Iran: Members Of Parliament Try To Impeach Ahmadinejad

ballz2wallz · 01-09-2007, 11:45 AM

There have been plenty of dissenters here in this forum that have often claimed that sanctions with Iran just won't work. It seems that the current mood of the government of Iran may feel differently.

"Many actions of the current government and of president Ahmadinejad have led the country to an extremely worrying political and economic situation," Pirmouzen told the Iranian news website Aftab.

They have over half of the 72 signatures they need to impeach him. Hope they keep the ball rollin.

kinggovernor · 01-09-2007, 11:56 AM

ibtheyarealldead

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 12:11 PM

You aren't making a difference between the mullahs and the president...I don't know why

Some mayor get's the figurehead position and makes crazy statements and you make it sound like he's the new dictator of Iran

It's been the real leaders, the religious leaders, who from the beginning have found him to be a little weird, throw him out, ok nice but it's not like the mullahs are going anywhere, and they are the ones who approve nuclear power moves and funding for the Army of God

ballz2wallz · 01-09-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You aren't making a difference between the mullahs and the president...I don't know why

Some mayor get's the figurehead position and makes crazy statements and you make it sound like he's the new dictator of Iran

It's been the real leaders, the religious leaders, who from the beginning have found him to be a little weird, throw him out, ok nice but it's not like the mullahs are going anywhere, and they are the ones who approve nuclear power moves and funding for the Army of God

I don't care what the differences between those kooks are. They need 72 votes in parliament to summon him for an impeachment, and so far they have 38.

Iranian reformist lawmakers have started collecting signatures in Parliament to demand the impeachment of the country's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, 38 signatures have been collected out of the 72 required to formally summon Ahmadinejad and request his impeachment. Noureddin Pirmouzen, a deputy with the reformist minority, says it is nonetheless "positive to question" the head of the executive branch.

All that stuff you just said is nothing but jibberish that is irrelevant to anything in this piece of news.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 12:19 PM

You are talking about sanctions "working" what do mean, if replacing the president of Iran with another hezbollah-supporting nuclear-driven figurehead is some real progress...go ahead and buy some champagne just incase it does happen...whatever

Scrum · 01-09-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't care what the differences between those kooks are. They need 72 votes in parliament to summon him for an impeachment, and so far they have 38.

All that stuff you just said is nothing but jibberish that is irrelevant to anything in this piece of news.

I'm sure he will be replaced by someone who loves the West. Maybe even a jew!

This makes no difference. We will be in the same situation.

The President there isn't a dictator, as has already been pointed out to you.

Donkey® · 01-09-2007, 12:30 PM

Funny that people claim Iranians are abused and have no freedoms or rights yet they have enough rights to vote his party out of the majority in parliment AND they have enough rights to try and impeach him? Ooooooo...sounds like a gulag to me.

Anyway, this makes no difference to us. The President doesn't control much as it is.

Scrum · 01-09-2007, 12:34 PM

I would say this is more likely to be bad for us.

The conservatives in Iran did well in the last election and I don't think we would rather deal with them.

ballz2wallz · 01-09-2007, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's been the real leaders, the religious leaders, who from the beginning have found him to be a little weird, throw him out, ok nice but it's not like the mullahs are going anywhere, and they are the ones who approve nuclear power moves and funding for the Army of God

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Funny that people claim Iranians are abused and have no freedoms or rights yet they have enough rights to vote his party out of the majority in parliment AND they have enough rights to try and impeach him? Ooooooo...sounds like a gulag to me.

So much confusion and contradiction between you guys.

Anyway, I don't know what you guys are arguing. My point is merely that sanctions may in fact be working better than everyone claimed they would.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 01:52 PM

There's not a contradiction, having a non-democratic government that suppports Hezbollah isn't neccesarily a gulag

He is arguing Iran isn't so bad, I am arguing these moves don't matter...they don't conflict

Go to one of the smaller extremely rich islamic states around the persian gulf...they really are nice and quite beautiful, and welcoming to guests

Pro Street · 01-09-2007, 02:30 PM

I give more credit to the pressure of the younger more moderate people than the sanctions.

ballz2wallz · 01-09-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I give more credit to the pressure of the younger more moderate people than the sanctions.

Are those the same people feeling the economic strain that's occurred as a result of said sanctions?

Ardentfrost · 01-09-2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I give more credit to the pressure of the younger more moderate people than the sanctions.

As long as we don't mess up like we did in the 70's and try to install another "US-friendly" leader. Then we can look forward to another 30 years of hatred for America after they kick him out (history repeats itself)

Donkey® · 01-09-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are those the same people feeling the economic strain that's occurred as a result of said sanctions?

You think those people were seeing any of that money BEFORE the sanctions? Right.

Pro Street · 01-09-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are those the same people feeling the economic strain that's occurred as a result of said sanctions?

by what I've seen they're doing ok. They just find ways to see the world.. mainly the internet.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 03:42 PM

uhm, the sanctions are only against nuclear technology and ballistic missiles...not exactly hurting the average Iranian since even on the off chance they hold a position, the government will just finance it with oil money and do independent development

It banned the supply of nuclear-related technology and materials and froze the assets of key individuals and companies related to the enrichment program
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVengeance · 01-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

ibtheyarealldead

ibtheyareallbeheaded

Kytro · 01-09-2007, 10:49 PM

I think getting rid of the current president is a good idea. While I don't think Iran's policy will change the current guy is to confrontational.

JaJae · 01-09-2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I think getting rid of the current president is a good idea. While I don't think Iran's policy will change the current guy is to confrontational.

He's a lunatic who should be beaten over the head with his own ass. The idea of Iran obtaining nuclear technology with this guy in control is dangerous.

Kytro · 01-09-2007, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's a lunatic who should be beaten over the head with his own ass. The idea of Iran obtaining nuclear technology with this guy in control is dangerous.

I don't believe he has that much "control". If he goes to far he will be removed. He isn't really a lunatic - he is a stirrer. His viewpoints may not be rational, but the same can be said for many people, including world leaders.

While the possibility exists that Iran may use a nuclear weapon against Israel I would be surprised if they did.

Iran has sufficient conventional arms to inflict serious damage on Israel but they don't. Why would nuclear weapons be any different?