thread), why it seems so interestingly familiar.

The thought that just tumbled into my head was the parallels between this structure and that of Holy Mother Church. There too, it is more of an autocracy leavened with oligarchy and smatterings of democracy.

[Papewaio]

Well the Pope is elected...

[Ice]

Well the Pope is elected...

By a College of Cardinals that the previous Pope appointed...

:sweatdrop:

[Papewaio]

Who elects the electoral college?

[naut]

but that wasn't me who you quoted. I think you have the names confused.
Sorry, I meant CR. Woops. :embarassed:


I was never attempting to say they were. I was just saying it wouldn't be a bad idea for Iran to.
I know, but I thought I'd explain why it would be hard for them to anyhow.

[Ice]

Who elects the electoral college?

That elects the Pope?

I think the previous Pope appoints them.

[Brenus]

“The thought that just tumbled into my head was the parallels between this structure and that of Holy Mother Church. There too, it is more of an autocracy leavened with oligarchy and smatterings of democracy”: Well, some said it is the last Fascist State in Europe…

“That elects the Pope? I think the previous Pope appoints them.” The Pope is allegedly the First of the Equal… So the Cardinals put in place by the former one elected one of them to lead the community…
Remember, at the origin, there were 5 popes, Rome, Constantinople and 3 others in Africa (I don’t remember where) then the Muslim Conquest erased 3 and the Schism 1 was left for the Western World…

[HoreTore]

Well, some said it is the last Fascist State in Europe…

Which would be very true. The only thing it lacks, is that the pope, once elected, cannot ever be dumped for a better candidate, which is a pretty vital aspect of ze fascist ztate...

[Zaknafien]

whoever mentioned the electoral college is right; they are unelected party loyalists, which makes the United States NOT a democracy at all and yet still a Republic. Much like Iran :)

[Ronin]

Which would be very true. The only thing it lacks, is that the pope, once elected, cannot ever be dumped for a better candidate, which is a pretty vital aspect of ze fascist ztate...

well....you might not be able to dump him......but you can always bump him off.
*coughcoughJohnPaulIcoughcough*

[Sir Moody]

That chart is pretty mind-numbing without reading the accompanying Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics) entry and even then, it's pretty convoluted. What an incestuous system of government. Basically it boils down to this: no one gets elected unless the Supreme Leader approves of them. Democracy?

The British Monarch can disolve Parliment and refuse a Prime minter who gets the popular vote if they chose too - (they wouldnt do it but they have the power) Irans system is no different to ours

different shoes for different feet - the people still get to elect someone of their chosing for some roles it IS a democracy - just their own varient.

[Kralizec]

“The thought that just tumbled into my head was the parallels between this structure and that of Holy Mother Church. There too, it is more of an autocracy leavened with oligarchy and smatterings of democracy”: Well, some said it is the last Fascist State in Europe…

“That elects the Pope? I think the previous Pope appoints them.” The Pope is allegedly the First of the Equal… So the Cardinals put in place by the former one elected one of them to lead the community…
Remember, at the origin, there were 5 popes, Rome, Constantinople and 3 others in Africa (I don’t remember where) then the Muslim Conquest erased 3 and the Schism 1 was left for the Western World…

Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria (only the last one is in Africa ~;P)


Which would be very true. The only thing it lacks, is that the pope, once elected, cannot ever be dumped for a better candidate, which is a pretty vital aspect of ze fascist ztate...

:inquisitive:
I haven't seen Benedict in military fatigues heading a military parade yet...or maybe I just haven't paid attention.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Guided by the Holy Spirit, the College of Cardinals selects the new Holy Father. The Holy Father then wields huge influence in the selection of new members of that group, as well as appointing the other heads of government for the Vatican and committees/councils for administering Canon Law or making statements about/changes to doctinal matters.

As a theocratic (I've always chuckled at that word, as God does not rule directly) state, there is no need for a separate civilian authority, though in practice many of the functions of a President and cabinet are appointed positions within the Vatican. There are many who would argue that Iran is functionally no different, given the pre-screening of candidates.

While there is no "electorate" per se, the members of the church do wield influence by influencing the leadership at a diocesan level. As and when Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals perceive the needs and moods of their flocks, the sentiments of the church as a whole are reflected. As you will have noted, this process is rarely known for its rapidity.

The parallel is not exact. I merely thought it interesting that some points of similarity existed given the religious focus of both states. Might such forms of government be a necessary component for the practical survival of a theocracy?


Zak':

The founding fathers very specifically vested the electoral power in a college of electors. This was done to preserve the sovereignty of the several states and to prevent regional domination by any one area or group of states. A state could, and still can, select electors to the college by any measure felt to be appropriate by that state's legislature. This was (and I believe is) useful in that a candidate for President did not need the support of all states to secure election, but needed to be fairly broadly acceptable -- rather than hugely acceptable to one or two very populous states.

