It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iranians defy U.S. calls for boycott of elections - Polls all across of Iran flooded as voters turn

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
One has to look no further than the recent parliamentary elections, in which 2,300 candidates were arbitrarily disqualified by the Council of Guardians, to realize that true, free elections in Iran are stll a distant dream.




A little more than 1000 candidates registered, not 2300, and 8 candidates is a whole better than 2-3 candidates in the U.S. - You have to be a billionaire in the U.S. to even stand a chance to be CHOSEN to be a candidate. In Iran ANYONE, whether rich or poor can run for presidency. Our system is not anywhere near perfect, but so is yours!




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
Thats great thing for Iran. Hope they don't ragged it... like the US election in 2004 lol

how many years does iran elect a new president again?

And siroos i can see your back on ATS after don't know how long to give more
Iran = Good
US = Bad
stuff


Every four years. The thing is this: If indeed we Iranians even suspected that the elections would be rigged, we wouldn't even bother to go anywhere near a ballot box. The fact that there was a near 70% turnout shows that the Iranians trust the system in this regards. The problem many Iranians have is that they think that the Guardian Council has too much power and can veto decisions made by the parliament and the government. However, if we look at many Western democracies such veto powers have existed and still do exist in the constitutions of many western democracies. For instance, many of the European monarchs have veto right and the right to dissolve the parliament at their own discretion. However, although these powers have been used in the somewhat distant past, nobody expects the kings and Queens of Europe's royal households to make use of their constitutional powers - It would probably mean the end of their monarchies if they did. But what I'm trying to get across here is that just like those democracies went through a long process before they reached where they are today, Iran and other countries like Iran must also be given the same opportunity to evolve according to its own necessary rythm. It's both unrealistic and unfair to expect that a country like Iran should have a Western model democracy - And for many reasons. One is that Iran is not a Western country. It has its own culture and values which differ from those of Western countries. But more than anything else, it is not the business of other countries to tell Iran what kind of democracy it should or shouldn't have - That the Iranian nation decides. And the fact that so many Iranians turned out to vote despite that some exile opposition groups and figures for a whole year now have urged the Iranians to boycott the elections, and despite the interference of the U.S. by having its president calling on the Iranians to boycott the elections, shows what the majority of Iranins think about this whole issue! The streets all across Iran, in all provinces of Iran were crowded with voting-happy people!



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
[edit on 19-6-2005 by Siroos]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When did the U.S. call Iranians to boycott the elections???

I must have missed that statement...


A few days before the elections Bush urged the people of Iran to not vote in order to show the world that they thought their government was illegitimate.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

You see this group of revolutionaries as positive and noble because they oppose the regime you deem evil and corrupt. However, to the regime in place, and those who support it, the dissidents are nothing but terrorists, trying to unmake civilization, a dangerous, corrupting influence.


Violence has rarely been used by any of the dissidents in Iran. They don't go past protesting. They couldn't be classified as terrorists.


Every four years. The thing is this: If indeed we Iranians even suspected that the elections would be rigged, we wouldn't even bother to go anywhere near a ballot box. The fact that there was a near 70% turnout shows that the Iranians trust the system in this regards. The problem many Iranians have is that they think that the Guardian Council has too much power and can veto decisions made by the parliament and the government.


No Democracy has a council which can disqualify candidates. Those that are picked to run are those which pose no threat to the current establishment.

Look at the last Iranian president. The reformer who was pretty much unable to reform anything...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This is what Bush said:



On Iran, President Bush said the voting has been designed to keep power in the hands of a few rulers “through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy.”

“The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest—and in which their leaders answer to them instead of the other way around,” Bush said in a statement released by the White House. “And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you.”


I don't see an explicit message to boycott the elections, but everything he said is true. It's not free and fair elections if some candidates are barred from running and the supreme Islamic council or whatever can override the president anyway.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by jsobecky
One has to look no further than the recent parliamentary elections, in which 2,300 candidates were arbitrarily disqualified by the Council of Guardians, to realize that true, free elections in Iran are stll a distant dream.



