BREAKING: Kuwait reduces diplomatic ties with Iran

[raptor22]

COUNCIL OF GUARDIANS

Twelve jurists comprise the Council of Guardians, six of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The head of the judiciary recommends the remaining six, which are officially appointed by Parliament.

The Council of Guardians is vested with the authority to interpret the constitution and determines if the laws passed by Parliament are in line with sharia (Islamic law). This means that the council has effective veto power over Parliament. If it deems that a law passed by Parliament is incompatible with the constitution or sharia, it is referred back to Parliament for revision.

The council also examines presidential and parliamentary candidates to determine their fitness. At times, the council has dramatically winnowed the field of candidates. In the 1997 presidential election, for example, only four out of the 230 declared candidates made it to the ballot.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html
Iran just have too many councils, so it is difficult to compare..
As for Canada and Ehgland..the prime minister is elected by the public.. but the Queen is very far from this process..

People should be qualified even as principle in a school or when get a job that's why we have job interviews let alone standing as president , it's the same for a person who wants to stand as candidate in an election .. Iran constitution allows all people to enroll for the competition (even if you are a 2 years person) and also a council to verify their qualifications which again is written in the constitution ... so do you expect the council qualify a 2 years girl as a candidate?

these 2 enrolled as presidential candidates in resent election while they even don't qualify to vote due to their age let alone standing as a candidate :


On the Council of Guardians, first of all they check if the laws passed by the parliament are in line with constitution or not ('cause MPs are not experts in Law they are ordinary people chosen by ordinary people with different majors but they all have to have MS) it doesn't mean that they change them they say specifically this law is against that part of constitution and it's logical parliament shouldn't pass law against the letter of constitution ... moreover the council could refer back a law to parliament and then parliament could insist on the law ..

Show me when people in the UK have chosen prime minister or elected by the pubilc...

 

[AmirPatriot]

COUNCIL OF GUARDIANS

Twelve jurists comprise the Council of Guardians, six of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The head of the judiciary recommends the remaining six, which are officially appointed by Parliament.

The Council of Guardians is vested with the authority to interpret the constitution and determines if the laws passed by Parliament are in line with sharia (Islamic law). This means that the council has effective veto power over Parliament. If it deems that a law passed by Parliament is incompatible with the constitution or sharia, it is referred back to Parliament for revision.

The council also examines presidential and parliamentary candidates to determine their fitness. At times, the council has dramatically winnowed the field of candidates. In the 1997 presidential election, for example, only four out of the 230 declared candidates made it to the ballot.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html
Iran just have too many councils, so it is difficult to compare..
As for Canada and Ehgland..the prime minister is elected by the public.. but the Queen is very far from this process..

It is not the Guardian Council that chooses the leader, it is the Assembly of experts.

who has elected Khamenei for instance

I can say little more than what @raptor22 has said:

The members of the Assembly of experts of 1989, who themselves were elected by the people in 1983.

And by the way, there is no requirement for the leader to be a seyed.

 

[Kuwaiti Girl]

I think the Kuwaitis did this for the fear if they would be treated like Qatar

I highly doubt it, to be honest, even though it may appear this way at face value.

Think about it...

If Kuwait's genuinely worried about getting treated like Qatar, then it should go after the Muslim Brotherhood puppets and ISIS/Al-Qaeda sympathizers who infest this country because that's the real reason why Qatar is being boycotted by its neighbors, especially when we consider the fact that the boycott against Qatar is mainly being led by Abu Dhabi's Mohammed bin Zayed and Riyadh's Mohammad bin Salman, both of whom are liberal-minded and consider Sunni extremism to be a greater threat to their countries' security than Shia extremism by virtue of simple demographic realities.

But Kuwait isn't doing that. On the contrary, Kuwait is still complicit in harboring many questionable extremist figures who are disliked (and wanted) by the Saudi and Emirati governments.

Sadly, Kuwait is filled with people who are not only a threat to innocent broad-minded Kuwaitis, but also a threat to the regimes, security and broad-minded communities of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. We have way too many ill-intentioned radical Islamists and ISIS/Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist sleeper cells in this godforsaken country, and the government is hardly doing anything about it.

In fact, it's no wonder that, right after Qatar, Kuwait is the second best destination for radical Gulf Arabs who wish to donate/transfer money to terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria. That's because our banking sector is just as corrupt/dirty as the banking sector of Qatar. Ironically, extremists in the UAE and Saudi Arabia can't use their own local banks to transfer funds to terrorist groups in places like Syria because both countries have FBI offices and are cooperating with US authorities a lot more than the likes of Kuwait and Qatar.

1. How our allies in Kuwait and Qatar funded Islamic State
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-Kuwait-and-Qatar-funded-Islamic-State.html

2. The Terrorist Funding Disconnect with Qatar and Kuwait
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...rist-funding-disconnect-with-qatar-and-kuwait

I say this with a lot of pain by the way.

