NUCLEAR

Anonym7, good one! It

Anonym7, good one! It could’ve been dough!

kahsni, kashani!

Kashani says: "I can quote a thousand of articles from thousand different people ..."

Kashani_jAn, I hardly see any evidence that you have read a thousand article .... are you sure it was dough you had after your chelo_kabAb tonight?

 Roshanbean, these area all

 Roshanbean, these area all “opinions”. I can quote a thousand of articles from thousand different people rejecting this point of view. I thought this was a conversation between me and you.  

A War of Self-Destruction

A War of self-Destruction

By Chris Hedges

An attack on Iran, which Israeli and Bush administration officials appear set to carry out if Iranian uranium enrichment is not halted, would ignite a regional war in the Middle East and lead to economic collapse and political upheaval in the United States.

“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times,” said William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy. “Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.”

The passage of vast amounts of oil and liquefied gas through the Persian Gulf would be disrupted. Iranian attacks, carried out with rocket- and bomb-equipped speedboats and submarines, would be deadly and effective. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times. Iranian oil, which makes up 8 percent of the world’s energy supply, would instantly be taken off the market. And oil would jump to over $500 a barrel and perhaps, as the conflict dragged on, to over $750 a barrel. Our petroleum-based economy would come to a halt.

Israel would be hit by Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Hezbollah, with its new store of Iranian-supplied rockets that allegedly can reach any part of Israel, including Israel’s nuclear plant at Dimona, would enter the conflict. Israel would lash back. Terrorist attacks on U.S. targets would become frequent. U.S. casualties in Iraq would mount as the Iranians rained missiles down on U.S. bases and installations, including our imperial city, the Green Zone. Chaos and mayhem would grip the Middle East. The world financial markets would go haywire.

“Even at today’s price, as you know, 14 airlines have gone out of business while others are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and most have curtailed service and laid off personnel,” said Polk, one of the country’s leading scholars of the Arab world. “At double or triple today’s price, none could fly unless nationalized. A whole range of other industries would be quickly drawn into the quicksand. Ironically, war would push America into a form of socialist economy.”

The U.S. economy is already tottering. We recently witnessed the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and there are fears that as many as 150 banks could fail over the next 12 to 18 months. There will be 6.5 million foreclosures over the next five years, according to Wall Street analysts. The government is furiously pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into private corporations to keep them afloat. The Congress bailed out the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bizarre “government-sponsored enterprises” own or guarantee half the mortgages in the country—some $5.1 trillion. The Federal Reserve evoked rarely used emergency powers to put billions of taxpayer dollars at risk to stop the meltdown of a non-bank, Bear Stearns, which it never regulated. More than $300 billion has been written down so far. Losses, by the time we are done, could exceed $1 trillion.

The already staggering debt generated by the war in Iraq would mushroom with an attack on Iran. Fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, we would soon be struggling to pay off a debt of at least two or three times the present amount. This is a weight the U.S. economy cannot bear, especially as the dollar tumbles against the euro and other major currencies. The government has borrowed abroad roughly a quarter of our annual national income in order to pay for the Iraq debacle. We have been told for the first time by a sovereign fund (South Korean, one of the world’s largest) that it will no longer buy U.S. Treasury bonds. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the final cost of the war in Iraq, once all the hidden costs are added up, could be as high as $7 trillion.

“Financial capitalism is crashing,” wrote independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. “So the lights are on late in Washington’s Federal Reserve, SEC and Treasury Department trying to figure out how socialism (your tax dollars and credits) can once again bail out these big-time gamblers with our money. ... Reckless, self-enriching capitalists get on your knees and thank the rescuing Washington socialists, for without them, you would surely be in chains.”

A war with Iran would also have grave political consequences. The specter of millions of Americans driven out of their homes, no longer able to afford basic necessities, out of work and enraged, would, as it has throughout history, embolden messianic right-wing and proto-fascist movements. Given the potential for social unrest, basic freedoms would be curtailed and in some cases abolished in the name of order and national security. The radical fringes of the Christian right could rise up with a vengeance. They would happily ally themselves with an assortment of oddballs, lunatics and corporate behemoths from Blackwater mercenaries to frightened capitalists at Halliburton. It was economic collapse, along with a climate of fear and instability, that was used to build the fascist and communist movements that plagued Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union during the last century. These same forces led to the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. We are not immune to these distortions.

But maybe those who advocate a war with Iran know all this. Maybe this is what they want. Maybe they understand that a war with Iran would finally kill off our weakened and anemic democracy. Maybe they see this as the dawn of a new era, an era when the last impediments to a global totalitarian capitalism can finally be removed and we can all be ground under the corporate jack boot, from Shanghai to New Delhi to Ohio. There are huge corporations that make obscene profits from human misery. They run our health care industry. They run our oil and gas companies. They run our bloated weapons industry. They run Wall Street and the major investment firms. They run our manufacturing firms. They also, ominously, run our government.

