Say you're sorry

Clinton's "Obliteration" remark is genocidal


Say you're sorry
by Omid Memarian

Senator Clinton should apologize for using a genocidal term during her campaign. Her recent remark-- stating that if Iranians were to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, the United States would be able to obliterate Iran -- is out of the line, politically inappropriate, and reflects a hawkish approach toward foreign policy based on the Bush administration model.

Even neoconservative warmongers who have been saber rattling with Iran over the past 8 years have never used such a term. If the media were not distracted by Rev. Wright's controversial remarks, this comment would cause a huge backlash against Clinton.

This calls into question Clinton's ability to pick up the red phone at 3 a.m. and make a tough decision on a crucial foreign policy issue. Also, before taking that 3 a.m. call, Clinton should read the National Intelligence Estimates during the daytime. She did not read them a single time for Iraq in 2002 and consequently voted for the Iraq war.

Once again, it seems that she did not read the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear program (PDF), which is a collection of reports conducted by dozens of intelligence agencies. The report released last December emphasizes that Iranians stopped their efforts to make a nuclear bomb in 2003. This means Iran has no bomb to attack Israel with, and consequently there is no need to "obliterate" a country with 70 million people, three times larger that Iraq in size and population.

Even if Iranians were to gain a nuclear bomb, there would be no way for them to use it against Israel, simply due to the geography of the region. Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. No bomb has yet been made that can differentiate between ethnicities.

Clinton's attempt to be tough has pushed her to internalize a neoconservative tone in her foreign policy agenda that is disrespectful of international mechanisms in dealing with global crisis. This destructive approach has dramatically damaged the image of the United States since the Iraq war in 2003.

Moreover, in the literature of peace and conflict studies, "obliteration" of a country, in whatever shape or form, is genocidal, irresponsible and irrational.

While thousands of people have died in a war that could have been avoided, talking about obliteration of yet another country -- which President Bush has called "the third World War" -- does bode well for change in the White House in January 2009.

Clinton should also know that there are between 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Iran. Jewish people have a member in the Iranian parliament. They can practice their religion freely to a large extent, and love their homeland, even though they might not like their controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She should also remember that Iranians were the first in the Middle East to show their sympathy for the victims of the 9/11 tragedy by lighting candles in their memory.

Clinton's remark is disrespecting millions of Iranians who are struggling hard for their rights, which include thousands of intellectuals, journalists and activists who have paid huge costs to change their society but still think that the west and Iran should engage in a constructive dialogue -- even with the current government -- rather than go to war.

(First appeared on Huffington Post)

Omid Memarian's blog


Recently by Omid MemarianCommentsDate
Bad News For Mahmoud
Oct 04, 2012
New York Welcome
Sep 10, 2012
Do Iranians Really Support Nuclear Enrichment?
Jul 05, 2012
more from Omid Memarian

I don't care if she had a

by Anonymous333 (not verified) on

I don't care if she had a big IF in her statement. Not even Bush/Cheney have used such language and I don't think it's appropriate for someone running for president to be threatening other nations with obliteration based on hypothetical scenarios. But she has consistantly shown that she is a right-wing conservative, God knows why she's still in the democratic party--she'll probably follow in the footsteps of Joe Lieberman pretty soon after the primaries are over.

To the person who claimed that Hillary doesn't care about being politically correct: she did until about a month ago when she turned into a beer drinking, anti-intellectual(i.e. doesn't believe in "elitist economists"!) tough fighter. The reason why she's using such big rhetoric is to attract the uneducated redneck/rural vote who value religion, guns, and tough foreign policy. She overdid it....


Calm down Mr. Saify….

by Anonymousam (not verified) on

Your blood pressure is getting too high for your own health. There is no reason to get so wound up and be so upset. The lady was just trying to be firm and let the world know where she stands. She had enough courage and balls to stand behind her position and not give in to being politically correct. Go ahead and engage in character assassination by parsing her words, but, to me and all other un-biased observers, she was letting the IRI (and any other force who would even think of attacking our allies) know the consequence of their action. You keep on ignoring to mention the big IF, in her statement.

