Formula One in Iran?

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, the biggest problem is the politics. Formula 1 should remain apolitical; the only reason why a race should be cancelled is because it is unsafe for teams and drivers to attend, and not because of the desire to make a political statement or appear ethical. If the sport makes a political issue out of a race, then all races must become political or else we get into the sticky situations. Take, for example, Bahrain: people demanded that the race be abandoned because of violent protests and te government's stance. If the race was indeed abandoned for that reason, then Formula 1 would have to critically look at every other race that accepts money from governments. Does the sport necessarily agree with Australian politics, which is currently being dominated by two sides who only care about getting in/staying in power and have absolutely no idea what the public wants? And if the sport doesn't agree with the idiots in Canberra, why should the race go ahead? True, it's not as serious as Bahrain - but in order to avoid hypocracy, all races must be political. And what about the personal politics of drivers? If the Liberals come to power in Australia (shudder) and the sport decides to race here, what does it do if Mark Webber always votes Labor? If he races, he's indirectly endorsing a government he does not support.

So, of course, politics will be a problem. But if the Iranians are indeed serious about one day having an Iranian Grand Prix despite having someone in power whose sole purpose in life seems to be to irritate the West, then there is an easy way forward: don't accept government funding. If the Iranian Grand Prix receives no money from Tehran and is run by people who would be held up as a credit to any society (not just Iran), how can anyone accuse Formula 1 of being morally bankrupt?

 

[RYAN]

in my opinion countries should earn the right to be able to host prestigious sporting events to the world, by 'earn' i dont mean how much money they pay for the pleasure or what infrastructure is already in place there. but if a country cant be bothered to stick to all the political guidelines and morals that the majority of countries in the world do then i dont think they should be allowed to share prestigious and important events with the rest of the world.

edit: it is however a interesting looking track...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So Iran shouldn't be allowed to take part in the Olympic Games, then?

Good luck selling that one - the Olympics are built on the spirit of competition, free of any political ideology. Athletes who has used the Games as a political soapbox have been stripped of their medals in the past. Mixing sport and politics is a very, very bad idea. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, if you make one event political, then all events must be political, or else you run the risk of extreme hypocracy.

You say Iran should "earn the right" to host a Formula 1 race or other prestigious sporting event, and they can do that by "observing the political guidelines and morals that the majority of countries do" (for the record, there are none of these - Iran is only obligated to observe any international treaties it has signed). Would you consider Australia to be a country that does this, and is therefore entitled to hosting major sporting events? Make sure you answer the question before you read this next bit (and make sure you read all of it):

Spoiler

One of the biggest issues in Australia right now is what to do about asylum seekers who arrive illegally in the country. The federal government has what they call the "Malaysia solution", which involves deporting asylum seekers to Malaysia to be processed. It's called offshore processing, but is really little more than offshore dumping - making it someone else's problem (the opposition is no better; they want to do the same thing, but in another country). Malaysia is not a signatory to the international conventions on human rights, and asylum seekers and illegal immigrants there have virtually no rights - they cannot be employed and are subject to arbitrary detention and so on. The "Malaysia solution" was deemed unconstitutional by the Australian High Courts because the federal government could not guarantee the rights of thsoe asylum seekers would be protected, even when the agreement between Canberra and Kuala Lumpur was amended to classify asylum seekers sent to Malaysia from Australia differently to those who simply went to Malaysia. Nevertheless, the government is attempting to force through changes to the existing legislation to make the "Malaysia solution" possible. Rather than adjusting the actual terms of the deal with Kuala Lumpur, the government is trying to change the legislation that gives asylum seekers rights. If they're successful (and with parliament in deadlock, it's going to be a mammoth task), then asylum seekers will lose all of their rights the moment they leave Australian territory, and the government will wash its hands of its responsibility to protect them. They'll be at the mercy of whoever they end up with. The whole thing is a massive violation of human rights, will not do what the government claims it will (somehow, it's supposed to stop illegal immigrants from arriving, though nobody is quite sure on how this works) and is not even close to what the public wants (most people agree offshore processing/dumping is a bad idea).

So, is Australia still entitled to host international sporting events?

Of course, all of this is rendered moot by the fact that the Iranians have said they're not looking to host a Formula 1 race. They're building an FIA Grade-2 circuit so that they can promote the local motorsport scene. And if you'd read this thread, you would have picked up on that.