US distractions let in foes by Jim Lobe

US distractions let in 'foes'
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - More than five years after invading Iraq as a first step towards "transforming" the Middle East, the administration of US President George W Bush seems to have lost its footing - let alone its unquestioned domination - throughout the region.

The talk of "democratizing" the region has almost entirely disappeared from the administration's rhetoric as Washington has had to sacrifice whatever pressure it had been willing exert on "friendly authoritarians" among Arab states to bolstering their rule against popular sentiment that has become considerably more hostile toward the US than before the invasion.

Similarly, its plan after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war to forge a de facto coalition between the Jewish state and those same

"moderate" authoritarians against the threat posed by Iran, Syria and their allies in the Levant has also come unraveled.

Not only has the administration repeatedly refused to pay the Arabs' price for such an arrangement - putting serious pressure on Israel to reach a peace accord with a unified Palestinian government based largely on a return to the 1967 borders - but the assumption that the Arab Gulf states, in particular, would support - or even welcome, as some hawkish officials believed - an eventual military confrontation between Washington and Tehran has also proved illusory.

The one area in which Washington has made some progress has been in Iraq, where sectarian violence has fallen sharply over the past 18 months, in good part as a result of more successful counter-insurgency tactics pursued by General David Petraeus during the "surge" of some 30,000 additional troops.

But the strategic goal of the "surge" - national reconciliation between the key sectarian and ethnic groups in Iraq - remains elusive, as evidenced by the latest impasse between Arabs and Kurds over Kirkuk and the certainty that long-promised regional elections will be delayed until next year. Even Petraeus continues to warn that the security gains made since the "surge" got underway in February 2007 remain fragile and could be reversed in the absence of significant political progress.

Washington's continuing pre-occupation with Iraq, as well as its growing concern about Afghanistan and Pakistan, has effectively put an end to its larger transformational ambitions in the Arab world, in particular, leaving local powers to work out their manner of getting on with each other, even in ways that make the administration uneasy or even angry.

"The hardline, confrontational policy the United States has embraced under the Bush administration has inadvertently demonstrated the limits of US power," according to a recent paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "... The rejection of diplomacy has reduced the United States to a condition of self-inflicted powerlessness regarding many problems."

"The vacuum is being filled in part by US adversaries - Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah - and in part by friendly Arab regimes, which seek to find a way forward in situations where US policy has contributed to stalemate," according to the report, entitled "The New Arab Diplomacy: Not With the US and Not Against the US", by Carnegie fellows Marina Ottaway and Mohammed Herzallah.

That has been particularly notable with respect to the gradual detente between Iran, Washington's main regional nemesis since the Iraq war, and Saudi Arabia, traditionally Washington's most important Gulf ally.

That process, which has included two visits to Saudi Arabia by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, as well as his unprecedented participation at a Gulf Cooperation Council summit, is credited in major part to King Abdullah, who has made little secret of his aim - contrary to that of the administration's hawks - to reduce Sunni-Shi'ite tensions, that came to the fore after the Israel-Hezbollah war.

Abdullah, who shocked the US when he negotiated the ill-fated unity government in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah in early 2007, also worked with Iran to calm sectarian tensions in Lebanon that year, despite his steadfast backing for Washington's efforts to isolate Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.

Similarly, Qatar, which hosts a huge US air base, has played a leading role in reducing tensions in the region, most notably by negotiating a political settlement to the long-running stand-off in Lebanon in May that resulted in the dilution of the US-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. While US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed the accord during a visit to Beirut in June, most analysts in Washington and in the region depicted the result as a serious blow to Washington's regional position.

"Many essentially friendly countries are openly willing to pursue policies the United States disapproves of, presenting Washington with a fait accompli and the choice of either openly criticizing the action of its so-called allies or grudgingly tolerating it," according to the Carnegie report. "[T]he United States has little leverage over the policies of even friendly countries."

While the new report focuses primarily on Arab diplomacy, even Washington's closest ally in the region, Israel, has declared at least partial independence from the Bush administration, notably by using third parties in the region to engage adversaries whom Washington persists in trying to isolate.

Thus, through Egypt, it has negotiated what appears to be an increasingly effective ceasefire with Hamas and may soon conclude a prisoner exchange with the Islamist group, just as it did - again in the face of Washington's clear disapproval - with Hezbollah last month.

The government of (outgoing) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also been pursuing increasingly intensive, Turkish-mediated negotiations with Syria that have, according to the Israeli press, acquired the backing of the Jewish state's entire security establishment.

Damascus has been the target of unceasing efforts by the White House, in particular, to isolate and punish, ever since neo-conservative hawk Elliott Abrams assumed the top Middle East post in the National Security Council on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Indeed, it was only two years ago, during the opening days of the Israel-Hezbollah war, that Abrams suggested that Israel carry the fight into Syrian territory.

