Iran Calls for Saddam to Be Executed

I am surprised. I thought Iran was a peaceful country that is seeking nuclear power for electricity. Drooooooooling with sarcasm.

Iran doesn't have totalitarian rule. They have free elections for president, parliament, etc, etc, etc

Dig a little deeper Leftist and you will find that Iran is controlled by the conservative Clerics. Something to the tune of 70% of the government. Their government may "appear" to have a democracy with free elections, but not all is as it appears.

lol leftist...dream on.

Considering nearly all Iranians are Muslims, they are perfectly content with that kind of leadership. It's called an Islamic Republic for a reason.

Having spoken recently to an someone originally from Iran who's visited there in the past few months, most of the citizens aren't pleased with the government and would call it totalitarian.

In any way, it's their call not yours.

I just noted how I'm basing my call off of theirs.

Okay, cool, but I'm saying that 27 years later they're not too fond of it. The person I talked to saw a nuclear plant going up and nobody in the area wanted it there. He's not returning to his country because of his distaste for the government and nobody in his family there likes it, either.

And they have managed to keep it that way.

Your "they" probably means the people here, but I'll take it to mean the leadership and agree with it.

The Iranian government is totalitarian and fascistic. Around 80% of the government is under the authority of the "Supreme Leader" who is elected by a board of clerics (and usually from that board). The people are not at all happy with that on the whole. While it has been stable and moderately successful in some ways, and is likely preferable to the rule of the Shah before the '79 revolution, the majority of Iranians would prefer democracy.

Considering nearly all Iranians are Muslims, they are perfectly content with that kind of leadership. It's called an Islamic Republic for a reason.

That's just wrong. It's like saying that since most North Koreans are Korean that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is therefore democratic.

No, because of the story one person related to me of the opinions of many people there.

In any event, the possession of nuclear energy, whether the citizens want it or not, doesn't suffice as an indicator of representative or stable government to me. I mean, we have it.

A primary source is just as good as uncited and Wikipedia quotes.

That most Iranians are unhappy with Iranian theocracy is a pretty common theme from journalists.

This looks like an Islamic form of democracy to me

Democracy shouldn't be thought of as all or nothing, but as dimensional. The US is not as democratic as it could be. Iran has strains of democratic thought, but it is hardly democratic. Freedom House gives Iran ratings of 6 (7 is the worst) for both political freedom and civil liberties.

The Supreme Leader has nearly complete control. The President, although elected, must be allowed to run by the unelected, clerical Guardian Council. This would be like if the Boards of Directors for the 50 biggest American corporations were allowed to decide who is allowed to run for President. Additionally, all legislative acts must be approved by the same Council. There is no free press in Iran.

Former President Mohammed Khatami instituted some reforms, which should be taken for strong proof that the populace are not happy with the current system. Though it should also be noted that:

During his bloody rule, over 1,300 people were executed, including sweet 16 year old Atefeh Rajabi for 'acts incompatible with chastity'; 27 people were stoned to death or sentenced to die by stoning, 18 of them women; student and other demonstrations were crushed and their leaders arrested or killed; Ahmad Batebi was given a death sentence for holding up a bloody t-shirt; an opposition activist in Kurdistan, Showaneh Qaderi, was shot and his body dragged through the streets; Arezoo Siabi Shahrivar was arrested along with up to 14 other women, at a ceremony commemorating the 1988 "prison massacre" in Evin prison, Tehran, in which thousands of political prisoners were executed. In detention she was suspended from the ceiling, beaten with a wire cable and sexually abused. Journalists and webloggers were detained; papers were shut down; the Canadian journalist, Zahra Kazemi was tortured and murdered in prison; the murders of two political activists and three writers - a case known in Iran as the "Serial Murders" took place; hundreds of labour activists were arrested and tortured and on and on.