As you rightly note, this is not a purely democratic form -- simple vote counting -- but is a channeled democratic element. This is a hallmark of a Republic as a government form. Furthermore, voters were restricted as well. Only those who were eligible to vote for the largest legislative branch in a given state were eligible to vote in federal elections. At the time, many states had property requirement for voting (in addition to all of the "traditional" prohibitions against women, etc). Again, this is a restriction on pure democracy (though it should be noted that Athens and all of the other historic "democracies" alse had restrictions on suffrage).

The problem with Iran is not that they have restrictions on pure democracy -- such restrictions have demonstrated their value historically -- but the DEGREE of those restrictions in practice. In practice, the "1st voice" of Iran wields much more power than most Western democracies would vest in any one person, and does so with fewer counterbalancing restrictions.

[Fragony]

Maybe it is just me but I find it pretty believable what fox says. Fox isn't that bad really, compared to our media it is pretty balanced, at least they allow opposing views in their programs. Bit hypocritical though, the 'family channel' broadcasted porn here most of the time. Yep, Fox. PORN.

[Geoffrey S]

As a theocratic (I've always chuckled at that word, as God does not rule directly) state, there is no need for a separate civilian authority, though in practice many of the functions of a President and cabinet are appointed positions within the Vatican.
Just an aside, but doesn't theocracy also mean states where it is believed the ruler rules with the mandate of God, as it were is His representative on earth (in a Christian or Muslim example)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just an aside, but doesn't theocracy also mean states where it is believed the ruler rules with the mandate of God, as it were is His representative on earth (in a Christian or Muslim example)?

You are quite correct. I'm just having fun with the literal translation/etymology.

[Brenus]

Wearing his Hitler Jurgen uniform? Oops, bad taste…:shame:
However this bring us back to Fox which would have been Gobel's posthumous pride...:beam:

[Tribesman]

Just an aside, but doesn't theocracy also mean states where it is believed the ruler rules with the mandate of God,
Wouldn't that include George Bush ?

[Del Arroyo]

Invade Iran? **** no. What we should do is bomb the **** out of them.

Is Iran evil? No. But they are deeply engaged in a myriad of hostile activities against us. They do this because they believe it to be in their national interest. And it should be in our national interest to punch them in the nuts.

My job is not strategy or politics so if I've overlooked something well oops.

[Tribesman]

My job is not strategy or politics so if I've overlooked something well oops.
Well perhaps you overlooked whether punching them in the nuts would really be in your national interest .

[CrossLOPER]

Invade Iran? **** no. What we should do is bomb the **** out of them.
This will solve many problems.

[Del Arroyo]

Well perhaps you overlooked whether punching them in the nuts would really be in your national interest .

Well, the fact is that they believe we are too committed to our current plan for drawing down in Iraq to take any decisive action against them. What would really make things interesting is if we had the sheer testicles to do a 180, crush all of the pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi government and security forces, and basically start from scratch.

Or we could just "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran".

[Tribesman]

What would really make things interesting is if we had the sheer testicles to do a 180, crush all of the pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi government and security forces, and basically start from scratch.


So you mean get rid of the two main shia parties and some of the minor ones , then restart the kurdish civil war for good measure ? yeah that would be really really interesting .
Sheer testicles is a pretty good summation of that .:dizzy2:

[Geoffrey S]

Wouldn't that include George Bush ?
Kevin Phillips seems to think so. (http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-21stCentury/dp/0143038281/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4419181-2157239?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189117319&sr=8-1)

[Tribesman]

An interesting revue on there Geoffrey

"The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollahs." The GOP has been transformed into "the first religious party in U.S. history," Phillips argues, and it is ushering in an "American Disenlightenment" that rejects the separation of church and state and ignores the teachings of science.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ugh, the noise machine is spinning up again for another round of fear-mongering. Do people actually believe this stuff?:thumbsdown:

http://foxattacks.com/iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs&v3

The most Fox News I've seen was on a trip to Costa Rica, where they sometimes have it on television in San Jose.

I can honestly say it was the worst bull**** I have watched in my life. They spent about five minutes telling viewers that "they wouldn't see that on CNN or any other channel". I spent five minutes shaking my head in disbelief, and thinking "that's because other channels show news".

[Marshal Murat]

Well it went from a
Fox bash, to an Iranian bash, Democracy bash, Pope bash (that's so 20th Century), then to the revelation that dutch family channels have pron, and finally we get to meat of the problem...

I love the org.

[Boyar Son]

Well it went from a
Fox bash, to an Iranian bash, Democracy bash, Pope bash (that's so 20th Century), then to the revelation that dutch family channels have pron, and finally we get to meat of the problem...

I love the org.

you know how threads are, from one thing to completely another, normal.