You didn’t like the word “obliterate”, pick and choose any other of the following:
“massive retaliation”, “wipe off the map”, “destroy”, “annihilate”, “burn to ashes”,
You get my drift…. What difference does it make, she is just trying to let you know how seriously she is taking this issue.

At least she and Jeremiah Wright had the courage and integrity to stand behind their belief and conviction. Not like that liar, Charlatan, sweet talker who would sell his soul to be politically correct.

At any rate, if you want to punish Hillary, then volunteer for Obama's campaign and make sure that she won’t have any chance of being nominated. Pardon my language, but she is not going to give a sh…t about these petitions. This is not an effective way of condemning her.

Kaveh Nouraee

Petitions are NOT the Answer

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Do not fool yourselves into the belief that Hillary Clinton is going to pay attention to some lousy petition. These things are utterly meaningless to her and a completely ineffective waste of time.

The only thing this woman will understand is the final ballot count.

Those of you who are registered to vote, MUST vote. If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain. Vote against this woman. Send these liberal elitist scum a definitive message that they will never forget.

Cyrus Saify

Please support the petition against Senator Clinton's comment

by Cyrus Saify on

Two weeks after *Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton* made her reprehensible remake regarding the obliteration of Iran, she uttered the pugnacious words again and said she had no regrets about her comments and refused to withdraw her statement: "Why would I have any regrets? I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran," As a human being I am offended by the Honorable Senator from New York repeated offensive pronouncement. Whoever that uses such inhumane and pugnacious language be it Clinton for Jewish votes or Ahmadinejad for Arab support needs to be condemned in the strongest possible of terms. Please join me in condemning Senator Hillary Clinton's comments by signing the online petition. With such grass root activism which are the fundamentals of any democracy we can succeed and persuade the Senator to retract her reprehensible statement. Just click on the following URL: 



Farhad Kashani

by Mammad (not verified) on

I am sorry that your response was not published. I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so long as people do not use the freedom to baselessly attack others, label them, call them names, make baseless accusations, etc. (I am not implying in any shape or form that you had done it in your unpublished response; I simply do not know).

But, with due respect to you - and the emphasis is on respect - the greatness of a response should be decided by the readers, not the writer.

In fact, I believe that we should not feel great or not great, happy or sad, etc., about our responses or comments. This is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, not a place to try to beat up on others and feel great about it.


Mamad, I am a supporter of

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Mamad, I am a supporter of samsam1111 and wrote great response to what you wrote me, but Mr. Javid decided not to publish it. What a shame Mr. Javid, I thought you were better than that!



by Anonymousam (not verified) on

Alaik-e salaam:

You don’t seem to take sarcasm very well. My post was not meant to get you on your left wing soap box. I don’t intend to defend every action by every administration, but for you to come out and say:

“Stop intervening in other countries internal affairs. Stop trying to exploit other countries resources, and in the process supporting some of the worst regimes”

is an insult to anyone with slightest sense of independent thinking. Like I have never heard or understand these cliché’s. Remember, you are talking to an ex-communist turned Conservative Democrat. I have aged enough to know the difference. Please stop posting condescending remarks and give yourself some time, you will begin to see the light.

“Stop intervening in other countries internal affairs……”, what a joke!!. We should sit here and close our eyes to anything that goes on around the world that could destroy anything that we have ever lived for and worked so hard to build. Who are we to try to stop spread of communism? Why should it be any of our business if we will be surrounded by totalitarian communists? “Stop intervening in other countries internal affairs……”. You know, Carter tried that 30 years ago, and we are still paying for it…….

You say: “Stop trying to exploit other countries resources…..”, So, you are saying, if Russia, China, India, Japan,…. deal with other countries to exchange for their resources, it is international commerce, but if US does it, it is exploitation. I love your logic….. there is probably different definition for exploitation in different dictionaries…. Maybe you are suggesting US should live within it’s border and don’t deal with any other nation for their needed resources? How about sending all these immigrants who came over and took the land of native Indians back to their home? These wild criminal animals who don’t have any moral values….