Now, according to Israeli press reports, the two countries are within reach of a final peace accord which could come as early as the next round of proximity talks in September. Damascus, however, is insisting that Washington give its explicit blessing to the agreement, a blessing that, given Abrams' enduring influence despite the wishes of the State Department and the Pentagon, most analysts believe will likely await the arrival of a new administration in the US next year.

While such "negative power" remains a very real factor as Bush's tenure winds down, it appears increasingly detached both from any practicable strategic vision and from the wishes and desires of key US allies in the region.

Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at //www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

(Inter Press Service)

F,Kashani

Have You watched the movie Marmoolak?, if not please do because you act like one, so brilliantly twisting the issues to your advantage
1)I was not referring to S.Arabia.

2)As a matter of fact I did , you do not need my explanation on that any further , just refer to any intellectually honest news outlet, they report and analyse it better than I do. Corporate media don't count ie CNN,FOX,.... you do your own honest research and homework and you'll find out how .

3) I must say B-52s helped alot. The point is IRI diagnosed problem, years before anyone else , and did something about it. Iran was the only country to help Ahmad shah Masood to fight Alqida and Taliban.
oil companies are sanctioning Iran now, aren't they?
b/c Iran violates human rights, is terrorist, etc..., But they were signing oil contracts with Taliban while Taliban was executing innocent people in football stadium.

4) Yes, I'll Repeat, there are religous countries that commite atrocities, and practice Aparthide , and those honorable organizations would not lift a finger.

Roshanbean, 1-     

Roshanbean,

1-      yes, there has been other religious governments in the past, there are only one or two left now, S Arabia and Iran; but, hows that make what IRI has done any less horrific? So what if its not the first religious government, what does that have to do with anything?  2-      You still haven’t said how did Iran curb the violence. Looks like you dag a hole for yourself there. You know that you condemned the IRI with initiating violence in Iraq by bringing that subject up. Also, it is naïve to say that Sunnis “took money to stop supporting Al Qaeda”. Do you even know what Al – Qaeda, and other Sunni fundamentalist groups, were doing to Sunnis, and others, in Iraq? They were mass murdering them. To human beings, money is important only when you are ALIVE to enjoy it. 3-      Again how far did Iran’s so called “assistance” help? You still haven’t answered this question, if Iran’s help was so crucial, why didn’t it lead to the removal of Taliban before the U.S attack? Also, what kind of logic is that saying “oil companies negotiated with Taliban”??? What are you trying to say? Obviously, if I was an oil company CEO, I wouldn’t do that, but since when are oil companies responsible for what governments do? They are businesses, not human rights organizations. 4-      OK. I’m glad you made it very clear that you believe Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch are “tools in Western Powers’ hands”. One reason we’re having these arguments is for you guys to be exposed to the audience. 5-      Not persuasive. I know how you think. The IRI has lowered your standard. That’s one of IRI biggest successful policies, that it has made some Iranians lower their standard. 

 Based on what logic is foreign intervention, war only? I think I expressed in my previous posting what I mean by that. Please don’t go back to point one.   

Roshanbean, 1-     

Roshanbean,

1-      yes, there has been other religious governments in the past, there are only one or two left now, S Arabia and Iran; but, hows that make what IRI has done any less horrific? So what if its not the first religious government, what does that have to do with anything?  2-      You still haven’t said how did Iran curb the violence. Looks like you dag a hole for yourself there. You know that you condemned the IRI with initiating violence in Iraq by bringing that subject up. Also, it is naïve to say that Sunnis “took money to stop supporting Al Qaeda”. Do you even know what Al – Qaeda, and other Sunni fundamentalist groups, were doing to Sunnis, and others, in Iraq? They were mass murdering them. To human beings, money is important only when you are ALIVE to enjoy it. 3-      Again how far did Iran’s so called “assistance” help? You still haven’t answered this question, if Iran’s help was so crucial, why didn’t it lead to the removal of Taliban before the U.S attack? Also, what kind of logic is that saying “oil companies negotiated with Taliban”??? What are you trying to say? Obviously, if I was an oil company CEO, I wouldn’t do that, but since when are oil companies responsible for what governments do? They are businesses, not human rights organizations. 4-      OK. I’m glad you made it very clear that you believe Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch are “tools in Western Powers’ hands”. One reason we’re having these arguments is for you guys to be exposed to the audience. 5-      Not persuasive. I know how you think. The IRI has lowered your standard. That’s one of IRI biggest successful policies, that it has made some Iranians lower their standard. 

 Based on what logic is foreign intervention, war only? I think I expressed in my previous posting what I mean by that. Please don’t go back to point one.   

F.Kashani

1) IRI is not the first religous government, there are others and one in particular ethenicly cleanses, and practices Aparthaid in a broad day light and non of those honorable organizations have the guts to raise any concern.

