So what if Iran has the bomb?

pachelbel wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Pachelbel's assertions are so ridiculous I have to wonder why I'm taking the time to comment upon them.

Ridiculous? You better start reading history.[/b]

And then I might find them less ridiculous how?

No, then you might discover the truth! How about that! [/b][/color]
Ridiculous assertion #1: The government in Iran was democratically elected.

They were democratically elected. Prove otherwise.

Opposition parties were not permitted to contest. Do you really need more proof or do you argue against this assertion?

What opposition parties were not permitted? The moderates had their candidates as well as the more religious parties.

Only a moron or someone ideologically motivated would claim this to be true. By definition, if the State refuses to allow certain parties to run for office, ensuing elections are not democratic.

By your definiton, the same is true with the U.S. as defacto, Communist, Socialist, Nazi, much less Green or Independent parties (Natural Law) have a snowballs chance in hell to ever gain power under the regime of the A&B Teams called the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Hardly.The Party in Favor of Ceding Soverignty to the Universal Overlords has a snow balls chance in hell of winning but it can run in America. There is a huge difference (which I am frankly surprised you refuse to acknowledge) between parties having little chance to win an election and parties having no chance because the powers that be refuse them entry to the process.

Let's make it simple for you. No other party than Republican or Democrat can gain power in America. Industry and the media control public opinion and are as effective as any governmental propaganda machine.


Ridiculous assertion #2: The US is not a superpower.

Not only is it a superpower, it is the only superpower. The only nation on earth that has any potential to rival the US is China, and superpower status for China is hardly a foregone conclusion.

The only way for China to gain a military advantage over the US is for the US to cease to concern itself with defense for two or three decades into the future.

China's problems with corruption, disparate levels of wealth, and environmental degradation are exponentially greater than that of the US.

We are not talking about military strength. We are talking economics. The US is in the same position as Rome or Spain or England before their fall. You cannot sustain a military on a shrinking tax base with an out of control trade deficit.

When we talk about international superpowers, only an idiot is not talking about military power. As far as economic power goes, it is a long way between the American fall and the Chinese rise. You were probably someone who argued that Japan was eating America's economic lunch in the early 90's.

China has an enormous potentiallity for two reasons, one readily recognized, the other less politically correct:

1) Sheer size of population
2) The money making roots of the Chinese psyche.


It is absurd to argue that China will march through all of the problems of 20th century powers, like a hot knife through butter, to dominance in the 21st century.

China has enormous challanges (well beyond those of the US) when it comes to ecological degradation, enormous gaps between rich and poor, and the corruption of the power elite.

Sounds like you are describing the US (ecological degradation, big gaps between rich and poor, corruption of the power elite), except that the Chinese have 4,000 years more experience in running an empire than the US's puny 400 years, and the Chinese are infinitely patient people. Americans are not. China and India will be the 21st century superpowers. No doubt about it. Just as few in the 19th c. would have believed that America would rule the world in the 20th century. The power elite of Europe were as turned off and skeptical of representative government as is equal to the current American paranoia of government regulation.

Ridiculous assertion #3: Israel doesn't have a premier historical claim to the Holy Lands.

There are two parties struggling for dominion in the Holy Lands: Israelis and Palestinians.
Any reasonable consideration of history will conclude that to the extent historical claims have a meaning, the Israelis trump the Palestinians.

If you mean that Israel's claim is based on God asking Moses to carry out genocide on the indigenous people of the land of milk and honey, as your rationale for their 'right' to the Holy Land, then I suppose you agree that Hitler was correct in his genocide to make Lebensraum for Germany.

No, I mean those peoples with whom modern day Israelis feel they can draw a straight historical line, owned Palestine well before the Arabic also-rans came along.

The Temple Mount maybe the 3rd most holy site in Islam, but Jeruselem and the site of the Temple of Solomon is the the most holy site in Judaeism. The reason is that Palestine is the land of Jewish origin; it is not the land of Islamic origin.

Babylon and Egypt are also the homes of the Jewish religion. The Rock that is the focal point and reason for Solomon's Temple and the Roman Temple and finally the mosque that is there now was originally a place to worship for neolitiic people and later Caanites. It was stolen by Moses and his rejects from Egypt.

The Palestinians have been in Palestine for over 2000 years. Among them, are Jewish as well as Christian Palestinians. Twenty percent of the Israeli citizens are Palestinian. That doesn't include those in the West Bank and Gaza. You missed the point; it is not about Moslem or Jewish origins. For the past 2000 years there have been Moslem, Christian and Jewish Palestinians. There is no objection to Jews worshipping in Jerusalem.. The question is whether they have the right to rule. Palestinians (jewish) would prefer Palestinians to run their own land rather than immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world.

The Arabs, over 700,000, were in Israel before the Jews, until the Balfour Declaration and the Brits stabbed them in the back and gave it to the Jews. Look it up. It's really easy on a google search.