 

[RYAN]

Umm correct me if im wrong, but i dont recall saying anything about not leaving iranians compete in international sporting events??? no i dont think i did, i said and this is just my belief they should not be able at this particular moment in time to host an event of such magnitude. i would have nothing against any iranian competing in sporting events even if an iranian or even north korean F1 driver came onto the scene. after all these arent the people that allow stoning as a ligitimate way of punishment or slavery to happen under their own watch, no thats their government.

again i point you the way of my first sentence HOST not compete.
but as you said, if you had read my post properly you would have picked up on that.

regarding australia i think discretion is needed especcially on your part dont you?.......

oh and yes.......read your last 3 sentences and then look at the thread title....................???
kind of implies that even talking about even the remote chance of it happening is within reason dont you think...???

 

[prisonermonkeys]

regarding australia i think discretion is needed especcially on your part dont you?.......

Why? Because I myself am Australian? I have every right to criticise my government for the decisions they make. The KGB are not waiting for me around the corner. The daughter of an ex-KGB agent is, but her parents like me. I have nothing to fear, because I don't like in a country run by an oppressive regime. I live in a country run by an idiotic regime, but honestly, I'd be far more worried if they took issue with something my neighbour said and started coming after him, because that's the only time I'd be in danger.

You still haven't answered my question: why isn't Iran allowed to host an international sporting event, but Australia is? Iran, under your definition is not entitled to host a race because they are oppressive and show a complete disregard for human rights (I'm extrapolating a bit based on your original posts and common criticisms of Tehran). But the Australian government has every intention of forcing through legislation that will deprive people of their human rights when they need those rights the most. So why is Australia allowed to host these events when Iran is not?

oh and yes.......read your last 3 sentences and then look at the thread title....................???
kind of implies that even talking about even the remote chance of it happening is within reason dont you think...???

The thread title is misleading. Initial reports claimed that Iran was aspiring to host a Grand Prix, but they clarified the matter a few hours later, stating that it was never their intention.

 

[RYAN]

Why? Because I myself am Australian? I have every right to criticise my government for the decisions they make. The KGB are not waiting for me around the corner. The daughter of an ex-KGB agent is, but her parents like me. I have nothing to fear, because I don't like in a country run by an oppressive regime. I live in a country run by an idiotic regime, but honestly, I'd be far more worried if they took issue with something my neighbour said and started coming after him, because that's the only time I'd be in danger.

You still haven't answered my question: why isn't Iran allowed to host an international sporting event, but Australia is? Iran, under your definition is not entitled to host a race because they are oppressive and show a complete disregard for human rights (I'm extrapolating a bit based on your original posts and common criticisms of Tehran). But the Australian government has every intention of forcing through legislation that will deprive people of their human rights when they need those rights the most. So why is Australia allowed to host these events when Iran is not?


The thread title is misleading. Initial reports claimed that Iran was aspiring to host a Grand Prix, but they clarified the matter a few hours later, stating that it was never their intention.

i am not well enough educated on australian politics to judge but i would think australia hav'nt and dont cause as much trouble, trepadation and suffering that iran is alleged to have inflicted on its population. i think you should go and vent your frustrations to your local mp or suitable point of discussion as this may i remind you is a thread on iran and motor racing not the future of the australian people in light of they're (in your opinion) idiotic government.

i personally dont agree with the UK's government or their policies but do i think they would merit not being able to host a major sporting event??? no i dont. do i think the UK's government (or indeed australia's) should be mentioned in the same vain as iran's??? no, and nor would a lot more people im sure.

i see the point you try to make its just that the uk or australia however much you may not want to agree isnt or in anyway in danger of becoming anywhere near as bad to iran, and i think its worrying i need to spell it out to you...

if countries like australia were banned from hosting a race we wouldnt really have a f1 calender left at the end of it, as all countries big or small have something against them and this is why i use the term discretion...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

i am not well enough educated on australian politics to judge but i would think australia hav'nt and dont cause as much trouble, trepadation and suffering that iran is alleged to have inflicted on its population.

Oh, so ignoring the rights of a few is acceptable, but ignoring the rights of many is not?

if countries like australia were banned from hosting a race we wouldnt really have a f1 calender left at the end of it, as all countries big or small have something against them and this is why i use the term discretion...