2) Iran did not start the violence we all know illegal and imoral war did. IRI was the major player in curbing the violence among Shia groups, Sonnies were given money to cut ties with alqida, that is it. combination of those called surge.

3)Intellegence provided by Iran, helped with many military operations and influence with several Afghan groups including northern alleince helped with political reconcilliation, Colon Powell shook hands with Javad Zarif and acknowleged his help. Even Powel was astouned when Iran was called Axis of Evil. Iran helped northern Allience long before anyone else did to remove Taliban. actually big oil companies were negotiating with Taliban for gas and oil pipeline from central asian countries, while Taliban would not let girls to attend school.

4) this one was addresed in part one. and the answer is Yes.

5) I would love Iran to become like switzerland (in some aspect) tommorow, which is within 40 minutes in my time zone. what I said was, we have to go up the latter step by step. By the way, in many aspect we are way better than western countries, but that is another thread of discussions.

I completly differentiate between IRI and Iran , I also differentiate between all government and their repective people.

on the same note, you and people like you think that If we have problem with our government we need foreign intervention, War, bldy revolution, Coups. 70% of Americans are fed up with current administration, none of those Americans wishes ill on their nation or even for the government. That is one lesson we can learn from these people. Even removal of Shah was not necessary, his regime could have been reformed , but since He allowed foreigners to decide his faith, so they did.

Roshanbean,   1-   

Roshanbean,

1-     like I said, to say IRI is “corrupt” only, it’s the most understatement of all time. And not all governments initiate clash of civilization, where did you get this? IRI bashes other religions and cultures, applies religious laws, pursue the export of religious laws that are in contrast with human rights principles, and many other things.

2-     Explain this to me: how can you start violence in a country, then stop it, then claim credit for “curbing violence”? I don’t think that the Mehdi army which is conducting genocide against Sunnis and others, denies itself that it’s receiving assistance from Iran. So, be precise and tell me how did Iran manage to curb violence in Iraq? Did it do that by telling its mini-fascists groups such as Mehdi Army to stop killing people? Well, if that’s the case, should the IRI be responsible (As I think it should) for the killings that the Mehdi army and, by the way, many other religious fundamentalist groups, did before it tell them to stop?

3-     How did Iran “help” the removal of Taliban? Or let me ask how “important” was their effort? No one was able/willing to remove the Taliban until the U.S, with full International support, attacked Afghanistan (Even it gave a choice to Taliban to give Bin Laden up for not attacking). If Iran was “the main factor” of removing the Taliban, how come it didn’t/wasn’t able to do it between the years of 1995-2001 when Taliban was in power? Are you serious with these arguments?

4-     You’re saying that great honorable organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders (although I don’t agree with 100% of what they say) are “tools in the hand of Western powers”? Are you really saying that?

5-     Your argument that we shouldn’t aim to be like Switzerland and other developed nations, and rather be like “Kuwait”, is just sad, very sad indeed.

Roshanbean, I think you’re biggest mistake is, which is a mistake that some Iranians do out of “blind love” for their country, is that you do not differentiate between the IRI and Iran. Blind love is what stopped Iran from progressing and has caused disastrous outcomes for Iran. For example, Shah loved Iran, but he killed democracy in Iran because he thought Iran needs his iron rule to move forward. We don’t need “doosti khaleh kherseh” anymore! Enough is enough! We need to step on our emotions, although I know we are one of the most emotional people in the world, and think with our brains, for once! The old saying that “Iran ba khoobihash va badihash is good enough”, is not good enough! The world has moved on, and we have been set back because of the regime, we don’t deserve this, we don’t want this.

Kashani

alllll..... right boss!

Anonym7, chill out. You

Anonym7, chill out. You still haven’t told me if I’m Michael Corleone or Vitto Corleone? lol

let the man say what he wants! (to Kashsni )

Kashani, Craig is very capable of stating his ideas here, and does not seem to be in need of a God Father. More importantly although Craig and you have many similar political views, he has a very significant difference with you, Craig is honest .... and I respect that despite all the contempt he has for me. ..... so let the man say what he wants Mr. "freedom fighter".

F.kashani

1)I am glad we agree on one thing, corruption. IRI is not the only government who initiats clash of civilization,terrorism, or war mogering, and religious fundamentalism. This is not to defend IRI but to point other culprits in the game also, you need to open your mind(open minded often and wrongly defined as being pro-west and anti everything eastern) and look at the big picture without concentrating only on one regime. stating the facts does not mean one is Pro-this or Anti-that.

