08 Mar 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, because I don't support the UN in principle. Also, how would they manage that? The Iranian government would ensure a 100% turnout and 100% support for their regime (if they allowed the referendum in the first place, that is.)
Would you support a UN-organised referendum in Iran on regime change ?
I would.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeIt would be UN-organised.
No, because I don't support the UN in principle. Also, how would they manage that? The Iranian government would ensure a 100% turnout and 100% support for their regime (if they allowed the referendum in the first place, that is.)
Why don't you support the UN in principle ? What does this mean ?
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell I should rephrase that. I do agree with the principle of preventing war, provided this is not carried too far (like telling a country which has been savagely attacked by terrorists not to retaliate) but the UN are pretty useless at the job. I would agree with a referendum in Iran, or even better a coup, but it's never going to happen, and certainly not via the weak, useless, pathetic, everything else negative, UN.
It would be UN-organised.
Why don't you support the UN in principle ? What does this mean ?
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeActually they've had two elections in the last couple of years. The Iranian President was elected by a narrow margin last year.
No, because I don't support the UN in principle. Also, how would they manage that? The Iranian government would ensure a 100% turnout and 100% support for their regime (if they allowed the referendum in the first place, that is.)
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeThey had a coup; in 1953 organized by the CIA. They tossed out a leftist, social democrat and put in a dictator. 25 years later that dictator was so hated by his own people, that they turned to Islamic Fundamentalist fanatics in preference to him. The rest, as they say, is history.
Well I should rephrase that. I do agree with the principle of preventing war, provided this is not carried too far (like telling a country which has been savagely attacked by terrorists not to retaliate) but the UN are pretty useless at the job. I would agree with a referendum in Iran, or even better a coup, but it's never going to happen, and certainly not via the weak, useless, pathetic, everything else negative, UN.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Shah was actually their equivelant of a King, the title was heireditary, no social democracy. They had a coup to overthrow the Shah, now they need another one to overthrow the Ayatollah.
They had a coup; in 1953 organized by the CIA. They tossed out a leftist, social democrat and put in a dictator. 25 years later that dictator was so hated by his own people, that they turned to Islamic Fundamentalist fanatics in preference to him. The rest, as they say, is history.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeGo to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005
OK, you are the fountain of knowledge, tell us what really happened.
There were seven candidates in the first round; 3 of whom were considered "reformists". About 66% of the registered voters participated, not 100%.