There are more ridiculous assertions, but these three will do to cast the proper light on pachelbel's claims.

Oh really? Or is it that you could not find answers to properly debate, finn?

Bring it on pachy!

Pachelbel's assertions are so ridiculous I have to wonder why I'm taking the time to comment upon them.

Ridiculous assertion #1: The government in Iran was democratically elected.

Only a moron or someone ideologically motivated would claim this to be true. By definition, if the State refuses to allow certain parties to run for office, ensuing elections are not democratic.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

pachelbel wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Pachelbel's assertions are so ridiculous I have to wonder why I'm taking the time to comment upon them.

Ridiculous? You better start reading history.[/b]

And then I might find them less ridiculous how?

No, then you might discover the truth! How about that! [/b][/color]
Ridiculous assertion #1: The government in Iran was democratically elected.

They were democratically elected. Prove otherwise.

Opposition parties were not permitted to contest. Do you really need more proof or do you argue against this assertion?

What opposition parties were not permitted? The moderates had their candidates as well as the more religious parties.

Only a moron or someone ideologically motivated would claim this to be true. By definition, if the State refuses to allow certain parties to run for office, ensuing elections are not democratic.

By your definiton, the same is true with the U.S. as defacto, Communist, Socialist, Nazi, much less Green or Independent parties (Natural Law) have a snowballs chance in hell to ever gain power under the regime of the A&B Teams called the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Hardly.The Party in Favor of Ceding Soverignty to the Universal Overlords has a snow balls chance in hell of winning but it can run in America. There is a huge difference (which I am frankly surprised you refuse to acknowledge) between parties having little chance to win an election and parties having no chance because the powers that be refuse them entry to the process.

Let's make it simple for you. No other party than Republican or Democrat can gain power in America. Industry and the media control public opinion and are as effective as any governmental propaganda machine.


Ridiculous assertion #2: The US is not a superpower.

Not only is it a superpower, it is the only superpower. The only nation on earth that has any potential to rival the US is China, and superpower status for China is hardly a foregone conclusion.

The only way for China to gain a military advantage over the US is for the US to cease to concern itself with defense for two or three decades into the future.

China's problems with corruption, disparate levels of wealth, and environmental degradation are exponentially greater than that of the US.

We are not talking about military strength. We are talking economics. The US is in the same position as Rome or Spain or England before their fall. You cannot sustain a military on a shrinking tax base with an out of control trade deficit.

When we talk about international superpowers, only an idiot is not talking about military power. As far as economic power goes, it is a long way between the American fall and the Chinese rise. You were probably someone who argued that Japan was eating America's economic lunch in the early 90's.

China has an enormous potentiallity for two reasons, one readily recognized, the other less politically correct:

1) Sheer size of population
2) The money making roots of the Chinese psyche.


It is absurd to argue that China will march through all of the problems of 20th century powers, like a hot knife through butter, to dominance in the 21st century.

China has enormous challanges (well beyond those of the US) when it comes to ecological degradation, enormous gaps between rich and poor, and the corruption of the power elite.

Sounds like you are describing the US (ecological degradation, big gaps between rich and poor, corruption of the power elite), except that the Chinese have 4,000 years more experience in running an empire than the US's puny 400 years, and the Chinese are infinitely patient people. Americans are not. China and India will be the 21st century superpowers. No doubt about it. Just as few in the 19th c. would have believed that America would rule the world in the 20th century. The power elite of Europe were as turned off and skeptical of representative government as is equal to the current American paranoia of government regulation.

Ridiculous assertion #3: Israel doesn't have a premier historical claim to the Holy Lands.

There are two parties struggling for dominion in the Holy Lands: Israelis and Palestinians.
Any reasonable consideration of history will conclude that to the extent historical claims have a meaning, the Israelis trump the Palestinians.

If you mean that Israel's claim is based on God asking Moses to carry out genocide on the indigenous people of the land of milk and honey, as your rationale for their 'right' to the Holy Land, then I suppose you agree that Hitler was correct in his genocide to make Lebensraum for Germany.

No, I mean those peoples with whom modern day Israelis feel they can draw a straight historical line, owned Palestine well before the Arabic also-rans came along.

The Temple Mount maybe the 3rd most holy site in Islam, but Jeruselem and the site of the Temple of Solomon is the the most holy site in Judaeism. The reason is that Palestine is the land of Jewish origin; it is not the land of Islamic origin.

Babylon and Egypt are also the homes of the Jewish religion. The Rock that is the focal point and reason for Solomon's Temple and the Roman Temple and finally the mosque that is there now was originally a place to worship for neolitiic people and later Caanites. It was stolen by Moses and his rejects from Egypt.