You say: “….and in the process supporting some of the worst regimes” like Japan, like India, like France, like Germany, like Turkey, like Egypt, like Jordan, like UK, …..and like Israel these are all the worst regimes. We should be supporting Venezuela, North Korea, Taliban, Cuba, IRI, Jihadists,…..and Palestinians. Only then we will be acting in the interest of humanity.

One thing all “US haters” have in common is subscription to conspiracy theory. From Jeramiah Wright who says United States propagated the AIDS virus amongst blacks, etc… and now you suggesting that US has caused the food shortage in the world because of farm subsidy or the reason for high oil prices now is because US invaded Iraq 5 years ago. I think I gave you more credit for rational thinking than you deserve. I thought you post and make statements after subjective research. But:

you don’t need any research to know that farm subsidy is not new in the US and has been here for many many years, and is currently being debated in both houses as to whether it should continue at the same level as in the past.

You don’t need research to know US is a net importer of food and many other products than exporter.

You don’t need any research to know US and American people are largest contributors and donors to the world’s food bank to help the needy and eradicate hunger.

How can your hate of US distort your logic to the point of concluding US actions has led to higher oil prices which in turn has made it difficult for the farmers of other nations to produce their crop. Boy, you are something else…..and honestly I don’t say this to insult you, but, I have real hard time to even comprehend anyone would go that far to justify his hate.

We have gotten way off of the subject of Mr. Memarian’s blog which I was passionately trying to say the extreme sensitivity demonstrated by some about Mrs. Clinton’s comments, is not justified.

As much as I disagree with some of your views, you are entitled to them and in the land of democracy I respect them. However, I beg you, if you are in the business of educating youngsters, teach them to criticize their government and be vocal in their criticism. Teach them to love democracy and don’t take it for granted. Let them defend it with their lives. And, finally, please don’t promote blind hatred.

I wish you well.


“Far from decrying George

by An onymous (not verified) on

“Far from decrying George Bush as a warmonger (which she has done plenty of times in earlier incarnations) Mrs. Clinton now seems to feel the President hasn’t gone far enough with his activities in the Middle East. What’s needed is more sabre-rattling, more posturing, more professions of belief in the U.S. military and its ability to bring about positive change by unloading some good solid firepower on the heads of all those unsuspecting Iranian civilians.”




She is very dangerous

by Scared! (not verified) on

I vote for Obama and in case god forbid she gets the nomination I am thinking of voting for McCain. She has shown she is not predictable and would go to great length to satisfy AIPAC!

Extremely dangerous becuase she want to prove she is more hawkish than republicans. God knows what is in cards in she gets back to WH.

Beware folks!!



by Mammad (not verified) on


Thank you for your response, which seemed to me was out of your heart. I appreciate such responses. This is much better than your original comment in which you had rejoiced, because someone had responded to me in a way that you had liked.

You are absolutely correct about one thing: It is not enough to criticize, but one must also propose solutions, practical ones.

My solution: Stop intervening in other countries internal affairs. Stop trying to exploit other countries resources, and in the process supporting some of the worst regimes, simply because those regimes are led by people who are willing to do anything to be in power. Learn lessons from the past mistakes (Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Vietnam....), and learn the right lesson (again, stop intervening in other countries internal affairs), so that they won't be repeated.

That is not too much to expect, is it? What is impractical about it? If the US does not intervene in the internal affairs of, for example, Western European countries, why can that not be extended to other countries?

The US has every right to defend itself. Hell, I live in the US, and I want the US to be safe. But defending the US does not mean that the it should attack a country like Iraq which, although ran by a worst blood-thirsty dictator, was neither a threat to the US, nor had it anything to do with 9/11. What is illogical or bad or impractical about it?

Just to give you another example: These days there is food shortage in many parts of the world, even in countries that used to be big producers of rice, wheat, etc. What are the reasons?