Iran was major major major factor in curbing the violence in Iraq, A major factor in initial victory over Taliban , did they get credit for their good deeds, rather IRI was cornered time and time again , you know when you corner people, they fight back, they were ignored for offer of reapproachment, they were used and ignored. In a way IRI helped to curb terrorism, so someone else can take credit for surge in the mainstream media(I am sure there is behind the door deals to return the favore, hint hint W.Burns). You have to give the credit where it is due.
Kurdish terrorists, MEK, Balouch AL qida, are supported and financed by some of M.E governments and western democracy loving governments, Sponsoring terrorism is wrong regardless of sponsor , remember the key words NO DOUBLE STANDARD & NO DISCRIMINATION. Iran and Iranians are being treated like a red headed step child.

2) I'll give credit to those organizations when they give the same treatment to OTHER countries who abuse human rights, without being tool in hands of big power to put even more pressure on the Red headed step child. They have to condemn human rights abuses, everywhere. that is not much to ask. I do not name any country to avoid being accused of pro-this and anti-that. NO DOuBLE STANDARDS.

3) You may have not said that out right, but your posts/comments gives the impression of no respect rather deep hatered towards Iran.

4) Comparing Iran to switzerland is the biggest mistake and source of frustration for ones who eagerly want democracy and prosperity for Iran. Iran has to be better than regional countries in the first step, then pass S.koreans, Brazilians, then compared to switzerland . Not that Iranians are less deserving of democracy, but foreign interventions of last decades have hampered those acheivments.

5)existance of regime that you do not like should not give big powers excuse to pumel the whole country, IRI is not any different from most of the governments in regards to issues that makes them target, it's just that they are treated differently because mostly they do not serve the interests of big power. Avoid DOUBLE STANDARD.

I am going to repeat this again if anyone or any government interested in genuine democracy in Iran, military advanture is not the answer. It has the opposite effect, it will strenghten the right wingers of IRI. Just like 911 gave rise to right wingers in this country , and what a mess that has been. Best thing is to lift all pressure and sanctions and let 70,000,000 strong Iranians from inside and outside to tighten the screws and get to where they deserve to get. It could be a complete regime change or gradual and simmered first rate country in the world , because we deserve it and are capable of doing it more than anyone else.

Unfortunately we are lead to believe that we are in brink of another quick revolution in Iran so L.A T.V trash talkers can go back and set up their own dictatorship. That is not going to happen, nothing Quich will happen , IRI is too strong for that. gradual change will, it takes wisdom , strategy and patience.

I have never mentioned AIPAC nither.

Roshanbean,  

Roshanbean,

1-     There are different levels of corruptions.  Yes, most world government are corrupt, but the IRI has taken it to a whole different level. IRI is not only corrupt, its demonic, its evil, it’s a chaos producing, clash-of-civilization initiating, terrorism sponsoring, war mongering fascist bunch of frustrated, illiterate religious fundamentalists.

2-     Only you would think that there is “half baked” democracy in Iran. You can either refer to my article tilted Rising Expectations or do a simple search to see where most “experts” such as Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and others, list Iran in democracy ranking.

3-     Name only one, just one, spot that I said Iran should be carpet bombed.

4-     Iranians can do things that is not possible in those countries, really? lets see, where do we start, how about if I just mention 4 things, A- Iranian women are forced to wear Hijab, Kuwaiti and Pakistani women are not. B – In Pakistan, opposition figures such as Nawaz Sheriff, and ordinary people, call for Parviz Musharraf’s head out in the public, without any repercussions, in Iran, there are no opposition groups, and ordinary people are too scared to even mention Khamenei name because of IRIs spies. C- Kuwait and Pakistani people can listen to whatever Music they want in public, have satellite dishes, which are all signs of basic freedoms, Iranian lack those. D – in Kuwaiti parliament, there are liberal MPs who openly call for separation of religion and state, in Iran, there are punishments for making those statements, up to death. All that being said, as I said in my rising expectations article, that IRI has forced some Iranians to lower their standard, it is really pathetic that you are comparing Iran, a liberal, civilization-producing, ancient, beautiful, country, with ”Kuwait”. That’s just sad. I want my democracy to be compared to Switzerland, I want my technology and economy to be compared to U.S, I want my industrious attitude to be compared to Japan, not “Kuwait”.

5-     Again, name one sentence I mentioned about saying Iranians are not gonna defend their country or that Iranians are anti U.S? Those actually are the arguments that I always make myself. I’m saying with the existence of IRI, the war is “inevitable”, do you know what that word means? I’m not saying its “favorable”, nor I’m saying I’m for it, I’m saying you need to stop defending the IRI which is inflicting war on us, and if you want to stop war, fight the regime, not make up dumb statements like “AIPAC is responsible” for war.

Maybe I should call myself “Roshanbean”.

Craig, for them, there is a

Craig, for them, there is a bigger cause than Iran, for some of them its Islam, and for others is Socialism. They don’t give rats ass what happens to our country. They have been showing that repeatedly.

Good job.