But again, you're in a very sticky situation - you're saying it's not okay for some countries to host events because of their policies, but it is okay for others to have those same events in spite of their policies. Ultimately, your stance is entirely hypocritical, and largely hollow - you don't want these countries to be denied the right to host events because you care about their people, you want these countries to be denied the right to host events so that you can say you did the right thing and sleep better at night.

 

[RYAN]

Oh, so ignoring the rights of a few is acceptable, but ignoring the rights of many is not?


But again, you're in a very sticky situation - you're saying it's not okay for some countries to host events because of their policies, but it is okay for others to have those same events in spite of their policies. Ultimately, your stance is entirely hypocritical, and largely hollow - you don't want these countries to be denied the right to host events because you care about their people, you want these countries to be denied the right to host events so that you can say you did the right thing and sleep better at night.

i suppose there is no reasoning with you is there?

i tell you what, lets ban all countries from staging these major events just because the naughty little boy tehran thinks its unfair that it cant join in...

let me ask you a question if you are convicted of a minor crime in australia would you legally be subject to torture and stoning???

you think that all countries in the world should be treated the same?, well no its a fact of life you get treated the way you treat others.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

i suppose there is no reasoning with you is there?

Reading your arguments, "reason" doesn't come into it. Like I said, you are arbitrarily ignoring your own points for the sake of being able to say you did the right thing.

i tell you what, lets ban all countries from staging these major events just because the naughty little boy tehran thinks its unfair that it cant join in...

No, the "naughtly little boy in Tehran" - his driver's licence says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - did not say that at all. You did. And if you actually knew anything about him, you'd know that he has no real power to influence policy. He's really just a spokesperson because the real Powers That Be in Iran - the Ayatollahs; Iran is closest to a theocracy, so the religious leaders have the power - don't show their faces too often.

Based on what I've seen from you, the phrase "empty vessels make the most sound" comes to mind. If you don't know what you're talking about - and I'll be up-front and say it now: you don't - then you probably shouldn't say anything at all.

let me ask you a question if you are convicted of a minor crime in australia would you legally be subject to torture and stoning???

Let me answer your question with a question of my own: if some countries cannot have major sporting events because of their human rights records, but other countries can have them in spite of their own records, where do you draw the line? Which human rights are countries allowed to abuse and still be entitled to hosting a major international sporting event? And who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?

For someone who expresses outrage at the human rights abuses of some countries, you sure are allowing a lot of human rights to be abused.

 

[lbsf1]

Slightly off topic but may I point out that Irans top racing driver races in karting at the moment (and he's a second off the pace), so even if by some miracle they do get a gp then its gonna be a long time untill they get a driver racing in it.

 

[RYAN]

for someone who clearly possesses a high level of grammar and intilect i am surprised you fail to see my point. as you may have guessed i am not able and not to inticed to write a paragraph as broad and fine as yours, but i feel my writings in this thread are to the point and simple to understand, yet you still seem to refuse my OPINION as bogus and more worryingly say that i support breaches in human rights. i not only find this insulting but quite amusing the fact you cant seem to understand my point. i will say again:
(and dont forget, this is just one mans humble opinion nothing more)
in life we need discretion for example:

.someone gets convicted of drunk and disorderly- you get a warning or at worst a couple of months.
.someone gets convicted of murder - you get 10 years

i believe merits should be judged not ignored.

do you think these two people should be treated the same way and punished equally?

has i have said this my opinion i hope not to see you wasting another 10 minutes concocting another paragraph regarding australias near future under they're (in your eyes). idiotic government. this is my opinion, i hold no position of power or influence at all. thus my opinion is just that, it means nothing to anyone other than those who believe it. so this is why i ask you to respect my opinion like i have done to yours, i acknowledged it an respected it (even though i might not have agreed with it).

regarding the alleged human rights breaching in australia. i worry for you i do, and i wish your country all the best in surviving the tough times ahead and hope you could later move forward as the great country you are.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I understand your point - I just think it has no redeeming value because it makes you a hypocrite. Make all the comparisons you want to drunk and disorderly conduct as opposed to murder; they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[RYAN]

I understand your point - I just think it has no redeeming value because it makes you a hypocrite. Make all the comparisons you want to drunk and disorderly conduct as opposed to murder; they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

what has the KGB and AUSTRALIA comments got to do with f1 in iran.

well your comments make you look nothing but a bit unrealistic, and the conviction part of the post with an example to try and make it easier for you to understand my view on judging merits of each example. but you have obviously not read it. with regard to you believing australia should be treated the same iran? well it must be a lot worse living in australia than i thought it was. so i think its a good idea if we can just leave it at that.

i for one will not miss your overbearing and communistic nature, goodbye.....