(1) The US is the largest, by far, producer of such food staples as rice, wheat, etc. But, while the US preaches free market economy to the rest of the world, it heavily subsidizes its own farmers. At the same time, through World Bank, the US pressured many food producing countries to open up their markets to the US products, and cut subsidies to their farmer. The result? These markets were flooded with the US rice, wheat, etc. The locals could not compete with the subsidized US farmers. Their agriculture collapsed.

(2) The second reason has to do with the Iraq war. Right before the war the price of oil was $30-40/barrel. It is now (today) $120/barrel. But, when the energy price goes up, so does the price of everything else. The net result? It costs far more to produce rice, wheat, etc., even in the subsidized US farms.

So, you see, this is beyond whining. This is beyond just making silly points. It is, in fact, very practical.

Regarding Iran:

As much as I hate the regime of Velaayat-e Faghih in Iran, I do not want any nation to intervene in Iran by military force or sanctions, because (1) they would only hurt the ordinary Iranians, like you and me (or at least me), and (2) it would further consolidate the regime. This is not what I say only, this is what most objective political activists, human rights advocates, etc. say. So, what is impractical about this?

Just the other day, Shirin Ebadi said in a speech at the University of Maryland that, "we know about discriminations, about lack of democracy, about lack of freedom of expression, etc. in Iran, but we can solve our problems. We do not need foreign soldiers to solve such problems for us." To me, that could not be expressed any more eloquently.

No, your reference to me, or people like me, being delusional did not unnerve me. I know I am not delusional because, at the very least, I am not the only person who thinks this way. In the US alone, millions of people think like me, and so many people cannot all be wrong.

I also do not agree with your statement that, just because we are afforded democratic rights in the US, we should not criticize. To the contrary, we should. It does not mean that our criticism is always correct, but only through debates, criticism, and discussions, we can make progress. Moreover, I believe in one fundamental priciple:

A good citizen, a true patriot, is not someone who blindly follows the leaders of his/her country, rather thinks about what they do and say, and raises his/her objection or support when appropriate.

What is wrong with this?

Finally, regarding the general tone of your response:

It is not about having a sense of superiority over others, having a golden heart, being a leader, etc. I am none of those, and have none of those, even if you meant all of those! If I gave you or anybody else that impression, I sincerely apologize.

All I said was, I research things. I talk about documented facts, not slogans which, unfortunately, many commentators in this column, do. It is also not about left or right, but about being right or wrong. If other people also do this (and many do), then we can all learn something. I have leant much from reading intelligent comments and articles in this site, and I try to transfer the little that I know to others.

Did I make my point(s) clear?

Kaveh Nouraee

Mr Abarmard

by Kaveh Nouraee on

The proof is during his visit and speech at Columbia University where Ahmadinejad proclaimed that Iran does not have homosexuality. It is not only an ignorant statement, but a stupid one and an insult to people' intelligence. One way or another, he is stupid and ignorant. Either for believing that there is no homosexuality in Iran, or for thinking that people will actually believe his BS that there is no homosexuality in Iran.

I don't want you to interpret my earlier post with anything suggesting that I think Bush is any kind of genius. If anything, I believe the contrary. But make no mistake: the US will recover. It always has and it always will. That's why everyone still wants to move here, even from the countries that hate the United States.

As far as Bush saying God is with him on this path......agreed, not a smart thing at all. I personally can't stand people who start with this "God or Jesus is my guide" garbage. But, this is the exact same mentality that Ahmadinejad and the rest of the IRI gang operate under on a daily basis, including Reza Zarei, before, after and DURING the raid on the brothel where he and his little police chief were discussing morality with 6 hookers.