Anonym7, I don’t like

Anonym7, I don’t like that “Iran is IRI now”, and most Iranians don’t like that either, and most Iranians, unlike you, differentiate between the fascist regime and our beloved country.

Like Craig is implying, you are showing your true face little by little. Iran is our country, not our enemy, but the IRI is our enemy, even though they are Iranians like you and I. These Iranians shows little to no consideration for our country, because the environment that they were raised and come from does not put the interests of Iran on top of their list, rather the interest of a bigger thing, namely Islam; just like leftists such as you, which puts the interest of “socialism” far above the interest of Iran.

IRI is neither black nor white (to Craig)

Carig says: "And how's about those "Death to America" parades, buddy? I won't even get into the overt acts of war teh IRI has committed against the USA."

Hey Craig, glad to see you are in better mood today. Ya I have always (even when I was in Iran) believed slogans such as "Death to America" were wrong. I was also vehemently against the capture of U.S embassy from the outset and when extremist groups such as MEK that are currently funded by U.S, were dancing round the U.S embassy. ...... I was against anti U.S empty slogans and actions because I thought nothing good will come out of them not because I thought U.S was not involved in overt and covert actions against Iran. In fact as we all know now, Reagan was closely involved with Saddam's war against Iran.
Regarding IRI, as Roshanbeen said, majority of governments including IRI are corrupt. Attacking Iran however does not solve that .... even if the attacking country is U.S with a government that is not nearly as corrupt as IRI (even the current U.S government with all its scandals!).
I believe the war that war pushers such as AIPAC (*) are looking for does not solve any problem, I further believe that those forces in the U.S government that don't want a war against Iran may not be able to put a leash on AIPAC, and that is why I hope IRI has or putting in place the strongest deterrence.

BTW, It was wrong of Yek Irani to use profanity against you ... once I found the meaning of that, I understood some of your frustration.

(*) AIPAC and ultra right, and perhaps Craig!?

F. Kashani

I never called you names, I simply stated that you check in with professionals, to see whether you have genocidal mind or not. I think you do, since you are sacrificing the whole nation because you hate Amadinejad. IRI like most(95%) of the Governments around world is corrupt. according to most expert at least there is a half baked democracy in Iran compare to other M.E countries, who run their government like Ghajars(if you know who they are)
So according to you the whole M.E should be carpet bmbd. There are so many things that Iranians can do that is not possible in Saudi arabia, Pakistan , Kuwait, and other friedly and Allied countries, So lets start with them. "Legitimecy" is a relative term. Most Government fall under illegitemecy based on your assesment.

Your problem is you are idealistic and live in LALA land. As my screen-name implies I am Realistic(Roshanbeen), I believe most if not all governments are corrupt, they lie and deceive. according to most experts definition of best politician is "presenting the bigest lie as a truth and vice versa".

I am going to clear one charge you made about base of IRI that they are brianwashed and hate this and dispise that blla..blla..blla... I recently came back from Iran and talked to people from all walks of life poor, rich, educated , uneducated, countrymen, etc. that base does not exist, Iranians are the one of most civlized and kind people in the world. They are not enemy of any one, They don't hate anyone. Can you say that about Pakistanies, saudies? The so called Allies. Iranians do not want to be bothered and they are not bothering anyone, as I said they will take care of their problems including the regime, they do not need outside help, . One thing was clear that regardless of what they thought of their government, if attacked they will defend their country and dignity at all cost. Ahmad Battebi the student leader was interviewed by WSJ, he was asked about how he feels about Iran being attacked militarly and response was that he would go back and defend the country, HE must be pro IR too?, Oh, Batebi only served 10 years in Evin prison. How about You? Iranians are tired of someone 10,000 mile away choosing their destiny. You want democracy and freedom for your country assuming you are Iranian, go back to Iran and start your struggle, Nelson mandela didn't leave S.africa and did not encouraged carpet bmbing of jouhanesberg, eventhough the government was totally different from everything that he represented and majority of south Africans for that matter.

DO NOT call me Anti this or Pro that, as I said I believe most governments are corrupt, they lie to their people. They invade other countries based on lies and against every international and moral laws even against their own constitution, then they turn around and prosecute other government officials for crimes against humanity. YES, they may do that again and probably no one can do anything about it, ordinary citizens of both countries will suffer the consequences as we are witnessing now. That is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

One thing I am certain that once the negotiatian that you are so much opposed to, takes place and yes security guarantees are given, Iranian people have better chance of doing their part and bring about changes that they want not some politician 10,000 mile away who can not find Iran on the map or can not even prounance the name of the country. Out side threats are the biggest stick used by IRI against opposition to silence them. So in a way you are pro-IR. )b:

Anonym7

.... and Yes I DON'T believe Iran/IRI is our enemy, U.S enemy

You finally said it, straight out! Bravo!

