Depite a petition, Israel vows to continue killings
Xinhua - English
Where do you stand on this issue?

I believe Israel has every right to protect its country against militant pals. Heck, they will be targeting Israeli citizens and military correct? I think they are being proactive in stopping these events before they happen by targeting these militants.

I think Israel should defend themselves... I just don't think American tax payers should fund it.

At the same time America wants to prevent Iran from Nuclear capabilities it supports Israel, who have obtained them "illegally" just like Iran is trying to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_nuclear_program

There is quite a difference between elected officials in a democracy and a dictator religious nutjob having nuclear weapons. Isreal will only use theirs when attacked with one. Iran will use theirs to wipe out Israel. If Mexico had a religous idiot dictator who said they were going to wipe out America and we trying to build a nuclear bomb, do you think letting them do it just because we have them would be wise? I don't.

What the hell are you talking about? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected.

He is not the supreme ruler of Iran. He is a puppet. Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader of Iran and he makes all the calls. He is a muslim terrorist and he tells Mahmoud what, where, when, and how. He is the leader no matter who the president is. Elections in Iran are a joke. Check it out.

"even democratic acts like national election of presidents (which happens every four years in Iran) are lawful only when the Supreme Leader signs his approval."


Ali Khamenei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you believe that you probably believe Prince Charles runs Britan.

This Khamenei is just a figurehead like the King of England is he not?

No. It's the president who is the figurehead. In England, the Prime Minister is like our president.

In Iran, the Supreme Leader has final say over everything. He is a dictator elected by a ruling muslim committee, not the people. The presidency in Iran is all a sham. Here ya go:

Editorial
Iran's Sham Democracy
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article


Published: June 17, 2005
Today's presidential election in Iran is an affront to true democracy, just as the past record of the front-running contender, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is an affront to true moderation. As President Bush rightly noted, the voting was effectively rigged in advance by the council of unelected clerics that decided who would and who wouldn't be allowed to run. And this is for a presidency, remember, that has no power to do anything the unelected clerical establishment does not want done, as amply demonstrated by the frustrating eight-year tenure of the departing incumbent, Mohammad Khatami.

Skip to next paragraph

Forum:
As for Mr. Rafsanjani, his moderate reputation is plainly undeserved. His two previous presidential terms, from 1989 to 1997, were scarred by state-sponsored terrorism at home and abroad. Yet Mr. Rafsanjani now claims to stand as the sensible centrist alternative, between a right-wing former police chief and a reformist pediatrician whom the clerical council allowed to run at the behest of Iran's real ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

These manipulations have tempted millions to stay home, so as not to legitimize this sham exercise. They should steel themselves and vote anyway. Boycotting the election would benefit only the most antidemocratic forces on the clerical right.

For all of its multiple flaws, this election is the best tool available to the Iranian people to indicate which way they want their troubled country to head over the next four years. Its outcome will affect how Iran is run and how it deals with the world. Particularly important is the nuclear weapons issue, now even more critical in light of the latest disclosure that Tehran has been experimenting not just with enriched uranium but also with an alternative nuclear bomb fuel, plutonium.

Some European leaders have been quietly rooting for Mr. Rafsanjani, who is close to the top ayatollahs, in the hope that he would be most able to reach an acceptable nuclear deal and then sell it to the clerical establishment. There is little in his record to justify such hopes. The world would be better off if Western leaders used their little influence to press for more authentic democracy in Iran.

Iran's Sham Democracy - New York Times

Not quite.

Supreme Leader of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The president is under the supreme leader. It doesn't matter that the president is in charge of the executive branch. Who makes the final decisions? The Supreme Leader. That's all that matters. Read this very carefully and you will see what I say is true. If you don't believe the author of the article, then prove him a liar.

Editorial
Iran's Sham Democracy
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article


Published: June 17, 2005
Today's presidential election in Iran is an affront to true democracy, just as the past record of the front-running contender, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is an affront to true moderation. As President Bush rightly noted, the voting was effectively rigged in advance by the council of unelected clerics that decided who would and who wouldn't be allowed to run. And this is for a presidency, remember, that has no power to do anything the unelected clerical establishment does not want done, as amply demonstrated by the frustrating eight-year tenure of the departing incumbent, Mohammad Khatami.

As for Mr. Rafsanjani, his moderate reputation is plainly undeserved. His two previous presidential terms, from 1989 to 1997, were scarred by state-sponsored terrorism at home and abroad. Yet Mr. Rafsanjani now claims to stand as the sensible centrist alternative, between a right-wing former police chief and a reformist pediatrician whom the clerical council allowed to run at the behest of Iran's real ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
These manipulations have tempted millions to stay home, so as not to legitimize this sham exercise. They should steel themselves and vote anyway. Boycotting the election would benefit only the most antidemocratic forces on the clerical right.

For all of its multiple flaws, this election is the best tool available to the Iranian people to indicate which way they want their troubled country to head over the next four years. Its outcome will affect how Iran is run and how it deals with the world. Particularly important is the nuclear weapons issue, now even more critical in light of the latest disclosure that Tehran has been experimenting not just with enriched uranium but also with an alternative nuclear bomb fuel, plutonium.

Some European leaders have been quietly rooting for Mr. Rafsanjani, who is close to the top ayatollahs, in the hope that he would be most able to reach an acceptable nuclear deal and then sell it to the clerical establishment. There is little in his record to justify such hopes. The world would be better off if Western leaders used their little influence to press for more authentic democracy in Iran.