So if Kuwait is really worried about getting boycotted by the UAE and Saudi Arabia in the same way that Qatar did, then it should go after all the dangerous ISIS / Al-Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cells around here -- which it isn't doing, unfortunately.

 

[Kuwaiti Girl]

My fault. I read that as Arab countries.

Most of the laws that are recommended or proposed by the Shoura Council, if afterwards approved by a council of experts on that particular area (for instance economic decisions), are given to the King (head of state) who afterwards in 99,9% of the cases signs the law and thus it becomes law.

Obviously the laws proposed or discussed must not violate Basic Law of KSA (the Constitution). BTW officially the constitution is the Qur'an and the Sunnah but in reality is is much more complex than just that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia

Also who says that democracy is alpha and omega? China is doing fine without a democracy (less direct participation than in KSA) and many other countries.

BTW, whether you like it or not, all objective statistics and studies show that neither KSA nor Iran are a democracy (both far from it as understood in the West) so pointing fingers is quite childish.

I would have understood if I was discussing with Swiss people or Danes or what not.



Is it not necessary for the Supreme Leader of Iran to be a Sayyid (Hashemite in other words)? I think that sperm has to play a role here.

Has the current Supreme Leader (Head of State and most powerful person - comparable to a king) not ruled for 28 years in a row without being elected directly by the people? Did the Iranian people vote on who should become the next Supreme Leader when Khomeini died?

In fact Khamenei has been in high power (President and Supreme Leader) since 1981. This is longer than almost all non-royals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_longest_ruling_non-royal_national_leaders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_reigning_monarchs_by_length_of_reign

Since 1981, KSA has had 4 different head of states (kings) in comparison and none ruled remotely as long.

Therefore I won't waste my time on such discussions with Iranians here. Either they are pro-Mullah supporters or longing for the monarchy to return or some pseudo mighty "Persian empire". However they have no problem praising their own autocratic monarchs of the past that were much more autocratic and who treated the common citizen much worse than any modern-day king has treated his citizens. Obviously the realities of the world were JUST a bit different some 2000 years ago. So hypocrisy everywhere in other words.

BTW I am a semi-royalist (I have respect for the institution not necessary the person that heads the institution) due to my family background and also a traditionalist. Even if KSA became a so-called democracy I would prefer some kind of head of state (King preferably) that would transcend politics and who can serve as a unifying figure. As well as a competent clergy that could act as safeguards for the traditions of the society. Obviously he must be doing a useful job otherwise the position would not have much sense.

The first recorded monarchs in history emerged in the Arab world. Monarchs have always played a role in our history from time immortal until this very day. We cannot deny this and we should not consider it a crime per se. There were good and bad monarchs, just like in the future, and just like there are good presidents and bad ones.

Caliph is a monarchic title as well although it has an Islamic (religious) meaning. Why are we praising historical monarchs but cursing the current ones even if some of the current ones are great rulers such as Muhammad bin Zayed Al-Nayhan (ra), King Faisal (ra) or the current Omani Sultan that the Omani nation loves dearly?

The name or title does not matter here IMO. This is MY opinion and if somebody disagree then it is their right.

@SALMAN F @The SC @Kuwaiti Girl

I'm a bit of a royalist myself lol.

I personally think Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen would've been much better off as monarchies than as republics. Even the resource-poor monarchies of the Arab World, such as Oman, Jordan and Morocco, are faring better than the oil-rich republics, such as Algeria.

The best democracies and most advanced countries in the world today happen to be European monarchies. By contrast, the least stable European democracies happen to be republics.

This is why I tend to be against bloody/violent revolutions. I prefer gradual, British-style democratization to something like the French revolution. Britain became a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy through a gradual process, which proved to be many times better than the French experiment. The French revolution didn't bring democracy to France; instead, it gave rise to Napoleon and decades of autocratic rule. Between the French revolution of the late 1700s and the year 1970, France was mostly ruled by either autocratic or anocratic governments. It was ruled by a couple of short-lived democratic governments in the late 1800s, but France was mostly an anocracy until 1970. So it literally took nearly 200 years for France to become a stable democracy after the French revolution. The irony is that France would've probably become democratic much, much sooner had the royal family remained in power. The same thing applies to Spain, which became a democracy only after the monarchy was restored in 1978.

This is exactly why many people in Brazil and Russia want to restore the monarchies these days.

I personally think it's only a matter of time before we see the rise of popular royalist movements in Arab countries like Egypt and Iraq as well.