Now you have to reconcile that statement with the FACT that the IRI is not only an enemy of the United States, but has been the WORST enemy of the united States for the last 30 years. Bar none. It isn't even close.

And how's about those "Death to America" parades, buddy? I won't even get into the overt acts of war teh IRI has committed against the USA.

Where does an IRI supporter like you find the gall to come on this blog and call Americans or Iranian Americans "war mongers"? That seriously defies comprehension. Next you'll be claiming to be a human righst activist, right? lol. Yeah, lets all make cracks about Gitmo, while Evin prison goes about business as usual!

Loser.

YES Iran is not enemey? (to Kashani)

Kahsani says: "Ali jaan, the problem is though these guys don’t even believe that IRI is our enemy."

You are right Kashani. You like it or not Iran is IRI now, and IRI has many shortcomings that Iranians are fixing and will be fixing. At some points they may even decide to change the name IRI to RI (Republic of Iran) etc.
.... and Yes I DON'T believe Iran/IRI is our enemy, U.S enemy and even Israel's enemy. On the other hand I believe extremist war pushers such Benny Morris, Lunatic Mofaz, and many others in charge of lobbies such as yours (AIPAC) are the enemy of peace, enemy of Iranians, American, and that 2/3 of Israelis who are not looking for war.

The truth is that the

The truth is that the mullahs know that their usefulness has expired and the West will never allow the IR and their Islamic Revolutionaries in the region to kick the US out of the region to replace other up and coming superpowers like China and Russia in the region.

Now, the mullahs have a choice:1. To allow for a quick (before Iranians are vaporized by nepalm) and peaceful internal change toward a democratic nation (as opposed to an Islamic crusaders under General Mahdi) for all Iranians, in which they would not only save Iran and the lives of thousands others but also their own reputation and the reputation of Islam; and who knows they might end up becoming heroes to all Iranians in the end by allowing this national reconciliation to occur peacefully.

2. They can be ruthless bastards and gamble the lives of Iranians away to stay in power.

Ali1348, thanks aziz.

Ali1348, thanks aziz. Having an Iranian Congress is an idea that I always had in mind and I think it’s a great solution to forming a unified opposition force to fight the regime. I commend you on bringing this excellent point up. Good job.

 Ali jaan, the problem is though these guys don’t even believe that IRI is our enemy. That is where the problem rises. These are IRI supporters and apologists

Roshanbean, I’m not gonna

Roshanbean, I’m not gonna bring myself down to your level of incivility and intolerance and call you names. Its ironic and sad that someone who thinks he/she is “anti war” and does not hold “blind hatred” towards anyone, makes such demeaning comments towards someone who he/she disagrees with. Are these the people that supposedly represent the “anti War” movement? That itself says a lot about what you guys are. You’re inability to understand that the existence of regime itself is the greatest threat to the peace and instability of Iran and the world is the issue her. NIAC and other IRI supporters and apologists groups like it, are damaging the democratic movement of the Iranian people to a devastating level by adding “legitimacy” to an illegitimate government which has destroyed our country and has caused a clash of civilization between Iran/Islam and the West. Anyone or any groups that gives legitimacy to a government and stands in the way of the Iranian people removing this regime, is not only not promoting peace, but is causing the war to be closer. You’re unable t understand that war mongering is part of regime’s existence. Without it, there will no be IRI. Furthermore, none of you IRI supporters have ever said that what should the negotiations be about. We know why, because you guys want the IRI and the U.S to negotiate so the U.S gives security guarantees to the IRI that it would not engage in working against the regime, so the regime could last longer . That’s what the issue is here. You’re unable to understand that the blind hatred towards the U.S is ideological on part of the IRI. It cannot back down from it now, not after 30 years, even if some elements in the regime want to, because they will lose the support of their base who resort to anything to keep the regime alive, the base that they have been brainwashing with blind anti “anything besides IRI, especially anti U.S” hatred for 30 years. The regime cannot simply afford that. So, they might engage in negotiations with the U.S, but that negotiation will be devastating to the Iranian people’s interest. The ultimate outcome of any negotiation will be these 1- Security in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan 2- U.S doesn’t work against the regime 3- Iran can keep enriching Uranium, or shows that it has “temporarily suspended it”, or let the IAEA has some “control” over it. 4- Maybe possibly establishing some kind of diplomatic contact, and some smaller issues. So, some temporarily solutions that will eventually take both sides back to point 1, for a much bigger permanent problem. Not only none of those outcomes benefit the Iranian people, but it will frustrate them and leave them dealing with the murderous fascist regime of IRI. We don’t want that. We don’t even want Bangladesh, let a lone U.S, to negotiate with the regime. We want the world to isolate it, and go after the regime officials. That is the only and most certain way to avoid a war. The regime is mainly our problem, but its not only our problem. The actions and fascist policies of the regime worldwide in inspiring and supporting Islamic fundamentalism has brought Iran closer to a devastating war. How on earth can you claim that IRI is our problem only? Where have you been the last 30 years? The same way the world is going after Uganda, Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar and others, they have to do that x 100 with Iran. None of those countries have been “bombed”, but human rights violators and war criminals in those countries are in trouble, and the people of those countries are better off without them, and the world is safer without them. Why does the world condemn Mugabe for false elections where as even he had the decency to negotiate with his opposition rival and possibly do some power sharing, but they stay silent when the biggest fraud of all times, the Iranian “selections”, take place? Why can’t the world be vocal about that? And its not just the U.S, its China, EU, Russia, all of them. Why do they give legitimacy to a monkey like Ahmadinezhad who is the Public Relation manager of Khamenei by calling him “president”, when the Iranian constitution itself says that the top figure in the country, who is unchallenged, unelected, and appointed for life, who makes all the policies, is left out? The regime need to be isolated not only by the U.S, but by every country in the world, even Bangladesh. That’s what the Iranian people want, they don’t wanna be bombed or invaded, but they want the world to go after the regime with “smarter” policies, not the ones in place now. The last thing they want is for any country to gives this barbaric savages any legitimacy. They want help from the International community.