I didn't say Bush wants to spread western style democracy; I'm saying that's what he or his advisers and spokespeople have said. Maybe I wasn't clear on that. But that's clearly a sign of arrogance on his part. With respect to "destination": While getting rid of Saddam was a good idea in and of itself, the U.S./Bush screwed up big time by: 1) not having an exit strategy and 2) having pencil pushers in cheap suits trying to micromanage combat/invasion activities from a windowless office at the Pentagon, rather than letting trained military personnel go in, do the job, and get out. These people are trained in various disciplines of combat tactics and were able to do so without all of this excessive loss of life and limb. That's how the U.S. lost in Vietnam, too.


So, what is your point Mammad?

by Anonymousam (not verified) on

You are the smartest and the hardest working man who does in depth research and backs every statement he makes with documentation. You don’t give slogans, you educate your students, you are the definition of a pure intellectual. So, what? Are you in touch with reality?

You keep on bitching and moaning about everything every US administration has ever done without proposing anything practical and better to replace it. Clinton is bad, Obama bad, McCain bad, Bush horrible, US constitution flawed, US democracy ah ah, Western civilization means imperialism, if you deal with US you are criminal, if Americans vote for McCain (or whoever) they are a bunch of stupid rednecks that don’t understand anything. Then, why don’t you enlighten the world and tell them what should the world order be? Don’t just say this is bad, say something PRACTICAL and REAL that’s better.

You see, I am one of those dumb and stupid souls that thinks the US has an IMPERFECT but MOST PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY. At least it gives you the freedom to criticize and voice your opinion. Mammad, I am not a leader like you are but I am not the follower of 30 years ago, neither. You can’t excite me by pointing to the evils of one regime without showing me (in a very clear manner) that you can practically replace it with something better. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

You don’t have to rubber-stamp and accept everything this system does. Criticize, organize groups to promote your views, try to improve the system, but don’t just demonize and trash a system that was built on a good foundation. And, graciously accept the first rule of democracy, i.e. majority rules. I am sure you are not advocating that someone should go to Najaf and start smuggling revolutionary tapes and CD’s to get these dumb rednecks to the street to overthrow government. You are smarter than that.

Yes, you are genius, you have a heart of gold, you are talented as hell, but why don’t you use it for something positive and productive. Have the courage to acknowledge the good while criticizing the bad.

I touched a nerve using the word “delusional”. Yes, it is delusional to think US will allow her citizens be terrorized without taking any action to stop it. It is delusional to think anyone can take her economic and strategic interest hostage to promote hatred and fundamentalist ideology.

I am not a journalist or even a research type to throw at you some numbers and references, but, you can go and do the research on O’Riley, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity,...etc to find the other side of your references and arguments…..From one extreme to another…

What a waste of talent….

iraj khan

Take action, send a protest email to Clinton

by iraj khan on

Click here to take action:


This is a critical juncture in US history. Therefore, as Americans, we must speak out with a clear voice to ensure that President Bush’s cowboy diplomacy leaves the White House when he does, and is not emulated by the next US President. 

It only takes a moment to make your voice heard! Personalize and send the below e-mail to Senator Clinton’s campaign headquarters today!

Thank you.


To all so called lefties, Peace lovers, Anti war groupies

by samsam1111 on

Your claime to these principles are pretty shaky at best.You claime to be anti war yet, support most Jihadist groups & regimes in the middle east.You claime that you want peace for Iraq yet joice over mullahs meddling and arming shiats(Badr,wahdah,Sisstani gang,al mehdi gang).you mourne over death of an palestinian child(and rightly so) but call 3000 death in sept 11 a hoax just like your comrad Ahmadinejad. You are not even panislamists but panarabists..look at Darfur genocide Arab muslim against black muslim, I know which side are you on...look at Chechens in Russia any cry of genocide there?nah.. non Arabs,Is Muslim kosovos independence important or you have no permission from Russia? Is Ghareh bagh inMuslim Azarbaijan not that hot of an issue(I personaly don,t care) or are they missing a chafieh.How about Muslims in China or Kurds in Turkey....these are all imperialist Global Zionist plots, you claime.Ideologis of any kind prevents the mind from being open to new possibilities and being fair so you won,t believe that there is a Zionist ship that sails the globe kidnapping 10 year old muslim kids to surgicaly remove their eyes like the movie on mullahs TV series called "zahras blue eyes" fair .I used to be religious in my teens until revolution and there is one ayeh which I liked in Quran , you should read it too.