 

[prisonermonkeys]

what has the KGB and AUSTRALIA comments got to do with f1 in iran.

Because I'm trying to draw a comparison here. You criticise Iran for human rights abuses, and claim they don't deserve to host international sporting events because of it. But at the same time, Australia - a country that is viewed as being very civilised - has a government that is willing to deprive asylum seekers of their human rights (and if those people are fleeing war and persecution, they need those rights more than ever). And yet, you're not criticising Australia for it, and denying them the right to host these events. The KGB comment has to do with the way I can freely speak my mind about the subject without fear of persecution from the government - they don't have a secret police force rooting out dissenters. However, my best friend is a Russian immigrant, and her parents were a part of the Soviet secret police (they were accountants).

What I'm trying to do is point out the flaw in your argument. You claim that Iran should not be allowed to host a Grand Prix because of their human rights abuses. However, there are other countries that are abusing human rights. They're not as prominent or obvious as Iran's, but it's still happening. Take China as an example - they have occupied Tibet for half a century, and lock up people like Ai Weiwei without charge or trial. Under your line of thinking, China does not deserve to host a Grand Prix, either.

So, what you're essentially saying is this: "Iran, you cannot have a Grand Prix because you abuse human rights. But China, you can have a Grand Prix despite the fact that you abuse human rights". Do you not see the hypocracy in this?

If a country is considered a rogue nation the way Iran is, the global community has ways to deal with it - mostly with sanctions; British companies, for example, cannot trade with Tehran. The world is aware of what Iran is doing, and they are not taking it lightly. Denying Iran the right to host a sporting event is not going to do anything that sanctions do not already do.

 

[STEG-13]

You both make a good point

I do believe that comparing Australia with Iran is rather ridiculous though regardless of how bad you think your government is.

I do believe that what Australia is doing is wrong but so is the UK and America and basically half the western worlds policies on terrorism ect..

Trading, sanctions and politics should have nothing to do with F1. The only consideration should be the safety of the fans and the teams.

Do you honestly think when however many thousands of westerners flock to Iran complete with UK & USA flags that safety can be guaranteed?

In the Uk we had to call off big sporting events due to relatively "small scale" riots so I don't think we would be hypocritical to demand safety at huge events such as F1.

I don't believe that peoples safety can be guaranteed nor would I personally feel comfortable going to such an event.

 

[RYAN]

Because I'm trying to draw a comparison here. You criticise Iran for human rights abuses, and claim they don't deserve to host international sporting events because of it. But at the same time, Australia - a country that is viewed as being very civilised - has a government that is willing to deprive asylum seekers of their human rights (and if those people are fleeing war and persecution, they need those rights more than ever). And yet, you're not criticising Australia for it, and denying them the right to host these events. The KGB comment has to do with the way I can freely speak my mind about the subject without fear of persecution from the government - they don't have a secret police force rooting out dissenters. However, my best friend is a Russian immigrant, and her parents were a part of the Soviet secret police (they were accountants).

What I'm trying to do is point out the flaw in your argument. You claim that Iran should not be allowed to host a Grand Prix because of their human rights abuses. However, there are other countries that are abusing human rights. They're not as prominent or obvious as Iran's, but it's still happening. Take China as an example - they have occupied Tibet for half a century, and lock up people like Ai Weiwei without charge or trial. Under your line of thinking, China does not deserve to host a Grand Prix, either.

So, what you're essentially saying is this: "Iran, you cannot have a Grand Prix because you abuse human rights. But China, you can have a Grand Prix despite the fact that you abuse human rights". Do you not see the hypocracy in this?

