jpost:64% of Americans want war with Iran/question-Why?is it an other country

WTFI Paul Bogdanor?

 

In practice, can you be poverty stricken but have a PHD in politics and international relations and run for president in the US?

If you say you can, then you are a liar.

 

I understand that the apologists of the fascist regime in Iran can't get past the facts that the Iranian people are not free to determine for themselves who will run their country (a fundamental pre-requisite and aspect of democracy) and that they are also denied the fundamental human, civil and political rights that people in truly democratic countries freely exercise. As for the fascist thing, that was on full display in 2009 and remains so to this day. As the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri declared, the regime is "condemned and illegitimate":

That's quite the indictment coming from Ruhollah Khomeini's hand-picked successor...

 

Yes. There is nothing stopping you.

Even if you could not, it would not be because of an arbitrary decision someone in the government made. The rules for becoming president...such as the age limit, are something the masses can change and they apply to everyone, so they are not arbitrary.

 

Nice fairytale. We all know that in reality lack of access to money inhibits real life opportunity. There is no way that a so-called down and out 'bum', no matter how intelligent, would make the selection process - absolutely inconceivable.

So the difference, in practice in terms of outcome, from the two processes, is reduced to a question of semantics.

See ya.

 

In Iran, just like the US, the Iranians have a choice in voting for candidates at elections. See ya.

 

LOL...if you say so.

The fact that most Americans don't want to vote for poor people is not evidence that poor people cannot run.

Iran is technically not a democracy by definition. That is semantics, but it is also true.

 

I didn't say anything thing about Americans not voting for poor people. I'm talking about the fact that a down and out would not even have he opportunity of moving from the starting block. The American Dream is an illusion. Somebody needs to tell you that. When you snap out of your fantasy world, let me know.

Iran is a democracy in as much as the Iranian public vote for politicians in elections.

 

...because no one will vote for him. Yeah, thats what I said.

Were you an only child or something? You do not seem to handle disagreement well.

You forgot to put "vote" in quotes.

They can only vote for whoever the government arbitrarily allows them to. Therefore Iran is not a democracy by definition.

 

Be sure to carry your disingenuousness out of here, too. Unlike the US and other truly democratic nations, Iranians only get to vote for the candidates that the Guardian Council tells them they can vote for.

 

WTF are you babbling about? I'm living the American Dream, trout.

Now that someone has told you that, you can snap out of your own Chomskyite fantasy land...

 

fascist regime with 2 terms presidency, active election company , abortion rights, working - driving - studding women ...ok, how you call regime in the KSA?

 

Ok, if it pleases you, I'll put "vote" in inverted commas. There you go. And American's could only in effect choose to "vote" for one pro-corporate presidential candidate against another pro-corporate candidate on the premise that one of only two could conceivably win. The sooner you grasp that democracy in the US and throughout the countries of Western liberal democracies is a farce, you will be able to move on..

 

I believe monarchy is what one calls the Saudi regime (amongst other things).

 

They would need other Americans to agree with them before their candidate could win. That is how it should be.

I disagree. The masses have the final say in who runs their government(s)...by definition that is democracy.

 

Good for you. I'm happy for you that you've broken through the glass ceiling, if indeed you have. That still doesn't detract from the central issue that without money, democracy in the sense of availing people to the potential for increasing opportunities in life, are greatly restricted.

Lack of money restricts social mobility and with it, the opportunity to network. Without contacts and money there is no way of availing oneself to a career in politics - it's absolutely inconceivable. Bush was dumb but had money. Obama is bright and also has money. Money distorts and corrupts

In turn, having access to large quantities of it, distorts human relations. So even to get off the starting blocks as far as a career in politics is concerned, you must have money. If you do break through and develop a career path working yourself up the greesy pole, that will itself be predicated upon perpetuating the political ideology pertaining to money worship.

So you can see that the system is mutually self sustaining. If the chain is broken, the system breaks with it. This underlying logic is equally applicable whether you are a citizen of both the US or Iran. The fundamental principle is the same. Political opportunities in both the US and Iran are determined by money and contacts, irrespective of whether voting is put in inverted commas or not.

 

LOL - "Glass ceiling"?

Is The Man holding you down, trout, or might it be someone much closer to home?

I certainly wouldn't make the mistake of confusing democracy with the ability to increase one's opportunities in life. That being said, many poor people, freeloaders and the cynical socialists who pander to them fully exploit our democratic system as a means of enriching themselves. It's turned into one of the most lucrative, corrupt, mutually-reinforcing rackets in our country, and judging from the looks of other countries, this problem isn't confined to the United States.

We've had many a president who has come from humble and/or middle-class backgrounds. Yes, money (and power) can corrupt and distort, but one doesn't have to be rich to get into politics and reach the pinnacle of power in this country.

Not necessarily.

Awkaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Nonsense. In the US, if you've got the brains, drive and people skills, the sky's the limit as far as one's political opportunities go. That's anything but the case in Iran, which is far more similar to the conditions that exist in authoritarian (*)(*)(*)(*)holes like China, North Korea and Cuba where political opportunities are strictly limited to one's ideology. Heck, if you buck the ideology in those countries, you could wind up dead or imprisoned on account of your political beliefs.

 

monarchy gives 0 information about the KSA´s regime, Denmark , UK, Sweden are monarchies as well ...

 

You know full well that they are not the same forms of monarchy, litwin...

 

Nobody is holding me down, least of all a man. I'm not gay, if that was your implication. Perhaps you don't understand what we in the UK mean by the glass ceiling? Oh well.

Perhaps you have evidence of this so-called 'racket' of mutually-reinforcing socialist corruption. Bearing in mind, that anyone slighty to the left of the tea-party, is normally regarded as a socialist, in the US, I can see how you might think there is some kind of pinko conspiracy going on in the US.

The truth is that you cannot come from no money and engage within the democratic process in the US. That's the point I was making. Yes, of course, there are the odd exceptions to the rule where poor people do break through the glass ceiling, but generally, if you are from a lower-working background or from the what is euphemistically termed as the underclass, inclusive democracy is a concept restricted to others.

My point stands. Engagement within the political establishment is predicated on money, social networks and background and thus the prevailing orthodoxy that are implied by these factors, whether you live in Tehran or Tampa.

 

no i dont, Britain rules by 100 years old laws and with out a constitution as well . my point was that Iran compare to the ksa is a liberal democracy

 

Whether or not Iran is a "democracy" has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Iranian people should be victims of US and/or Israeli aggression.

Democracy sucks anyway. Who wants a bunch of morons deciding their lives and their fate? Anyone ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"? Democracy is complete BS.

 

So if you can't beat them, join them? To me, if you need to resort to the enemies tactics when fighting this kind of war you're admitting defeat.

It kind of reminds me of an incident here where a university student union tried to stop a rather outspoken clergyman from speaking because he was against free speech. Kind of same hypocrisy if you use their ROE when you are fighting to stop this kind of thing.

I'm still kind of trying to figure out what gives the US these rights anyway.

 

A list of countries that (in your words) "have no right to exist as a state"
Afghanistan
Bahrain
Belarus
Bhutan
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cameroon
Central African Republic
China
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Haiti
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Laos
Liberia
Libya
Malaysia
Morocco
Myanmar
Nepal
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Republic of the Congo
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Vietnam
Zimbabwe

You better get busy.

 

Why do modern politicians in modern times only have wars and analogies to war for public policy choices?