And yes, the Iranians shouldn't really laugh at Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy since their country is considered to be one of the worst autocracies in the world as well lol. If we really want to compare Iran with Saudi Arabia, then we should concentrate on things like the economy, GDP per capita, the scientific output of both countries, the globalization index, university rankings, innovation rankings, projected GDPs, the high tech sector, the information technology sector, etc, in which case it's safe to say that Saudi Arabia is ahead of Iran in all of these things. Iranians tend to overstate their achievements, whereas Saudis tend to be stereotyped as "backward Wahhabis". A lot of people get shocked when they discover that Saudi Arabia scores very well in many international rankings.

 

[Zibago]

Iran vs Saudia troll fest is now officially more exciting than India vs Pakistan @padamchen

 

[padamchen]

Iran vs Saudia troll fest is now officially more exciting than India vs Pakistan @padamchen

It always is.

Indians and Pakistanis have no idea what true hate really is.

Not being mean to you and Sarthak.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Zibago]

Not being mean to you and Sarthak.

We will learn it Inshallah
@SarthakGanguly

Indians and Pakistanis have no idea what true hate really is.

Jokes aside some of the views they hold for each other are downright inhumane i mean why punish civilians ?

 

[padamchen]

We will learn it Inshallah
@SarthakGanguly


Jokes aside some of the views they hold for each other are downright inhumane i mean why punish civilians ?

They are different races. Where one thinks the other is borderline sub-human.

You are not.

That answers a lot.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Saif al-Arab]

They are different races. Where one thinks the other is borderline sub-human.

You are not.

That answers a lot.

Cheers, Doc

You really don't have any clue about Arab-Iranian (500 million people and 80 million people) relations. For once google the millennia old ties between Eastern Arabia and neighboring Southern Iran and its peoples. There are likely millions of people on both side with Arab and Iranian ancestry in the past 1400 years alone. For a supposed everlasting, deadly and eternal hatred, it was quite non-existent pre-1979. Even on a state level.

Nothing close to Pakistan-India hatred. You guys murdered a few millions of each other when your two countries were created in 1947. You have since been at war several times and you are both armed with nukes that are pointing against each other and which can be used any given moment.

Nothing comparable about that.

As for hostilities on PDF, it is due to the unrest in the region and proxy wars. This hostility was not as big a few years ago here. The Syrian civil war helped greatly in this endeavor. I know because I was here.

I'm a bit of a royalist myself lol.

I personally think Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen would've been much better off as monarchies than as republics. Even the resource-poor monarchies of the Arab World, such as Oman, Jordan and Morocco, are faring better than the oil-rich republics, such as Algeria.

The best democracies and most advanced countries in the world today happen to be European monarchies. By contrast, the least stable European democracies happen to be republics.

This is why I tend to be against bloody/violent revolutions. I prefer gradual, British-style democratization to something like the French revolution. Britain became a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy through a gradual process, which proved to be many times better than the French experiment. The French revolution didn't bring democracy to France; instead, it gave rise to Napoleon and decades of autocratic rule. Between the French revolution of the late 1700s and the year 1970, France was mostly ruled by either autocratic or anocratic governments. It was ruled by a couple of short-lived democratic governments in the late 1800s, but France was mostly an anocracy until 1970. So it literally took nearly 200 years for France to become a stable democracy after the French revolution. The irony is that France would've probably become democratic much, much sooner had the royal family remained in power. The same thing applies to Spain, which became a democracy only after the monarchy was restored in 1978.

This is exactly why many people in Brazil and Russia want to restore the monarchies these days.

I personally think it's only a matter of time before we see the rise of popular royalist movements in Arab countries like Egypt and Iraq as well.

And yes, the Iranians shouldn't really laugh at Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy since their country is considered to be one of the worst autocracies in the world as well lol. If we really want to compare Iran with Saudi Arabia, then we should concentrate on things like the economy, GDP per capita, the scientific output of both countries, the globalization index, university rankings, innovation rankings, projected GDPs, the high tech sector, the information technology sector, etc, in which case it's safe to say that Saudi Arabia is ahead of Iran in all of these things. Iranians tend to overstate their achievements, whereas Saudis tend to be stereotyped as "backward Wahhabis". A lot of people get shocked when they discover that Saudi Arabia scores very well in many international rankings.

Well, said. I fully agree with what your wrote. It rarely happens when I answer such a long and detailed post. I agree with your latter part as well.

BTW is it not correct that the UK does not have a codified constitution to this very day? I think it is quite amazing that the UK has remained a monarchy and a such class divided country (at least compared to almost all other European countries, including those in the immediate neighborhood) to this very day despite scoring well on every area and being a model country and pioneer for such a long time.

 

[padamchen]

You really don't have any clue about Arab-Iranian (500 million people and 80 million people) relations. For once google the millennia old ties between Eastern Arabia and neighboring Southern Iran and its peoples. There are likely millions of people on both side with Arab and Iranian ancestry in the past 1400 years alone. For a supposed everlasting, deadly and eternal hatred, it was quite non-existent pre-1979. Even on a state level.