If a country is considered a rogue nation the way Iran is, the global community has ways to deal with it - mostly with sanctions; British companies, for example, cannot trade with Tehran. The world is aware of what Iran is doing, and they are not taking it lightly. Denying Iran the right to host a sporting event is not going to do anything that sanctions do not already do.

i dont recall saying i supported the fact that china hosts a grand prix, but mentioning china as an an example is whole lot more reasonable than using australia as an example. and to be honest have a look what asylum seekers have done to the uk, im not directly blaming the actual people themselves here. but for years the uk were leaving way to many of them in so now some of the ethnically british people cant get a home or even a job. i see your point in the last paragraph as a valid one but as the other guy inbetween us said alot of people wouldnt even feel safe or comfortable going there, and even if that wernt a problem i dont think a country such as iran deserve to be on the world stage for good reasons such as hosting a prestigous event anyway.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

i suppose there is no reasoning with you is there?

i tell you what, lets ban all countries from staging these major events just because the naughty little boy tehran thinks its unfair that it cant join in...

let me ask you a question if you are convicted of a minor crime in australia would you legally be subject to torture and stoning???

you think that all countries in the world should be treated the same?, well no its a fact of life you get treated the way you treat others.

If only you knew the half of it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

i dont recall saying i supported the fact that china hosts a grand prix

No, you didn't say it - but you never acknowledged that human rights are a problem there, either.

 

[Maddens Raiders]

i'd like to believe that sport can transcend the petty bullcrap of politics and religion, but until their leader can start recognizing the rest of the world, the thought of having iran included in a "world championship" of any type is by definition, ludicrous.

If they want to build their own circuit, then i'm all for it. But on an international stage? Not yet.

[/ biased rant]

qft

 

[RYAN]

No, you didn't say it - but you never acknowledged that human rights are a problem there, either.

Never aknowledged it?, anyone with a basic understanding of recent world affairs will know the kind of things china get up to. What do you want me to do list every country in the world that abuse human rights just to prove to you that i do believe its not only iran that abuse human rights.

So why should we scratch irans back when they wont scratch ours?

Your beliefs are the correct ones in that in a perfect world this is what you, me and nearly everyone else on earth would like to see. Each country getting treated the same but at this time it is wholey unrealistic.

Iran are seen apon as a poorly run country, from their alledged human rights abusement to their unwillingness to work along with the rest of the developed world to deal with problems.To treat australia and other countries the sameway?. No i dont think that is the correct thing to do. not at this moment in time.

Regarding China and even Bahrain. i think this maybe something we may agree on, in the world of f1 money speaks louder than peoples morals and beliefs. Its not right in my eyes, and i'd guess not in your eyes too but this is the world we live in. But and this is the only saving grace for china, it is in a majority of cases safe to visit the country and hold large events safe from sabotage and terrorism. Plus there is no widespread hatred for the americans or the rest of the western world.

Now saying that, just because its safe to go there. I still dont think that warrants a country like china, with the amount of poverty and suffering happining in it to not only host but take money and fund a large event. Im not saying that china cant afford it because they can quite clearly can, but if they are unprepered to spend on improving human rights and helping people out of poverty then they shouldnt spend and more to the point be allowed a grand prix.

But as we all know, if it makes bernies pockets bulge nothing else matters.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

never aknowledged it?, anyone with a basic understanding of recent world affairs will know the kind of things china get up to. what do you want me to do list every country in the world that abuse human rights just to prove to you that i do believe its not only iran that abuse human rights.

so why should we scratch irans back when they wont scratch ours?

your beliefs are the correct ones in that in a perfect world this is what you, me and nearly everyone else on earth would like to see. each country getting treated the same but at this time it is wholey unrealistic. iran are seen apon as a poorly run country, from their alledged human rights abusement to their unwillingness to work along with the rest of the developed world to deal with problems.to treat australia and other countries the sameway ? no i dont think that is the correct thing to do. not at this moment in time.

regarding china and even bahrain. i think this maybe something we may agree on, in the world of f1 money speaks louder than peoples morals and beliefs. ints not right in my eyes, and id guess not in your eyes too but this is the world we live in. but and this is the only saving grace for china-it is in a majority of cases safe to visit the country and hold large events safe from sabotage and terrorism. plus there is no widespread hatred for the americans or the rest of the western world. now saying that, just because its safe to go there. i still dont think that warrants a country like china, with the amount of poverty and suffering happining in it to not only host but take money and fund a large event. im not saying that china cant afford it because the can quite clearly can, but if they are unprepered to spend on improving human rights and helping people out of poverty then they shouldnt spend and more to the point be allowed a grand prix.

but as we all know, if it makes bernies pockets bulge nothing else matters.

