Jump to content
Aarash_Australia

Iranian Government Stocking Up On Food

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A 65% turnout in recent parliamentary elections would show that people still have confidence in the Islamic system. So its kind of pointless. Haters like you will probably never be satisfied.

1. participation in elections is not a referendum

2. no serious person actually believes those turn-out statistics. if you do actually believe them, then what have you got to fear from another referendum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a country to have a referendum every 30 years?

Countries have regularly referendums on a variety of important issues.

Referenda are generally conducted in special circumstances - for example Australia had a referendum on whether to become a republic in 1999, and will have another one in the next few years.

Because things have changed.

In Iran, those who are opposed to the Islamic Republic have no political voice, by definition. So we don't know if they are 10%, 20%, 50%, or the majority of the population who do not participate in the political system of the country (elections, etc) -- which could be as high as 70%.

And unless Iran has a referendum, they'll never know. And continue to hark back to 1979 and all the crazy things that were happening in that time, as some sort of eternal legitimacy.

That's just absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries have regularly referendums on a variety of important issues.

Referenda are generally conducted in special circumstances - for example Australia had a referendum on whether to become a republic in 1999, and will have another one in the next few years.

Because things have changed.

In Iran, those who are opposed to the Islamic Republic have no political voice, by definition. So we don't know if they are 10%, 20%, 50%, or the majority of the population who do not participate in the political system of the country (elections, etc) -- which could be as high as 70%.

And unless Iran has a referendum, they'll never know. And continue to hark back to 1979 and all the crazy things that were happening in that time, as some sort of eternal legitimacy.

That's just absurd.

Problem is, regardless of referendum or not, certain people will still call it a cheat and fraud, just like they did the elections. So what is the point?

We all saw the mass amount of people showing their support in 22 bahman, as we do every year, but who is to count right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, regardless of referendum or not, certain people will still call it a cheat and fraud, just like they did the elections. So what is the point?

We all saw the mass amount of people showing their support in 22 bahman, as we do every year, but who is to count right?

That's easy. Allow international UN observers - like pretty much every country on earth does.

Look at Iraq. An incredibly difficult situation with many complications - but because of the hundreds of observers, free and fair elections were held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

That&#39;s easy. Allow international UN observers - like pretty much every country on earth does.
</p>

Do you have any evidence for that?

The closest I get is:

During the 1990s, the United Nations organized or observed landmark elections and popular consultations in Timor-Leste, South Africa, Mozambique, El Salvador and Cambodia. More recently, the Organization has provided crucial technical and logistical assistance in milestone elections in many countries, including in Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sierra Leone and Sudan.

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections

Not sure that club is one many countries would like to be members of.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any evidence for that?

The closest I get is:

http://www.un.org/wc...ssues/elections

Not sure that club is one many countries would like to be members of.

Yes, exactly, Iran is even lower than those countries on the trust scale.

The OCSE and EU have observers throughout all the European countries....

what I should have said is: "pretty much every country on earth would allow, if asked"

But observers are hardly needed in countries where fraud is never suspected - like Australia or New Zealand or Japan.

Edited by Aarash_Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's easy. Allow international UN observers - like pretty much every country on earth does.

Look at Iraq. An incredibly difficult situation with many complications - but because of the hundreds of observers, free and fair elections were held.

But that again comes down to opinion. Many people tend to think UN is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that again comes down to opinion. Many people tend to think UN is corrupt and untrustworthy.

of course..... it would surely be impossible to employ dispassionate objective election observers....

it's never been done before, no election can ever be trusted, so we may as well leave it to the Guardian Council - an interested party - as anyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly, Iran is even lower than those countries on the trust scale.

The OCSE and EU have observers throughout all the European countries....

what I should have said is: "pretty much every country on earth would allow, if asked"

But observers are hardly needed in countries where fraud is never suspected - like Australia or New Zealand or Japan.

The OSCE's interest seems to be a superficial one into whether or not ballot boxes are stuffed.

According to the final assessment report: "The 6 May 2010 general election was administered in a transparent and professional manner and demonstrated an open, pluralistic and highly competitive process. Contestants enjoyed equitable campaign conditions."

http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/uk/general_2010

That's not much good in countries where the mechanisms for bypassing democracy are more sophisticated than that. There has been long-standing concern into party funding in the UK.

​The Conservatives, meanwhile, need to show that they are not beholden to big money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/15/party-funding-conservative-court

Anyway if you go back into this board's threads you'll see international academic analyses of the last Iranian Presedential election results, which claim that the re-election of Ahmedinejad may have had irregularities in the margins, but in the main given voter preferences, it was the correct outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OSCE's interest seems to be a superficial one into whether or not ballot boxes are stuffed.

http://www.osce.org/...uk/general_2010

That's not much good in countries where the mechanisms for bypassing democracy are more sophisticated than that. There has been long-standing concern into party funding in the UK.

http://www.guardian....servative-court

Anyway if you go back into this board's threads you'll see international academic analyses of the last Iranian Presedential election results, which claim that the re-election of Ahmedinejad may have had irregularities in the margins, but in the main given voter preferences, it was the correct outcome.

You can tell yourself whatever you want. The results were/are hotly contested - but no serious commentators take the official figures as read.

But such debate is just that, academic, we'll never know unless Iran allows free elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'mullahs' are in power, because 95% of the population voted for an Islamic State when they had a referendum after the Revolution. The 'liberty vs security' comparison is more applicable in countries like US, which exaggerates the 'terror threat' and than gets away with taking peoples liberty more and more, under the guise of national security.