Furthermore, Khatami was convicted in a German court of ordering the assassinations of political opposition leaders in Berlin, and Argentian has issued a warrant for his arrest for ordering the Hezbollah attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina, killing 85. But then, according to Freedom House (click on the Middle East, then on Iran), things got still worse for Iran:

The 2000 parliamentary elections prompted a backlash by hard-line clerics that continues to this day. Over the next four years, the conservative-controlled judiciary closed more than 100 reformist newspapers and jailed hundreds of liberal journalists and activists, while security forces cracked down ruthlessly on student protests against these measures. Significant political and economic reforms were overwhelmingly approved by parliament, only to be vetoed by the Council of Guardians.

There's a good possibility of that, though I'm not so sure. But, in the meantime, is it acceptable to let a totalitarian, Islamist regime - with an official policy of destroying another nation, even - develop nuclear weapons, attain hegemony in a region with oil supplies vital for most of the world, or support terrorist activity in another state?

It is not acceptable to have them develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy and enrichment are fine, give them the benefit of the doubt and be clear that they will be struck, hard, at the first sign that they are building a bomb.

Well, there may never be such a moment. They could possibly use a nuclear weapon without sufficient warning, or they could use the threat of a possible nuclear weapon to back other aggressive action, possibly by Hezbollah. Wouldn't it be better to go with insisting on inspections that satisfy the IAEA or agreements for France to enrich their uranium for them?

The problem is not Islam. The problem is that Islam has been militarized by the regional conflict.

What I said was "Islamist" regime. By that I mean a political theory informed by Islam (specifically a branch of Islam). Not Islam itself. That political theory is imperialistic and, at least at times, messianic. Messianic views are typically dangerous to followers and/or others.

Terrorist activity is one thing. A regional conflict involving their national desire for justice and self determination is another thing entirely.

Iran's regional ambitions are not about Iranian self-determination but Iranian supremacy over the rest of the region.

All in all, I don't think we can afford to deal with Iran with a policy of "live and let live." That isn't to say I support war, but we shouldn't be making apologies for Iranian theocracy.

All the quotes are from Wikipedia, the same article cited. It is better than a primary source since it has been checked by several people.

Clearly you've never heard of wikiality.

There are problems with that idea, Guido. First, enrichment technology is a huge step. Once a nation obtains the know-how it is much more difficult to stop them at that point. Second, facilities are currently scattered about Iran so that bombing is not much of an option. Third, it requires full cooperation with the IAEA. Currently Iran is only cooperating up to a point, and once they've achieved full capability they might end cooperation. Not that I'm arguing for any particular course of action, because I don't know what to do. What I am arguing is that there really aren't easy answers here.

If you can't tell the difference between Wikipedia, which has its flaws, of course, and what someone told you as hearsay, then I can't help you.

I've got no comprehension problems, but I also don't dismiss a first-hand account as hearsay. When a man who's proud of his Iranian heritage tells me he's not going back there until the government is drastically changed, things aren't right.

I'm glad to see my joke on the state of American government spawn a discussion, but I think you're thinking I'm trying to stick to some political leaning by labeling Iran as totalitarian, and I'm not.

I've got no comprehension problems, but I also don't dismiss a first-hand account as hearsay. When a man who's proud of his Iranian heritage tells me he's not going back there until the government is drastically changed, things aren't right.

For what it's worth, I know several expat Iranians. Their views on the current government are not consistent, although all of them would like to see a change. Thing is, like many Americans, their distrust of the Iranian government (with some exceptions, notably Shah loyalists) doesn't translate to a desire to see it overthrown. There is a reform movement within Iran which was making pretty good progress before nationalistic feelings began to surface as a response to having their homeland characterized as "evil" by the west. So, what I'm getting at is that, just like you might not think that a single American's opinion would necessary give an accurate representation of the attitudes of all Americans, the same can be said about Iranians (or people of pretty much any other nationality).

Full cooperation with the IAEA should be possible

It's only possible if Iran is willing to cooperate. If they don't? There's a lot of what you say here that makes sense, except that you are avoiding the tough questions. I'm not proposing any particular answers to those questions, but we have to deal with them. If Iran doesn't cooperate, then what?

So why not let each [Islamists and Zionists] achieve its aim, but not on the path to mutual annihilation?

