Iran: Thoughts?

[spb]

Originally Posted by mrsea

If the new democratically elected Palestinian government (Hamas) is any indication of what Bush policy can produce, you don't want that domino effect.

If it was a fair electron and it represents the general will of the majority then it was a good election.

I would claim that Hamas is a legitimate democratic government because it meets both of these criteria. Just because I don't like their beliefs doesn't mean that it isn't democratic.

Iran has banned reform parties in the past thus it was not a legitimate democratic government. This last presidential election they allowed reform parties, but the reformer blew it. While Iran is a democratic government because fair elections were held, I do not believe that the current government as representing the majority view. This will change in three years time, assuming that the elections are fair.

Iraq and Afghanistan may elect parties during the next years that are hostile to the US, but in the long term, the world will be safer when the people in the region are allowed self-rule.

I believe that Palestine is better now for having elected Hamas. The PLO couldn't control Hamas because the PLO did not represent the people. Now that Hamas is an elected they have to respond to the people and hence there is now a control over them that didn't exist before. If there is a public turning away from violence (it is hard to wage was within a democracy as Pres. Bush is learning) Hamas must follow for fear of losing power.

[simbalala]

Originally Posted by spb

Since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq we now have only one solution. Yes, the way which this invasion occurred is ugly, but we can't let the rebuilding of Iraq fail. If the west fails to leave strong and democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan both those living in the region, and those in the west, will suffer. Regardless the resentment toward the Bush administration we have to hope for success.

Success like this?

Q & A: Our Omnipotent President

Q. Can the president spy on Americans without a warrant?
A. The president has to spy on Americans without a warrant! We're at war, and the president's gotta defend America, and he's not gonna wait for a permission slip from a judge or a senator or America to do it!

Q. That's just the kinda tough, no-nonsense thinking I like in a de facto dictator! Now some crazy people say the president broke some silly old laws like FISA and the National Security Act and the Fourth Amendment. Are these crazy people crazy?
A. They sure are! Maybe those laws worked back in 1978 back when Leonid Brezhnev was snortin coke with Ayatollah Khomeini and groovin to the hits of the Bee Gees, but in today's dark and dangerous times they just aren't enough.

Q. Things sure have changed since the innocent days of mutually assured destruction! But is it legal for the president to ignore the law?
A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we're at war! You don't go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!

Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.

Q. See it's the checks and balances that make all the difference in our democratic system.
A. It's true.

[...]

Q. Is the president above the law?
A. Nobody's above the law! As commander-in-chief the president just outranks the law.

Q. So the president doesn't break the law. He just appoints new laws to fill vacancies in the office of law, as empowered by Acticle II of the Shmonstitution!
A. In the presidential order of succession the law falls between Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson.

Q. You can't put the law any higher. It would just slow down the War on Terror with bureaucratic rules and regulations like the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights.
A. If the law outranked the president we'd never get anything done! The president would go toss Osama bin Laden through a plate glass window and the law would call him into his office an go "Dammit president, you're outta control!"

more... http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/...esident-q.html

[Gig']

Some very interesting points made especially simbalala Q&A :-) but

I still believe that we should sweep in front of our own door before looking at the neighbors' dirt and that war is not an answer for peace.

The lyrics of the homonymous songs by you guess who are IMO self explanatory

[Rhisiart]

What real difference is there between religious extremists and Nazis? None. Didn't the recent Iranian President publicly deny that the Holocaust took place?

And its not confined to one particular religion. At Yad Vashem* (the Holocaust memorial in Israel) numerous snide references link the Arabs with Nazis during WWII. In fact it was just one foolish Arab Mayor who did this, not the entire Arab people! This type of extrapolation is just plain propaganda.

And whilst we are on the subject, what about all those Hindu extremists slaughtering Muslims in India?

I’m all for religion when one sticks to the Holy script (whatever book you follow), but once you start corrupting the Bible, Talmud or Koran to suit your political beliefs, you’re on the road to hell boyo.

* The children’s memorial at Yad Vashem is heartbreaking.

[fryke]

And it's not restricted to countries _outside_ the USA, either, rhisiart. Mr. Bush also says things like he's following God's will etc. when attacking countries.

[Rhisiart]

Yes, he does. Frightening.