Archive Sections: letters | music | index | features | photos | arts/lit | satire Find Iranian singles today!

They're not Ron Paul
Democratic Party candidates for president look good. Ron Paul does good.

Toofan Hosseinnezhad
July 12, 2007

I'm not going to bother to write about the low life, animal like barbarian GOP candidates whom I feel, in all honesty, belong in the trash dump of humanity. This off course does not fall for the single GOP candidate Ron Paul whom I endorsed on this page a while ago, and which I got a nice responses to from the readers of Every GOP candidate on the debates have talked about doubling Guantanamo Bay (Romney), most candidates promoted the use of torture after watching to many "24" episodes obviously and also the simple and humane idea of using nuclear weapons on Iran in a "preemptive strike" was also highly popular. By the way, Hitler was one of the main advocates of Preemptive war in modern history, so let's just push the garbage candidates/creatures aside and waste no more breath on them.

Let's rather talk about the candidates I feel most American-Iranians feel compelled to vote on, the democrats. Out of these candidates naturally we have the "handsome and dazzling" Obama. Its about time we had a black president right? I mean, Martin Luther King wasn't bad was he? Also we have Hillary Clinton, the woman. Its also about time the US got a female president, no? Its about time women got to control the White house, yeah? Wrong to both, let's just compare their voting record to Ron Paul on certain key issues and you will understand what I mean:

Ron Paul: Voted against the Patriot act, Voted against regulating the internet and Voted against the Iraq war, as such wanting a full troop pullout from the Middle-East entirely arguing that US presence there is the reason why people are swayed into terrorists camps to commit murder against Americans. Off course, the biggest killer here is the US by murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children before the war by sanctions, and then by its invasion that turned such a beautiful country into a pit of genocidal hell.

Hillary Clinton: Voted yes on reauthorizing the Patriot Act, Backs the notion of regulating the internet (Introduced the "net neutrality" legislation) and Voted for the Iraq war. Her excuse is that there were not enough information in that time about Iraq's WMD capability which is a lie, there were plenty. She probably didn't bother reading the pile of documents like Dr. Paul did, showing her lack of responsibility and ability to lead such an important and global country like the US.

Barack Obama: Been critical of the Patriot Act, but he voted to adopt a conference report to reauthorize it in 2006. Introduced the "net neutrality" legislation and backs regulating the internet. Was not in congress during the voting over the Iraq war (he did oppose it which should be mentioned and credited), but wants to keep forces there so that he can fight the terrorists or any Iraqi who hates the US with good sane reason, and keep the capability to keep bombing Iraq from abroad to fuel more hate, kill more innocents and recruit more extremists to the terrorist camps. This Iraq policy is similar to the one Clinton is mentioning.

But what about Iran? Will the maternal instincts of a woman understand the cruelty of war and sanctions and thus try to avoid another conflict? Will a man with his black background of historical slavery, understand that war only serves the interest of the wealthy and thus be a staunch opponent of it? Wrong again, both support the "All options are on the table" policy of the Bush regime, and thus accepting the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS as a FIRST STRIKE on Iran. But off course, first they will try diplomacy, whish for them is another word for sanctions. They will impose sanctions, and more sanctions, to the point that Iranian children are dying like they did in Iraq in their hundreds of thousands. After a year or two he or she might just accept the "hard and noble" task of bombing our country back to a stone age version of Afghanistan, giving the ultimate head to AIPAC and the Neo-Christian right.

Ron Paul wants no war with Iran. He has said that Iran is not a threat (only a threat because the US is in the Middle-East in the first place and is on the offence against Iran) and has voted against sanctions on Iran as he views, quite correctly, that sanctions are an ACT OF WAR. It hurts Iranian business, it makes the Iranian people poorer while making the Mullah elite richer and more powerful. Contrary to popular belief, sanctions don't help an oppressed people, they only help the oppressors. He believes that if one just traded with Iran, improved the living standard of Iranians, the Iranian population will sooner or later would want to emulate the US and would have the economy, backing and power to start such a change by the US cultural influence that would have impacted on them if trading had increased.

An article here on suggested that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars depleted the US's ability to wage war against Iran. True to a certain point, but wrong because when the retaliation of Iran has started to show its effect in mass American casualties after the first aerial strike which the US has (today)full ability to initiate, the only tactical military answer would be to use Nuclear Weapons to force a peace with Iran (second strike) BECAUSE of the depleted military recourses. This is not a conspiracy theory or a lefty rant, Pentagon is now authorized (by the same people who gave us the Iraq war) to use nuclear weapons on non nuclear states to end long lasting conflicts. Iran is risking to be the test dummy for this new policy if we seriously don't fight back gainst the war-pimps in the media and the governments across the globe who call for such a HOLOCAUST.

The US is facing a dangerous period in its existence. I would not imagine it would be hard to convince the US population by mass propaganda and lies to nuke Iran one day when some Saudi-Arabian terrorist detonates a dirty nuclear bomb in New York after buying it easily on the black marked of the former Soviet states.

I'm going to wrap this up by saying (gladly) that Ron Paul has reached a 2.4 million dollar campaign funding marker, thereby passing McCain in hard cash campaign funds in the bank. Do your motherland (Be it the US or Iran) a favor, hell do the world a favor and use your minds this time. Vote and support candidates who realize and understand the horrors of war, sanctions and torture, and who cherish the meaning off civil liberties, freedom, peace, dialogue and trade. Ron Paul is definitely one of them, his history proves it. Obama and Hillary are not.

Search his videos on YouTube or simply just visit

Ron Paul's long voting list:

He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress. Comment

For letters section
Toofan Hosseinnezhad

* Advertising
* Support
* Editorial policy
* Write for
* Reproduction


Sevruguin and the Persian Image
Photographs of Iran, 1870-1930 (Asian Art & Culture
Frederick Nathaniel Bohrer (Editor)

Copyright 1995-2013, Iranian LLC.   |    User Agreement and Privacy Policy   |    Rights and Permissions