يا ايهالناس انا خلقناکم من ذکرن و انسی و جعلناکم شعوبان و قباعل لتعارفو ان اکرمکم عندالله اتقياکم و عن الله عليم و الخبير

The world is not made up of Arabs only. stop worshiping them.


Mr. Kaveh Nouraee

by Abarmard on

Please would you find one speech of Ahmadinejad that portrays him as ignorant? I have seen him speak, although I disagree with some of his logic, I am not sure if I can call him ignorant. I am interested to see a speech by him so I would know better the next time.

Bush is stupid! I am not sure if this country could recover from all his mistakes. Working for his own agenda to ruin a wealthy and powerful country is stupid. If he believes that God is with him in this path he is Stupid. If he wants "spread Western style democracy in areas that simply cannot understand and are unwilling to accept the concept." then he IS stupid. As we say in Persian, you don't need to have a horn and a tail to be stupid!

Stupid are those who go somewhere then think about a destination. He is Mr. Nouraee, an stupid arrogant, and ignorant man.

And please, don't say he wanted to bring democracy to a region that didn't want blah blah...It's naive and stupid to think that way. He never wanted to bring democracy to anywhere, he can't even spell democracy Mr. Nouraee. I am almost certain that he still doesn't know the countries in the ME, where he wants to bring, according to you and him, democracy.

aaah, after eight years I have to write this comment? should it be necessary? God help us all.


Kaveh Nouraee

Hillary? Apologize? Keep Dreaming!

by Kaveh Nouraee on

There is a much greater chance of the current regime in Tehran saying, "oops we were wrong, bring the monarchy back" than Hillary apologizing for anything.

Abarmard: You call Bush stupid the same way people call Ahmadinejad stupid, (which he is, and it has nothing to do with looks).

Bush isn't stupid as much as he is arrogant. Ahmadinejad is stupid because he is ignorant. There is a huge difference there. Bush's arrogance is evident in his desire to spread Western style democracy in areas that simply cannot understand and are unwilling to accept the concept. Ahmadinejad's ignorance is evident when he speaks, as if he was infused at birth with some kind of wisdom that the rest of us lack. Clearly he does not have any. In many respects, Mahmoud is more like Hillary and the Democrats, as both of these idiots have this ridiculous notion that they know better and the we don't.

As far as Ahmadinejad's "education", a PhD in traffic planning does not make you smart, especially when the traffic in the country you are supposed to preside over has some of the worst traffic in the world. That miserable bastard can't even synchronize the traffic signals in Tehran, let alone make even a half-assed president.



by Abarmard on

Nothing lasts forever. The sovereignty of American policies will be esteblished. Sooner or later. Hope sooner, with Obama.


Who is going to Obliterate whom and for what reason?

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Ann Lewis President Clinton’s Director of Communications in the late nineties, is now an active member of Hillary’s campaign staff, and, in the event of a Clinton win, likely to follow her, in some capacity, back into the White House.

Making Mrs. Clinton’s case for president at a United Jewish Communities debate in Washington, she recently made the astounding pronouncement that “[t]he role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.” And what are these “decisions that are made by the Israeli people?” A survey by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found “fully 71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, according to a new poll.”


I guess this says it all. I would have thought that the obligations of the American President is to serve the interest of the American people not another country!!

iraj khan

Register your disgust with Hillary "the wanna be"

by iraj khan on


Click here to take action:


This is a critical juncture in US history. Therefore, as Americans, we must speak out with a clear voice to ensure that President Bush’s cowboy diplomacy leaves the White House when he does, and is not emulated by the next US President. 

It only takes a moment to make your voice heard! Personalize and send the below e-mail to Senator Clinton’s campaign headquarters today!

Thank you.