It could be that we just have no clue what your trying to argue, as either your shift key is broken or you try to make it confusing for someone like me to read. Could you at least spend all of 5 minutes making it readable for people?

 

[RYAN]

It could be that we just have no clue what your trying to argue, as either your shift key is broken or you try to make it confusing for someone like me to read. Could you at least spend all of 5 minutes making it readable for people?

well other people seem to understand me because i have had a frank and full reply from every one of my posts. so maybe its your problem if you cant understand it stay out?

i just read it over in i thought it was understandable. the subject of the argument or rather debate was: should iran have the same rights and be treated the same as countries such as australia(an example given by interludes).

the original subject was iran in formula 1 but interludes just seems to be intent on changing the subject or using pointless and confusing examples such as:
.australia (china was a better example)
.the KGB??????
.his next door neighbor????
.russia????

so i think iran does not deserve to be treated the same as australia, interludes think they should. simple enough now iv'e spelt it out for you??

ps. i have tried to improve the post you refered to so its easier for you to understand.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

well other people seem to understand me because i have had a frank and full reply from every one of my posts. so maybe its your problem if you cant understand it stay out?

i just read it over in i thought it was understandable. the subject of the argument or rather debate was: should iran have the same rights and be treated the same as countries such as australia(an example given by interludes).

the original subject was iran in formula 1 but interludes just seems to be intent on changing the subject or using pointless and confusing examples such as:
.australia (china was a better example)
.the KGB??????
.his next door neighbor????
.russia????

so i think iran doesent deserve to be treated the same as australia, interludes think they should. simple enough now iv'e spelt it out for you??

ps. i have tried to improve the post you refered to so its easier for you to understand.

I understand Interludes posts entirely, its yours that I have difficulty understanding. Because you are being hypocritical:

So, what you're essentially saying is this: "Iran, you cannot have a Grand Prix because you abuse human rights. But China, you can have a Grand Prix despite the fact that you abuse human rights". Do you not see the hypocracy in this?

My thoughts exactly. And you know that key to the left of the z on the keyboard? You know, the shift key? That capitalizes your I's and helps with proper grammar? Why don't you know what this is? Why do you fail to grasp this concept? Why? Why? Tell me why? But in a private message, thread derailment will not be a option.

 

[RYAN]

I understand Interludes posts entirely, its yours that I have difficulty understanding. Because you are being hypocritical:



My thoughts exactly. And you know that key to the left of the z on the keyboard? You know, the shift key? That capitalizes your I's and helps with proper grammar? Why don't you know what this is? Why do you fail to grasp this concept? Why? Why? Tell me why? But in a private message, thread derailment will not be a option.

Well you clearly havnt even read my opinion on china hosting a GP. So i think i dont really need to bother with you and your smart alec comments on my keyboard skills. As you and everyone else knows there are people with a lot worse grammar and punctuation than me on this forum, so go and bother them.

With regards to hypocracy?, i would call it judging each case on its merits.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Well you clearly havnt even read my opinion on china hosting a GP. So i think i dont really need to bother with you and your smart alec comments on my keyboard skills. As you and everyone else knows there are people with a lot worse grammar and punctuation than me on this forum, so go and bother them.

As regard to hypocracy?, id call it judging each case on its merits.

Yes, Iran doesn't have the brightest human rights record. But have you seen China's? Have you seen how they use their athletes for national spotlight, and after their careers are over they're living on the street homeless? Or the children working obscene amounts of hours at sweatshops, working with toxic lead paint and other chemicals which are known to cause cancer and, with better safety standards, shouldn't even be allowed in the country?

Or oh, the whole computer recycling thing, where a village in China uses toxic chemicals to separate old computers. Merits? There are none. Get your facts straight, and until you do, stop talking. I'm sure many, if not all would agree with this statement. Your argument is nothing but opinion, with no evidence to back it up. I agree with you in part that F1 is all about the money, but if Iran cannot have a Gran Prix because of it's so called "merits", then there's no way in hell that China should have one.

 

[RYAN]

Yes, Iran doesn't have the brightest human rights record. But have you seen China's? Have you seen how they use their athletes for national spotlight, and after their careers are over they're living on the street homeless? Or the children working obscene amounts of hours at sweatshops, working with toxic lead paint and other chemicals which are known to cause cancer and, with better safety standards, shouldn't even be allowed in the country?

