All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer ==== Nice quote, scarecrow. What stage are we in now?
For which part of this thread? And whose posts? I have not ridiculed so much as have stated that some here are wrong. BTW http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/politicsnational_story_022202657.html Women NOT allowed to run. From the article: Women are allowed to vote in Iran and run for parliament positions — and they were a large base of support for Khatami and the reform movement. The initial announcement had brought hopes among some that that the council was trying to redeem itself after last year's parliamentary elections. In that ballot, the council disqualified more than 2,000 reformist candidates, effectively barring reformers from the assembly. The move led to a low turnout and reformists denounced the vote a "historical fiasco." Hard-liners gained control of the parliament in that election, fueling the decline of the reform movement. So I was only partly correct, women can be in parliament, but cannot run for the highest office. Oh about the sham elections, even Iranians who actually live in Iran called them a "historical fiasco" so in the past 2 elections, we have seen over 3000 candidates barred from running for office. Yeah real democratic of them.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6 http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1840 http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/06/05aa2132-f4aa-4d49-8426-b8db73872c82.html Iran: Women Defy Ban, Attend Soccer Match By Golnaz Esfandiari Female fans cheer on Iran's national soccer team on 8 June Iran qualified for the World Cup yesterday by beating Bahrain 1-0 in a match in Tehran. The win led to mass street celebrations across the country. The game also represented a victory for Iranian women, after a group of them pushed their way into the stadium to watch the event. Women in Iran have been barred from attending soccer matches since the establishment of the Islamic republic some 26 years ago. Like I said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0413/dailyUpdate.html Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons programs As Sharon renews warnings to Bush about Iran's nuclear program, the US may be ready to turn up the heat on Israel's nukes. Since I have not found a link for Iran saying they had the right to nukes, I will accept that I was wrong there based on lack of evidence. So far the only inaccuracy in my post.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0413/dailyUpdate.html Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons programs As Sharon renews warnings to Bush about Iran's nuclear program, the US may be ready to turn up the heat on Israel's nukes. Since I have not found a link for Iran saying they had the right to nukes, I will accept that I was wrong there based on lack of evidence. So far the only inaccuracy in my post.
Wrong.... women are allowed to run as dozens of them filled the application forms (if they weren’t allowed they couldn’t have accessed the application and have their voice reached to ppl through the regimes TV stations!)... they being recognized as "not eligible" has nothing to do with Iranian point of view or laws but has everything to do with the corrupted government which are hated by everyone... you make it sound like it's Saudi Arabia and society is actually against women running for presidency... the real deal had a lot of conspiracy and illegitimacy theories following it!... real deal indeed! NO! that would be your brethren India, Pakistan and Israel! Wrong... women are only not allowed to attempt games in Azadi stadium due to hooliganism... even in Shah's time there was similar situations!... as you weren't smart enough to put the level of support therefore you are wrong again... the fact that US didn't hand over the MEK units they captured after invading Iraq to Iran shows support there... for IR they are not terrorist and they openly fund them... but there a lot of groups out there covertly funded by US... NO, ignorance is a bliss for you, that’s the only thing 100% in your case!...
I posted links to support my case. You obvously could not. So your views are just that views. I have facts listed in my posts, but please don't let the truth interfere with your little rant.
Oh, it's been awhile, so I guess you missed the barrage of "gay marriage is destroying Western civilization" threads he used to specialize in. From what I've heard, he was even worse before I became a regular junky of this forum.
People, please do not hijack this thread. If you want to talk about gay, israel, or whatever, open your own thread.
While I normally see eye to eye with you, I think it's possible that your Iranophobia has clouded your thinking. I'm not an apologist exactly, but I think there is certainly enough blame to go around between the US and Iran that we should think about starting over with diplomacy and actually re-reading the NPT. Singling out Iran for special treatment and insults isn't going to improve relations and will probably just serve to alienate them. Meanwhile, you started this thing off with a bunch of assertions which have largely been dispelled, nuanced, or proven to be more complex issues than you put forth: This has been done. If the "real deal" is a two man race between well-heeled millionaires with dodgy election practices in key states as a continuation of a political war between two unyielding philosophies, then I guess you're right. This makes it better than Iran's, but the "real deal"? That Iran has elections at all makes it several steps above other countries that we do support. I think this was covered. This seems simplistic in light of earlier comments. In the current narrow definition of terrorist=Muslim/AQ related groups... probably none, although we wouldn't know if we did. However, we have supported, trained, and funded in the past many groups with similar aims, views, and goals, so this statement is a bit simplistic. Maybe in light of this, you should back, just a bit, off this: Again, I think Americans in general have this vision-clouding view of Iran--even people who regularly bash Bush subscribe to his Axis of Evil comments. Maybe an even handed look at the issue, free from ethno-centrism and impartial to US and Iranian interests would be worthwhile.