Nothing close to Pakistan-India hatred. You guys murdered a few millions of each other when your two countries were created in 1947. You have since been at war several times and you are both armed with nukes that are pointing against each other and which can be used any given moment.

Nothing comparable about that.

As for hostilities on PDF, it is due to the unrest in the region. This hostility was not as big a few years ago here. I know because I was here.

Yup I know nothing Saif.

Cheers, Doc

 

[The SC]

People should be qualified even as principle in a school or when get a job that's why we have job interviews let alone standing as president , it's the same for a person who wants to stand as candidate in an election .. Iran constitution allows all people to enroll for the competition (even if you are a 2 years person) and also a council to verify their qualifications which again is written in the constitution ... so do you expect the council qualify a 2 years girl as a candidate?

these 2 enrolled as presidential candidates in resent election while they even don't qualify to vote due to their age let alone standing as a candidate :
View attachment 413184 View attachment 413185

On the Council of Guardians, first of all they check if the laws passed by the parliament are in line with constitution or not ('cause MPs are not experts in Law they are ordinary people chosen by ordinary people with different majors but they all have to have MS) it doesn't mean that they change them they say specifically this law is against that part of constitution and it's logical parliament shouldn't pass law against the letter of constitution ... moreover the council could refer back a law to parliament and then parliament could insist on the law ..

Show me when people in the UK have chosen prime minister or elected by the pubilc...

That is how it works in Canada with the same Queen..in Australia too, in England it is a bit different.. all the same though, the party who wins elects its leader as prime minister, so it is about the same as here, the leader of the winning party becomes automatically the prime minister of the country..

 

[raptor22]

That is how it works in Canada with the same Queen..in Australia too, in England it is a bit different.. all the same though, the party who wins elects its leader as prime minister, so it is about the same as here, the leader of the winning party becomes automatically the prime minister of the country..

if you read my previous post you'll see this:

For example prime minister in the UK is chosen by parliament not by direct vote of people but he/she would be chosen by representative of people in parliament whom were voted by people directly in an election​

 

[Aramagedon]

So, he is not directly selected by the people.. that is what your friend @raptor22 asked for the people of Bahrain to do..elect the king directly.. try to make sense of it, just go back some pages and see.. he made nothing clear just contradicted himself..

A Najdi wahhabi tribe is ruling your country for +300 years. So better to be quiet and don't make fun of yourself.

Iranian supreme leader (vilayat faghih) has power according to Islamic law but at least we enjoy democracy and all of our heads and parliament members chose by people's votes.

 

[pin gu]

I personally do not understand what is happening in Middle east

• Saudia/Kuwait/Bahrain/Oman , don't get along with Qater, before it was Iran
  
• They all buy weapon from USA
  
• Qatar has USA military base, Trump is dancing with Saudi King
  
• Iran/Qater are digging gas fields
  
• US selling pasenger planes to Iran
• Rouge groups beside turkey are supported by US being provided weapons
• Egypt takes money from USA and now is threatening Qater
• Russia has done great Humanitarian work in Syria during all this messed up time
• Trump's son are in touch with Russia and now in hot water
• Turkish government was almost toppled but people did not let that happen (Turkey blamed it on USA)

And in all this oil prices are falling drastically

The only stable person who has emerged from these affairs has been Putin from Russia , said he would help Asaad protect civilians and he has done that


Russia - Turkey relations have turned corner
Russia - Syria relations are all time high (the legitimate government not rouges)
Russia - Saudia weapons deal in work
Russia - Egypt already have weapons excahnge program
Russia - Iran relations already warm and both countries collaborating on Energy projects
Russia - Chian relations (already legendary)

Even Russia is talking to Trump by back channel

After collapse of USSR , it was USA the only power in world and most of world issues solved with USA's point of view .in our region they ruled without comparable rival . and the issues they created now became bigger problems for world and us that means they didn't use their power in right way .
what we see today is countries of our region just waked up from long sleep and every one is preparing for the day after USA meddling to get better share for future . and in my point of view its just "calm before storm"

 

[The SC]

A Najdi wahhabi tribe is ruling your country for +300 years. So better to be quiet and don't make fun of yourself.

Iranian supreme leader (vilayat faghih) has power according to Islamic law but at least we enjoy democracy and all of our heads and parliament members chose by people's votes.

British ruled you, the Shah was implanted by the US and now that you have something that resemble democracy/theocracy for 30 years you are opening you mouth..just to be laughed at..
Najdi people are in Qatar mainly .. so don't even try your trolling here..

if you read my previous post you'll see this:

For example prime minister in the UK is chosen by parliament not by direct vote of people but he/she would be chosen by representative of people in parliament whom were voted by people directly in an election​

Not chosen by the parliament, but by the winning party which he usually leads..