Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

Western democracies fall short of ideals too. That's why they're ideals at all. That's why we are somewhat hypocritical calling out other countries for not adhering to ideals we don't as well.

 

Alpha, you should go back a few pages and read again. You'll realise this conversation is basically trying to educate someone from Australia's Arkansas on basic concepts which he's not aware of yet because he's only taken like 2 polisci subjects.

 

Well I mean, in which Western democracy can an entrenched ruling party veto opposition candidates like they do in Iran? Yes we have failings too, but I'd have to say Iran's are much more serious.

 

I never said they would; it's just Baldrick wanted to argue like a grown up and a page and a bit later I'm wishing I'd just blocked him.

 

And I would not contrast liberal democracy with Greek democracy, nor have I stated that there is such a thing as a 'full democracy' (whatever that arbitrary concept means - direct democracy perhaps?). I am suggesting that the definition of democracy is too broad to be a definition of a system by itself.

Yes Ender, I understand the de jur nature of our Constitution. However de facto the Parliament has the true authority over the state and can effectively dissolve the monarchy. As I said the withholding of government blessing or the allowance of elections is done always in the interest of democracy, not in the interests of the head of state or of theology. If you think that the Supreme Leader has the same influence as the Queen then you don't understand the Iranian system.

You're continuing to misunderstand what I am saying and debating against a straw man. Like you have said, I have said many times (I mean how many times do I have to say it?) that there are many different types of democracy (Illiberal, Islamic, Liberal, etc). By the broad definition of democracy Iran is a democracy. However to suggest that this fact undermines the fundamental nature of Iran being a theocracy is not accurate. Iran is primarily and fundamentally theocratic, with the democratic system being subservient to the theocratic system and subject to its constraints. Yes it is important people understand the Iran has a democratic system, but this doesn't change the fact that it is a theocracy fundamentally. Yes, you are correct in saying that Iran is a democracy. But that is wholly insufficient to understand the system of Iran. Islamic democracy and liberal democracy are so different that just saying democracy is borderline pointless.

I am not arguing that Iran is a democracy. I am arguing that it is still primarily a theocracy and the 'democracy card' can't change that fact.

 

http://i.imgur.com/YKIgPcv.gif

 

Realised that you've debated against a strawman? Oh but sure Iran isn't theocratic... because democracy?

 

Oookay, so going back two pages I see this:

In layman's terms, "democracy" is usually understood to mean "liberal democracy". So while yes, on a technical basis you'd probably be correct that Iran's system is a form of democracy, you're also using that terminology in a way that's uncommon in day-to-day conversation. So yeah, it looks to me like you're arguing semantic minutia.

 

Now discussing: Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran, take 2.



Netanyahu talks Iran as protesters demand end to illegal settlements

Nothing like whipping allies into a war frenzy to take focus off yourself building 5500 new housing units in the West Bank.

Israel to build entirely new settlement in West Bank.

Between him wanting a distraction, Trump wanting to appear tough, Michael Flynn itching for a denouement with Iran, and Iran's hardline camp repeatedly sabotaging the presidency with stupid provocations like testing ballistic missiles to portray the president as a naive lame duck with respect to negotiating with the West, all the usual suspects are gathered and playing into each other's hands to finally get this war going.

 

Again, I don't think Bibi wants war with Iran -- just int'l pressure. Iran can definitely hit Israel. Most everyone else in the region... can't. Syria's the better bet, imo.

 

We might need to update the thread title...

 

See, from a right-wing Israeli viewpoint - war's been good for them. They smash their opposition, take all the spoils, keep all that sweet US aid and UN security council protection. Sure the Palestinians will bitch and lob a few rockets, but those rockets keep the political support solid so it's a win-win isn't it?

It's not as if the US is going to tell Israel it's grounded and its bank account is frozen, is it?

 

Doubt it, but Israel's also not done this in the modern era against someone with a ballistic missile program like Iran's. The SCUD rockets from Iraq during the Kuwait invasion was bad, but not awful -- and that's about all Syria might be able to muster up. Jordan and Egypt are no-gos, since they're the only stabilizing forces in the region, and no one's heard from Lebanon enough to care (occasional rockets to Israel, and Israel's constant airspace invasions aside).

Iran, on the other hand, would be a disaster. Iran has capability well beyond SCUD rockets.

 

True, but what I fear is there may well be a belief on the Israeli side that because they've never lost a war they cannot ever lose a war.

Now generally, the 1973 Yom Kippur war was a far closer affair than Israel would have liked, but that's also over 40 years ago.

Combine that with the US cushioning them from the bulk of the consequences of going to war and it's not a good mix.

(Egypt and Jordan are also treaty-bound, not that you'd know it from the way Bibi goes on.)

 

The other great thing about war is that it serves as a wonderful distraction from the realities of international opinion on illegal settlements and the impact of those actions on the peace process. The fog of war is a marvelous cloak over issues which might otherwise cause notice and have consequences. A country "at war" can pretty much justify anything. A war with Iran is something Israel has planned, rehearsed, resourced and 'modelled' for decades -it is not something which they are just contemplating now. Israel is a serious military power because of that formidable military culture. I imagine that if there was military operations against Iran, at the conclusion of hostilities, the settlement borders would have increased well beyond what they would during 'peace' time.

 

I mean, you're not wrong -- and unless General Mattis gets involved on the US-side, there's absolutely no one here with the cache of President HWBush who would be able to stand down Israel as a measure in their own best interests.

 

I'd quite like to be wrong on this one, dp.

 

The issue folks forget with Iraq is... even with them hiding SCUD positions, they take a crapton of time to set-up (2 hours), which can basically be hit by sorties from the Gulf, or Qatar or Kuwait, in ample time. Iraq didn't even get off the bulk of their SCUDs, IIRC.

The Iranian missile program knows this and developed SCUD-like systems that can be ready to go and fire in thirty minutes. And have bigger payloads.

I'd like to think you're wrong too...

 

You don't get it. Iranian Scuds hitting Israel benefits Netanyahu politically.

Actually, towards the end of the war the coalition dedicated something like 2/3rds of its airpower towards hunting Scuds, and the success rate of this was very low. Basically, you can't stop mobile missile launchers from the air. Maybe we can do a bit better nowadays since we've got drones, but I'm pretty sure Scuds still have the advantage here.

 

You've missed the entire point I was making, in that Iran has way, way, way better rockets and ballistic missiles than SCUDs, that will do a lot more damage than bringing down a single building...

 

Israel will go nuclear the instant it looks as if they don't have the upper hand. And Iran will likely throw cyber at both Israel and the US, which will anger the Trumpomaniac that much more, increasing the strength of his tantrum a hundredfold.

 

Damn V03 are you trying to give us all nightmares?

 

I really don't understand how people can feed us paranoia about Iran or North Korea or Pakistan or China's Nuclear Weapons when we have a country who won't admit they have them but will use them quicker than Trump uses Twitter if they were in a real war.