That would be great except that the Islamists aims are incompatible with the very idea. The official policy of Iran is the destruction of Israel. The official policy of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah have made quite clear that their aim is to kill all Jews worldwide. Whatever our response, we can't be to pretend this isn't true.

The official policy of Iran is the destruction of Israel. The official policy of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah have made quite clear that their aim is to kill all Jews worldwide.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just lurking over here. I find the argument interesting, but these statements would be hard to back up objectively, I think. I wouldn't argue that these are commonly held beliefs, and they may or may not reflect the personal opinions of many of the people who make up those organizations, but "official policy?" "Destruction of Israel?" "Kill all Jews worldwide?" Is there any possibility that you're not being objective?

Brad, I am being objective here. Take a look at the Hamas charter, for instance. You might be amazed at what is in there.

Iran's official position hasn't changed since the '79 Revolution. While we debate the fine nuanced semantics of Ahmadinejad's public statements (most of which are disingenuous discussions, anyway), chants of "Death to Israel" are a common part of official parades, ceremonies. It is everywhere in official propaganda.

Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has made several statements regarding the nature of the conflict with Israel, including saying that the gathering of Jews into Israel will save the trouble of hunting down Jews worldwide.

Make them willing to cooperate by offering a really good deal. Part of the problem is the past initiatives have been 'really good deals' from one perspective, but maybe 'not so great' from the other perspective.

But what could that "good deal" be? You assume there is such an offer that can be made, but there have been talks, during which Iran has refused to even suspend its program. France and Russia have both offered to do the enrichment for Iran, which would pretty much solve everything, but Iran has refused to even suspend its program to discuss this.

Really, who is being unreasonable here? I think you're making an instinctive leap to conclude that it is the West being completely unreasonable, but I don't think the facts of the matter back that up. Although different nations have different views of how to approach the matter, the international community is about as unanimous as it gets, agreeing that the problem is Iran's lack of cooperation.

I won't argue about interpretations, and I'll agree that the document you linked has some pretty harsh things to say. Then again, harsh things are said all over the world, in all sorts of contexts, by people on all sides of all issues. Over time we often find that attitudes and "official policies" can change, and that entities which have been mortal enemies have often been able to carry on civil relations, and have even become friends. Anyone who believed in the 1950's, for example, that the United States and Russia would one day be friends and cooperate on global issues would have been thought to be "not quite right," yet it happened.

Having said that, I'll duck back out after conceding that you seem to have characterized the current positions of those entities pretty accurately.

Make them willing to cooperate by offering a really good deal.

The only good deal is for Christians and Jews to leave the Holy Lands (and all Muslim occupied territories). If you don't understand this, I suggest you read a couple books on the Holy Crusades. 600+ years ago, Christians thought it was their "right" to occupy the Holy Lands and that Jesus as calling them to do it. In fact, Christians thought it was their right to occupy all lands that were not being occupied by Christians (thank goodness they didn't crusade to China).

The fanatical Muslims also believe they have a right to this place. This is their agenda "Today". Any talks, negotiations, etc. - will be used to eventually accomplish this goal. This is their goal above wealth, life, and happiness - so what do you negotiate? What do you give them?

There is one bit of hope. The Christians went through an enlightenment period after a reformation period. Both of which helped to shape them to be more tolerant of other religions. There are still some extremist that pop up now and then (Hitler comes to mind), but for the most part the Christians moved on a few hundred years ago. The hope is that the Fanatical Muslims follow the example of history and are enlightened also.

Iran was promised all that it demands now in the days of the previous regime, the Shah's regime.

So? The Shah abided by the NPT. And although he was a horrible, repressive, and brutal dictator, he wasn't much of a threat to anyone around him. None of these things are true of the current regime in Iran, except for the "horrible, repressive, and brutal" part. All those who are calling for 'stopping Iran going nuclear' have themselves gone nuclear. That's not entirely true. There are several Arab states pretty worried about a Nuclear Iran who do not themselves have nuclear weapons. As for nations like the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Israel, which all have nuclear weapons, you're right that they are being at least somewhat hypocritical. But that doesn't make it hunky dory for Iran to attain nuclear weapons.