"Iran Focus" is not a source. No more than the National Inquirer, except the latter just wants to sell papers while Iran Focus lies intentionally to incite more hatred against the regime in Tehran among foreigners. It is a source that wants the UN and the US to impose sanctions on Iran, and to attack Iran. Not exactly popular sentiments within Iran! As for the question whether women are allowed to run (they can and have been voting in Iran since the 1960s) for the presidency? Here is the answer. Women are allowed to register as candidates for president. However, no woman has been qualified to run yet by the Guardians Council. The Guardians Council did not specifically rule that women are not eligible, but it has never accepted the qualification of any woman candidate either. Since most of the women who have registered, including dozens of teenagers who did not even meet the age eligibility requirements, have not been of major political or religious stature as required under Iranian law, their disqualification is like the disqualification of many male candidates who did not meet the requirements of the law either. There were, however, a couple of women candidates whose qualifications were more serious. The fact that neither of them was approved can be interpreted as a sign that the Guardians Council believes the constitution bars a women from becoming president. Does the Iranian constitution bar women from serving as president? It depends on how you interpret an Arabic word which is also used in Persian? The Iranian constitution provides that the president must be among the political or religious "rajal" of the country. "Rajal", in Arabic, specifically means men. Although the term is originally Arabic, in Persian its meaning has nothing to do with gender. In Persian, it stands for a person of stature; a well known personality, etc. There were requests that the Guardians Council specifically clarify whether the term "Rajal" bars women from becoming president? For now, the current members of the Guardians Council have preferred to act in a way that suggests they believe that women are barred, without being explicit about it. However, until some otherwise qulaified women of truly national stature registers to be a candidate, the Guardians Council can still disqualify women without specifically ruling on the issue of wether women are qualified or not. There were even reports, including by Iran's official news agency IRNA, and carried by various other sources several months before the election, to the effect that the Guardians Council had ruled that women could run if they were otherwise qualified. However, the Guardians Council spokesman who had first made those comments later back tracked, noting the issue is not specifically raised before the council, and left the answer as murky as ever. Last thing to note. The Guardians Council itself can change. Its members serve fixed terms of office. Under the Iranian constitution, the Guardians Council is composed of 6 clerics appointed by the "Supreme Leader" (Khamenie). And 6 jurists and lawyers chosen by the Iranian parliament from a list nominated by the judiciary.
In fairness to me, I did point out that i was wrong when I could not prove my point, and I did post a link that included a statement that showed I was wrong when it came to what women could and could not run for. I was correct in the statement about women being allowed to attend soccer matches. As for the elections, I do not like the 2 party system that we have, but I also am sure that we did not disallow over 3000 canidates in the last 2 elections either. I personally feel that relations with the US and Iran could easily be improved. It would require a give and take on both sides and in reality would be best for everyone. My position on many of this threads are in relation to these ex-pats who make it a point to bash on the US and point a finger at us like we are the whole problem. The US is to blame for many things, we are certainly not perfect and never will be, however the lack of responsibility taken by the other side is a problem. Basically if we get a thread where intelligent conversation is the rule and issues can be looked at objectivly I think you may find that I am not as big an iranophobic as I portrayed myself here. And yes it is my own fault that this perception of me is there.
Although the spokesman for the Guardians Council later back tracked on these comments, let me post this article because it discusses the issue in terms of who is qualified to run under Iran's constitution. The source for the report is Reuters, although it was published here by Al Jazeera. And let me emphasise again that, as used in Persian, Rajal has never held a "gender" connotation. Although the word is of Arabic origin, in Persian it means "a person of stature". Or a "well known and respected personality". http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5C25E5C5-82C1-4B59-BEC3-CBC31BC58E02.htm
funny... which one of my claims weren't common sense or wasn't covered in the same sources that you provided?! women applying for presidency? America not handing over MEK units to Iran? ppl running their mouth after US elections? IR openly (not covertly) supporting Hezbollah?... the only part could be the women spectators issue but you can't read Farsi and haven’t been in my country to know about women spectators in Iranian sport venues (other than Azadi) but then again I don't need a source if I want to say "it's dark at nights!"...
So you are admitting that the sources I provided are correct and that you cannot refute what i said? ok thank you.
no the interpretation of the source was wrong (there is a difference between saying women who applied (that is the key word) were disqualified and saying they don't let the women run for presidency at all!!.... the latter has social value but the former has governmental value, same goes for your women in the sport events thing)... as I mentioned in my post... but if you want to act dumb about it be my guest!
Kami how many times do I have to tell you? I do not take you seriously thus I do not reply to you seriously. Maybe when you grow up a bit, can post without insulting everyone who disagrees with you, can admit when you are wrong, and can provide links to support your cause then, maybe then, I will take you seriously. Until then, I won't and my replies to your posts will be indicitive of that.
Thank you, getting back to the thread topic, I find it interesting that Saddam is trying to lay blame for his crimes on Iran. His attorneys are playing that old the US hates iran so maybe we can use this to our advantage card.
The problem with discussions, as well as the coverage given, to issues relating to Iran is that they are heavily "politicized". That politicization reflects the following: 1) Official hostility between Iran and the US; 2) Hatred for the regime among Iranian exiles, who in turn view any relaxation of tensions between the two countries as both threatening their position and chances of obtaining funding from the US, as well as their concern that such a relaxation in relations would take away their hope of coming to power through US instituted regime change. 3) The fact that Iran had an 'anti-Western' revolution which brought to the fore voices and values that in effect alienated more Westernized Iranians. I and frankly every Iranian who posts here are part of that larger group, notwithstanding our political differences. However, while Iran's westernized middle and upper middle classes are a larger segment of Iran's population today than their counterparts in most places in the Middle East, the traditional elements are still a majority. They are the overwhelming majority in small towns, in rural areas, and constitute a major force in the poorer neighborhoods in urban areas of Iran such as South Tehran. The result of all this is a "disconnect" between any ability to correctly project or understand events in Iran based on what is being reported in the West. In the process, the kind of hostility ignorance and hatred that characterizes reports on Iran (even some which might be well intentioned) makes any conversation about the country very difficult. Especially when there are those who prefer to hurl insults whenever they run into a viewpoint that is not the one being presented to them in America. At the end of the day, Iran is a huge country (the size of Western Europe) with a large population. Easy generalizations from any side often represent at best only one part or segment of this large, and often divided, country. The same way an Iranian living all his life by the Caspian coast, might see Iran as a place of lush forrests, jungles, with subtropical weather, while an Iranian living in a desert town might have the opposite vantage point, a true understanding of Iran requires that we first move away from simple and false generalizations. From all sides.