Or oh, the whole computer recycling thing, where a village in China uses toxic chemicals to separate old computers. Merits? There are none. Get your facts straight, and until you do, stop talking. I'm sure many, if not all would agree with this statement. Your argument is nothing but opinion, with no evidence to back it up. I agree with you in part that F1 is all about the money, but if Iran cannot have a Gran Prix because of it's so called "merits", then there's no way in hell that China should have one.

For goodness sake!!!! again you have not even bothered to read my views on china , if you would have read it. You would have seen that i dont believe they should host a gp as much as iran deserve to

Please read my post about 7-8 posts up from this one, pay particular attention to the two paragraphs regarding china.

That big post you have just typed is was a waste of time, as i agree with you on the issues you have risen regarding china.

THE MERITS COMMENT WAS REGARDING IRAN AND AUSTRALIA NOT IRAN AND CHINA!!!. How could you fail to see that, of course if you bothered to read it you would have seen this.

so start reading each post and comment before YOU reply other wise you should stop talking.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Okay, I made a mistake. Not the first person to do that. I'm juggling 4 courses with assignments all due on Friday, and parents on my ass everyday. I get general accounting practice principles mixed up with principles of design and left and right and agh ADHD just makes this worse. Anyway, I reread and realized my mistake. Now excuse me while I get some badly needed rest.

 

[DK]

If Iran can provide decent Grade-1 facilities, and there's not much of a chance of any unrest that could threaten the safety of the teams, drivers and all of the FIA staff, then yes, they can host a Grand Prix. As the GPs in China have proven, human rights records count for zilch if you want to host a GP.

 

[Dennisch]

The countries hosting a GP in 2012, and their status on human rights, according to Amnesty:

1. Australia: Clickie

2. Malaysia: Clickie

3. China: Clickie

4. Bahrain: Clickie

5. Spain: Clickie

6. Monaco: No information at Amnesty.

7. Canada: Clickie

8. Spain: See 5.

9. Great Britain: Clickie

10. Germany: Clickie

11. Hungary: Clickie

12. Belgium: Clickie

13. Italy: Clickie

14. Singapore: Clickie

15. Japan: Clickie

16. South Korea: Clickie

17. India: Clickie

18. Abu Dhabi: Clickie

19. United States: Clickie

20. Brazil: Clickie

After reading it through,all the countries have their issues, so, if Iran gets the Grade 1 circuit, and there could be made money, we will see a Iranian GP.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The countries hosting a GP in 2012, and their status on human rights, according to Amnesty:

1. Australia: Clickie

2. Malaysia: Clickie

3. China: Clickie

4. Bahrain: Clickie

5. Spain: Clickie

6. Monaco: No information at Amnesty.

7. Canada: Clickie

8. Spain: See 5.

9. Great Britain: Clickie

10. Germany: Clickie

11. Hungary: Clickie

12. Belgium: Clickie

13. Italy: Clickie

14. Singapore: Clickie

15. Japan: Clickie

16. South Korea: Clickie

17. India: Clickie

18. Abu Dhabi: Clickie

19. United States: Clickie

20. Brazil: Clickie

After reading it through,all the countries have their issues, so, if Iran gets the Grade 1 circuit, and there could be made money, we will see a Iranian GP.

^ This right here!!!👍

I was waiting for the U.S. to be shown...my own country though people wont acknowledge it at most times has its own issue regarding human rights. We also have a history of picking and choosing who we like to protect so long as it doesn't get in the way of our trading partners. I'm glad this was brought up though.

For goodness sake!!!! again you have not even bothered to read my views on china , if you would have read it. You would have seen that i dont believe they should host a gp as much as iran deserve to

Please read my post about 7-8 posts up from this one, pay particular attention to the two paragraphs regarding china.

That big post you have just typed is was a waste of time, as i agree with you on the issues you have risen regarding china.

THE MERITS COMMENT WAS REGARDING IRAN AND AUSTRALIA NOT IRAN AND CHINA!!!. How could you fail to see that, of course if you bothered to read it you would have seen this.

so start reading each post and comment before YOU reply other wise you should stop talking.

Friend like I said before if only you knew the half of it. You may have rational points but it still wont budge a rock, but I understand where you're coming from.