They are standing on their rights. They have the right to peaceful use of nuclear power and if you suspect it is not peaceful, to hell with it until there is PROOF. Here is what Iran thinks of the whole issue.

According to the NPT, they have the right to civilian nuclear technology provided they give the IAEA complete access. They aren't doing that. (And you're right that the US has exaggerated the IAEA reports, but it is accurate to say that the IAEA is frustrated by a lack of complete cooperation. There are a number of sites they have been denied access to.) And how can there be proof without that access?

As I understand it, Iran has also offered several possible resolutions, but the US was hell bent on having its own way.

Then if they are willing to negotiate, why wouldn't they suspend enrichment temporarily during negotiations? The Iranian offers, as I understand it, offered little and contained poisoned pill clauses. That is not the case, so far as I am aware, with the French and Russian offers.

Here is the latest IAEA report on Iran, straight from their website.

Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol.

So you argue for fighting hypocrisy with even more hypocrisy?

Yeah, I'm kinda arguing for the same thing. Except that your letting one side off the hook (completely?), and I'm biding time on the other. And I can recognize that American military might seems to make American miltary power seem more urgently in need of being checked, I think you're ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence of Iran's belligerant intentions (including the fact that they are openly belligerant) as you continually seek to de-emphasize the threat they pose to the region.

There is evidence that they are not in compliance. That's why the IAEA wants increased access.

@Guido Sohne

You claim, like Westerners are prone to, some kind of qualities that set you apart from the rest.

As recently as 1940, the Westerners engaged in the most massive modern slaughter known to mankind. Based on actual fatalities, Westerners are more savage than the rest of the world, but have the dangerous tendency to consider themselves as different and superior.

It is not only the Muslims who have a problem. We all do. The problems do not stop at religion, but also revolve around race. You may have left the religious phase of discrimination, but the 'racist' phase still lives on strong.

Wow. Did I say all that? I thought I just say that the fanatical Muslims feel they have a right to that land. I don't remember calling anyone (Christian or Muslim) savages. I didn't refer to any slaughters... Are you sure you were reading my message?

With regard to enlightenment - this is needed because of the "basis" the fanatical Muslims place their belief in gives them the "right" to these lands. My point was that the Christians felt they had this "right" to the lands as well - but since the enlightenment and reformation periods, got off of that kick. In the event you don't understand enlightenment...(since for some reason you got on a savage thing) - it has nothing to do with being savage or civilized. It is about seeing that science disproves many of the myths that are being taught in the name of a particular religion. When you are enlightened, you finally realize that just because lightening strikes you dead - it didn't come from God (which they thought before Ben Franklin invented the lightening rod).

It is much, much easier to show intent to weaponize that it is to show lack of intent but the burden of proof is being placed on the accused, not the accuser.

This is not a judicial inquiry. This is a requirement of the NPT, with high risks associated. To quote again from the section I quoted above:

nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol.

This is really pretty harsh language from the IAEA.

That deal with India was made by the US, not the IAEA.

Apart from not finding the situation as funny, I'd have to agree. Executing Saddam will mean that Iraq will fall apart in tediously tiny pieces for an incredibly long time. Lock him up, make an example of him. But for heaven's sake, don't kill him.

Seriously? You don't think Iraq is already fallen apart? You think that by keeping him alive a Iraqi civil war can be prevented?

Personally, I don't care for the death penalty, nor do I think we should have gone to Iraq to begin with. However, keeping him alive will only give hope to Saddam loyalists who think there might be a chance of restoring his presidency. It'll be bad either way, but I think more lives might be spared with a swift execution.

And may God(s)/Allah/Deus/Buddha/Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/Quantum-Singularity have mercy on all of us. The blood of so many are on all of our (American/Coalition) hands. Even if you didn't vote for Bush -- you may not have been part of the problem, but you weren't part of the solution either (there has been no solution).

It sure is. Deciding Saddam's fate might influence generations to come. Also, the trial seems to be something out of "Ally McBeal". Shouldn't a man who waged wars and influenced nations all over the world be handed over to UN?