Obama is it

by Abarmard on

This is a good test to see if US works for Israel or is an independent State. The candidates and the ones who vote for them, are basically looking at the foreign policy:

-Those who care about America and her future consider Obama. They see America greater than Israel and her wishes

-Those who are pro Zionism, Christian or Jews are divided between Hillary and McCain

-With wars, they gain momentum since their country is not US and they could care less if the future of this country is hellish.

We are divided between those who promote peace and those who want a war, for whatever reason. You can draw a lot of personality just by knowing this little fact, about the passions or the lack of it towards humanity if one supports a war or not.

Those who justify a war, any war for any reason as an offensive act, are selfish, dictatorial in nature, religious, Zionist, neo con, arrogant, and ignorant to history. They also have a taste of racism inside them that they justify it by creating nonsensical excuses.

The warmongers rap themselves in the flag while working for the enemies of the US, since the world is moving a head while the US is struggling with a low morale and philosophical dilemma.

There are another groups who promote war that don't fall in the description above: those who are ignorant from lack of proper education. They see themselves as a "red blooded" Americans who are superior to the rest of the world and GOD is on their side no matter what. A simple look at this crowd and you'll see how foolish they sound, since most of them have married their own sisters.

In this time and age if you see a country fighting for a sake of position because they can't compete naturally against the rest of the world means nothing but the end of an era for that country.

We have given the power to those neo cons for eight years and have seen what kind of bastards they are. Those who continue their support for them are not sane and this comment is not meant for them. As I have spoken to many Neo Cons sympathizers, they do not hold some major portion of the human brain to realize how stupid they are.

To warmongers, Zionists and neocons: As sa'adi the great Iranian poet has said:

"You that are not concerned about the lives of others

You Should not be named Human"!


I don't even mention Obama

by sadegh on

Not sure which post you're reading, I don't even mention Obama, as Mammad has said Obama is going to continue, albeit in a less obtrusive manner the occupation of Iraq, and he will continue the unconditional support of Israel, irrespective of its heinous actions, both of which I am totally and unequivocally opposed to. As far as I am concerned in the domain of foreign policy he is merely the lesser evil, not the godsend his fan club have made him out to be.


Only Iranian community with take this kind of crap in silence!

by Dreamer (not verified) on

If I am not mistaken, a misguided soul on this very site was going to pledge for Clinton and I suppose needed all of our backing too? Of course to obliterate us --listen, she doesnt say obliterate whoever is responsible for any attack but obliterate Iran! 70 million people--

Where is the 1 million petition?

Is this worthy of our attention?

Is this worthy of our outrage?

Shame on us for being so pathetically silent

If this was any other minority in U.S whose native land was under such barbaric threat, the candidate would have resigned by now, but lets collect some donation from Iranian community and support Clinton, the warmonger Democrat!?!

With Democrat like this who needs Republican in charge?

Bush is not out of office, yet we can say:

Rooyeh Georgo Sefeed Kard.

Hey Israel, give them their piece of land before 3rd word war starts, over who can pander to your apartheid system better.



by Mammad (not verified) on

Since your supporters had nothing to say themselves, but only cheer on what you said, let's debate what you said which, with all due respect, is hollow, without any substance whatsoever.

I do not care about what Kennedy said. Unlike the positive and mythical image that they have created for him, he was a warmonger. He was responsible for the illegal invasion of Cuba - the Bay of Pigs incident - and getting the US involved in another criminal war, the Vietnam war.

But, let's debate Iraq:

(i) Removal of Saddam Hussein was only a very small part in the overall picture of things. Of course, it is fantastic that Saddam is gone, but AT WHAT COST? I already mentioned just a small part of the cost.

(ii) If Saddam had been overthrown, and then the US and British forces had left right away, then, we could have said that they went in ONLY to get Saddam removed. But, over 5 years and 1 million dead later, they are still there. The US will have "enduring" relationship with Iraq - read, US will be occupying Iraq for the foreseeable future. John MaCain has talked about a 100 years war.