Farhad....great job...don't listen to these guys

As always, Farhad, you're saying it like it is.
Great job, and keep up the good work.
It's very sad that we are all fighting here amongst ourselves, instead of coming together to have a unified NATIONAL CONGRESS including ALL beliefs WITH THE MAIN GOAL of crushing the mullahs- that is what everyone should focus on- not bashing each other over our beliefs.
That is the problem with our culture, we are not "hambasteh"
LET'S COME TOGETHER AND FREE IRAN!
one very simple way to destroy the mullahs- support oil workers to go on strike- the akhoonds will fall within a week!

F.Kashani

Show me a line in my past comments with blind hatered towards any country, ethnic or religous group, I am proudly stand by my position as promoter of peace, traquility, between all nations including Iran, U.S and other M.E countries. I support NIAC effort for bringing U.S and Iran closer together through diplomatic contacts. It is known fact that they have high level contacts with both Iranian and American government to do just that.

As usuall you have no idea what you are talking about, You are the hate monger toward Iranians and country of Iran. I highly recommend you to print your writtings and responses on this site and show it discritly to several psychiatrist/criminologist. I bet you will be diagnosed with genocidal-criminal mind. I am afraid it looks normal to you but if anyone wrote similar comments about another nation, he/she will be investigated for instigating crime against humanity or as a terrorist
People like you do not count Iranians as human being so for now no charges against you and your commrads because of Double standard and discrimination .

Taking care of IR is business of Iranian people, it is an internal problem. I am sure the only force capable of bringing them to their knees are the people and nothing else, military advantures do not offer any solution. Just like other nations Iran and it's society and government will evolve towards better future if they are left alone. Not long ago woman and colored people could not vote in this country, based on many studies still do not enjoy same treatment. It may take 6 month or 10, 20, 30 years. History shows democratic governments have been toppeled by defenders of freedom and democracy in favore of despots. uhh, what an Irony

rules, The Islamic regime

rules, The Islamic regime has shown such savagery and irresponsibility, that it should be stripped from capability to make a knife, let alone nuclear bomb.

I’m not affiliated with AIPAC, however, if you’re claiming that AIPAC is responsible for the animosity between U.S – Iran or Iran – Israel, and not the Islamic regime, its you, not me, who needs to get psychiatric help.

Thanks for insulting me.  

Anonym7, you’re calling

Anonym7, you’re calling horrific human rights violations and the destruction of our country by the regime, “mistakes”? Hmm, OK. Do you know what a “mistake” is?

Also, like I said in my previous posting, you don’t “defend” a country by destroying it.

 Finally, what is this tremendously sick obsession with the U.S when you compare what the IRI has done since 1979, to Abu Ghureib? Anonym7, there is literally, hundreds, if not thousands, of Abu Ghureibs and Guantanamos in Iran, which are in thousands times  worst conditions than Abu Ghureib. Evin is just scratching the surface.

Kashani: Are you in any way

Kashani: Are you in any way affiliated with AIPAC???

I agree with all your points regarding the leftists and Islamists on this site But if you want surgical strikes or any other strike on Iran then you are out of your mind and must be thrown into an insane asylum.

do you think Abu Ghraib is forgotten (to Kashani)

Yes, Kashani, despites all its mistakes IRI has defended Iran and kept Black Water and other mercenary forces out of Iran. As for killing, imprisoning, torturing, and human rights abuses, IRI is way behind your beloved Israel and the U.S (with what they have done in Iraq only). Do you think we have forgotten the well documented Abu Ghraib?: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_a...

... and yes I hope for smooth transition of Iran to secularism but by Iranians and according to their schedule not your (AIPAC's) schedule.