You are obviously privvy to information we are not.

Can you tell us why the candidates were disqualified? I would like to know.


Kriz, most of the little more than 1000 people who registered to run for presidency in Iran this year were not serious candidates. To give you an example, one man had gone through the otmost trouble to look like Saddam Hussein. THere were many cases like that. But most of the candidates did just not have the necessary credentials to be taken seriously. And then there are those who register for candidacy on a political platform that opposes the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And they are also excluded, simply because it is a requirement that anyone who runs for political office in Iran must accept the constitution. For instance, Ebrahim Yazdi is the political leader of the Iran Freedom Party. Mr. Yazdi was one of the closest aides to Ayatollah Khomeini and served in the first government of the Islamic Republic when it was established following the national referendum after the revolution in 1979. He has for several years now opposed the theocracy and advocates a secular system. He registered for presidential candidacy but was rejected because his platform opposes the constitution of the IRI. Doctor Moin, who is the prime candidate of the reformist camp and one of the favorites of the 8 candidates who were approved to participate in the election signed a pact with Mr. Yazdi and his Iran Freedom Party, sending the message to voters that Yazdi and his secular ideas would have a voice through him if he would be chosen president. However, the two prime candidates are now the moderate and reform-friendly Hashemi Rafsanjani and the ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran, Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani has a slight lead over Ahmadinejad, and everyone expects people to vote in even larger numbers in the runoff to make sure that the ultra-conservative and religious zealot Ahmadinejad will not become president.

Rafsanjani is good for several reasons: 1) He has experience from an earlier period of presidency. 2) He is a moderate pragmatist with close ties to both the reformist camp and the conservatives. 3) He is a close friend with Iran's most powerful man behind the scenes, Ayatollah Khamenei, referred to as "The Leader" (Rahbar) in Iran. 4) He is a shrewd business man who favors controlled capitalism. 5) He wishes to reform the economy of Iran. 6) He wishes to expand the social freedoms. 7) He is eager to establish ties to the U.S., but on certain conditions guaranteeing that the U.S. deals with Iran as an equal and not as a bully, and that Iran's frozen assets in the U.S. be returned to Iran.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Siroos can you explain to us this council of religious clerics who are not elected but decide what happens to the county's nuclear program and it military? They were saying that Ian's nuclear program or stance will not change even before the president had been elected.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
A little more than 1000 candidates registered, not 2300, and 8 candidates is a whole better than 2-3 candidates in the U.S. - You have to be a billionaire in the U.S. to even stand a chance to be CHOSEN to be a candidate. In Iran ANYONE, whether rich or poor can run for presidency. Our system is not anywhere near perfect, but so is yours!


Siroos
I was referring to the parliamentary elections, not the presidential. From the article I sourced:

Official statistics (from the Ministry of Interior)
Total candidates: 4679
Decided in the first round: 225 of 289 seats
To be decided in the second round: 64 seats
Number of voting booths in the country: 39,885
Number of staff: about 600,000
Number of voters: 23,725,724 (1,971,748 in Tehran and its suburbs)


And I will agree that the election process in the US is not perfect, but then, no nation has a perfect system. But it is disingenuous to deflect the debate away from the topic by comparing nations.

Can you explain the validity of the Council of Guardians, as has been asked? Why should they be able to ban legitimate candidates?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Regardless of the turnout, what does get me is the number of beautifull women in Iran.




It's funny becuase her Viel is not fully covering her head, yet as western propoganda asserts, she would be 'be-headed' or 'stoned' under such opression, and what's even more startingly, she's voting, among millions of other women.

I would also like members to realize that in the last presidential election in America, thousands were disqualified in Florida due to the fact that they had identical names to murders, and what not.

Americans only have interest in Middle Eastern democracy aslong as they have say in who wins.

Deep



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join