The Palestinians have been in Palestine for over 2000 years. Among them, are Jewish as well as Christian Palestinians. Twenty percent of the Israeli citizens are Palestinian. That doesn't include those in the West Bank and Gaza. You missed the point; it is not about Moslem or Jewish origins. For the past 2000 years there have been Moslem, Christian and Jewish Palestinians. There is no objection to Jews worshipping in Jerusalem.. The question is whether they have the right to rule. Palestinians (jewish) would prefer Palestinians to run their own land rather than immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world.

The Arabs, over 700,000, were in Israel before the Jews, until the Balfour Declaration and the Brits stabbed them in the back and gave it to the Jews. Look it up. It's really easy on a google search.

There are more ridiculous assertions, but these three will do to cast the proper light on pachelbel's claims.

Oh really? Or is it that you could not find answers to properly debate, finn?

Bring it on pachy!

Chew on that. I imagine it'd have to be kosher for you.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Pachelbel's assertions are so ridiculous I have to wonder why I'm taking the time to comment upon them.

Ridiculous assertion #1: The government in Iran was democratically elected.

Only a moron or someone ideologically motivated would claim this to be true. By definition, if the State refuses to allow certain parties to run for office, ensuing elections are not democratic.

I have to kinda, sorta side with Pachelbel here, to the extent at least that your definition of democratic elections (elections are not democratic if certain parties are not allowed to run) doesnt hold water.

West-Germany after WW2 forbade the Communist Party from taking part in elections. Spain in 2003 prohibited the Basque Herri Batasuna party from taking part in further elections. Yet would you say that post-war Germany or current Spain did/do not have democratic elections?

More spectacularly, Turkey prohibited the Islamist Welfare party from taking part in further elections in 1998, at a time when it was actually the largest party in the country. Necmettin Erbakan, who had been the Prime Minister of the country for the preceding two years, was banned from active politics for five years.

Yet all these countries (and other examples should be easy to add) are routinely called democracies.

Now, admittedly, Iran is obviously considerably less democratic than all three of the above. The elections in Iran, I would say, were definitely not free and open, for the exact reason you mention: the overwhelming majority of candidates were barred (all the women, for one), parties are not allowed to run.

But even as they stand, they did constitute a free contest between candidates representing fundamentally different political perspectives; they offer a choice that outright dictatorships, from China to Syria, do not, and that autocracies like Saudi-Arabia do not either, at least not on a national level. It is also an arguably more democratic country than Kuwait, where up till now only 15% of the population was allowed to vote.

In reality, Iran occupies that foggy middle ground when it comes to democratic elections that's also shared by, for example, Egypt, where there is a closed contest between parties vetted by the government, while arguably the most major political force, the Muslim Brotherhood, is banned as an organization. Finally in 2005, Brotherhood candidates instead stood as independents, and actually won 20% of the seats, but in the process many violations of the electoral process took place, including nothing less than the arrest of hundreds of Brotherhood members. And still Egypt is generally held up as a US ally that shows how democracy, at least to an extent, can work in the Arab world. Justly or not?

I guess I just dent think its as black or white as either of you purports.

"Interestingly enough, the examples which you cite, and which can be cited of Western "democracies" prohibiting certain noxious parties from gaining a place on the national ballot all address fringe interest groups that have no real chance of gaining power. "

Yeah, that's right. The Dems and Repubs won't allow any other group to gain power. That'd be way too d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-i-c. What you have in the US is the A&B team of the same party.

I would hardly call the Green Party, or the Natural Law Party, or the Independent Party 'dangerous'.

You silly Canuk. The Green Party, the Natural Law Party and the Independent Party (whatever that might be), are all legal in America. If an American wishes to vote for one of these party's candidates, he or she may.

You can argue until pigs fly, but Iran does have a democratically elected government.

And it is clear that whether or not pigs fly, you will believe what you will. Perhaps in Canada the definition of a democratic election encompasses the notion that the Supreme Leader decides who may or may not run, but in the rest of the world (except Iran) that just ain't a democratic election.

And I bet they didn't use voting machines that were rigged, like the ones the Repubs used in the last election....

To the ruling 2% of the US I suppose these various political parties would pose a danger eh?

As to evil, it is apparent that evil resides in the White House. The 'purveyors' of evil have already garnered more than a slither, or whatever you called it, of public support (yourself, for instance) with their spin doctors twisting information & spewing disinformation so that now people believe that the war in Iraq is about democracy - not WMD's, which is why they went to war. Trumped up horse poop.

Anyone who swallows whole the lies that spew from the Bush Adm. could be called a fool, but I think that a stronger word might be called for. However, I shall refrain from obscene language.[/color]

Rant on Canada, rant on.

Why is it preposterous? Because one is offical and one is de facto? The outcome is the same.

Also, the US is not the big superpower anymore. You'll have to get used to that fact. Maybe you'll need some therapy to help you get over the visions of grandeur that seem rife in America? China and India will be the big superpowers in teh 21st century. America is spending far too much and producing far too little to be considered a big player anymore. They are a liability, not an asset.

.Your contention that the U.S. is no longer a superpower is, put simply, ridiculous.