* 98 percent bro ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is one of the better Muslim majority countries of the world. How many other Muslim countries can make gas turbines? If the "Mullah" regime has resulted in Iran having the capability of building gas turbines, then I want a Mullah Regime in my own country ASAP!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is one of the better Muslim majority countries of the world. How many other Muslim countries can make gas turbines? If the "Mullah" regime has resulted in Iran having the capability of building gas turbines, then I want a Mullah Regime in my own country ASAP!!!

The Iranian people built the gas turbine, not the Mullah regime. Its like saying Harry Truman built the Atomic Bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2012 at 2:54 AM, Haji 2003 said:

The last thing Iran needs is the same sort of trash who visit Turkey en masse and who corrupt the local population. Mass tourism is not economic development, it's prostitution.

That was my comment seven years ago.

Today's news:

Quote

Until a few years ago, every nation wanted to bring in the most tourists possible.

...

But many Italians now regret the Faustian pact of throwing open the gates for the most money. 

...

There is a sense that the problem isn’t just the numbers, however, but the superficiality of the visitors.

...

There are, of course, deeper reasons for this newfound scorn for tourists: the environmental degradation caused by air transport and cruise ships, damage to the landscape from litter, erosion, vandalism, traffic congestion and pollution – or perhaps xenophobia stoked by far-right political groups that conflates them with migrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/06/cost-of-tourism-in-italy

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2012 at 8:03 AM, Aarash_Australia said:

I could be here all night......

1. No need to enrich above 20% for peaceful purposes. Promise not to do so - sanctions lifted, half the economic problems solved.

and now 2019,  see what happened with JCPOA, armchair generals :D

Edited by 000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people still don't realise what the islamic republic of Iran is really about... Good morning :bye: A nation, which has been under economic siege for over three decades starting off with an eight years of a fierce war! Yet, it managed to not only survive but to flourish literally to the point where they broke the hand of the hegemony power!

Well, it might be true that Iran at times cannot offer the level of comfort other governments do to their people, but ask yourself for a minute. Is it a general rule to flourish? Personally after living in Europe for quite a time now I found that many people lose, maybe not financially, but in respect of their principles and identity, which is worse :(

After all if you ask Iran, I imagine they'd reply back " What worse could happen? "

The systematic attacks against the Islamic republic of Iran are silly. Just wish if some people could realise that Iran is probably the only reason Shia are still exist particularly in the Arabian peninsula! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AliRiza said:

Just wish if some people could realise that Iran is probably the only reason Shia are still exist particularly in the Arabian peninsula! 

While I greatly admire IRI, this is taking it a too far. Shias were around well before Iran became a Shia state.

It would be better to say IRI as we know it today wouldn't exist without shiaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Shias were around well before Iran became a Shia state.

I was a pre-teen when the Revolution happened.

I can remember quite well that in some ways the Shiaism of that time (in every country) was more lax than it is today. If you look at photos of 1970s Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on, you'll see what I mean.

IMHO we were on a trajectory, that the Revolution at best either stopped or simply slowed down. But it had a global impact and there is an argument it had an impact beyond Shiaism.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

I was a pre-teen when the Revolution happened.

I can remember quite well that in some ways the Shiaism of that time (in every country) was more lax than it is today. If you look at photos of 1970s Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on, you'll see what I mean.

IMHO we were on a trajectory, that the Revolution at best either stopped or simply slowed down. But it had a global impact and there is an argument it had an impact beyond Shiaism.

The discussion isn't if we are better shias today because of IRI but more would shias exist without IRI.

There are over 225m shias in the world (15% of 1.5bn). Iran's population is about 83m so around 35% of the Shia world. It would be a great disservice to the 65% to say they wouldn't exist without the 35%. This view is held by plenty of Iranians though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The discussion isn't if we are better shias today because of IRI but more would shias exist without IRI.

There are over 225m shias in the world (15% of 1.5bn). Iran's population is about 83m so around 35% of the Shia world. It would be a great disservice to the 65% to say they wouldn't exist without the 35%. This view is held by plenty of Iranians though.

I think Shias would be in a worst situation nowadays without the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alidu78 said:

I think Shias would be in a worst situation nowadays without the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I think Iran would be in a worse situation if it was not for shiaism.

Shiaism is the strength behind Ayatollah Khomenei's revolution and the reason IRI has gone from strength to strength from 1979.

It is a very iranian trait to think shia wouldn't exist without IRI. That is simply not the case.

Edited by ShiaMan14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiaism would survive irrespective of IRI, Iraq, Pakistan or India after all we have survived the times of the Ummayads and the Abbasids.  No learned Iranian would think otherwise.

The quality and the thought process would be less aware. And the institutions along with the one man the shias in particular and the muslims in general need to be thankful to.

Had IRI been a sunni state they would have been better off in the worldly sense. Paraphrasing "there are many trials and tribulations on the path of Muhammad(sawws) and Ali Muhammad(as)"

Shiaism would have been poorer as things stand in the present times. 

And just considering population numbers without other factors like a state and the literacy level etc would be a poor understanding of the demographic and the projection equations. And in Islam numbers have never had an edge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I think Iran would be in a worse situation if it was not for shiaism.

Shiaism is the strength behind Ayatollah Khomenei's revolution and the reason IRI has gone from strength to strength from 1979.

It is a very iranian trait to think shia wouldn't exist without IRI. That is simply not the case.

I never said that shiism would not exist without Iran. I said that shiism and shias in general would live in a worst living condition without Islamic Republic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×