Since you like statistics, over 70% of Iraqis WANT THE US TO LEAVE RIGHT AWAY!

(iii) The source of number of civilian deaths in Iraq is NOT the liberal media. It is Lancet, the prestigious British MEDICAL journal.

(iv) But, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the source is indeed the liberal media. So what? The Pentagon, learning a lesson from the Vietnam war, declared at the beginning of the Iraq war that, THEY WILL NOT KEEP TRACK OF CIVILIAN DEATHS. So, who should we turn to for true data? The right-wing, blood thirsty neocons?

(v) This brings out another important point. If the Pentagon does not keep track of the civilian deaths, how can it estimate what fraction of it is due to its own action? Your absurd claim has been propagated by the Pentagon, and Pentagon only.

(vi) Yet, again, another important point: Was there factional/ethnic/religious fighting in Iraq BEFORE its illegal invasion and occupation? No, there was not. At the same time, all the objective experts had PREDICTED before the invasion (check it for yourself; don't take it from me) the present situation.

So, EVEN IF we accept the premise that it is the Iraqis themselves who are responsible for the killings, who or what TRIGGERED such killings? The US and Britain.

Regarding reconstruction of Iraq:

(i) The number that you quote is vastly exaggerated. Pentagon's own audit says that they cannot account for $9 biilion. CBS 60 minutes program had a special about this, and the internet is full of articles about this.
This is just the tip of the iceberg about who benefitted from this, and all the corruptions involved. read Jermey Scahill's book about the Blackwater, the private contractor in Iraq.

(ii) But, once again: Who destroyed Iraq, in order to rebuild it? The US and Britain.

(iii) The price of oil at the time of Iraq's invasion was $30-40/barrel. Today it is about $115/barrel. Who has benefitted most from this? Exxon, ChevronTexaco, BP, and Shell, all US and British oil firms which, "incidently," are the same nations that invased and occupied Iraq.

The problem with people like you is that you live in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE in which scientific and social laws are totally different from our universe, the one in which real people live. That is why you only believe those that you want to believe - those that only support your views - even if there are totally detached from reality.



by Mammad (not verified) on

Who says that Obama is the good candidate? I never said that.

(i) Obama says that he is against US intervention around the world, but wants to expand the size of the US Army by 92,000. Why? What for? The Pentagon's budget is already $600 billion, more than that of the rest of the world COMBINED!

(ii) Obama says that he will withdraw the US forces from Iraq, but will leave behind a "residual" force of 80,000. Never heard of a "residual" force of that size. Have you?

(iii) Obama says that he will leave Iraq to Iraqis, but will keep the Green Zone in Baghdad, the very symbol of violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

About being dellusional:

(i) Dellusional are those who believe that Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated!

(ii) Dellusional are those who believe that the US gives a hoot to democracy and human rights.

(iii) Dellusional are those who believe that the US establishment is benevolent.

(iv) Dellusional are those who believe that Iraq's illegal and criminal invasion had nothing to do with (1) oil; (2) Israel's security, and (3) preparing for the future confrontation with China.

Every fact that I mentioned about Iraq and Afghanistan can be independently checked for accuracy. I don't do slogans! I do hard, cold facts! Do you?


Hillary will do ANYTHING to win!

by farrad02 on

The ends justify the means for her! How sad!

With the "obliterate" remark, she proved that she has sold out to the DEVIL to get votes! I'm not surprised since the Jewish interests and lobby, especially in New York, demand her to show that she is in line with pro-Israel (read: pro-attacking-Iran) policies!

Furthermore, she needs to get more voters from the middle of the electorate, since the far left of the Democratic electorate are completely consumed by Obama! So, apparently she thinks she will appeal to independents with idiotic remarks like this!

It is the duty and obligation of every Iranian-American to vote for Obama! An Obama presidency presents the best chance of rapprochment and dialogue with Iran. A dialogue that will make it more likely for IRI to have to abandon it's radical tendencies and move back to a more moderate discourse!



So what Sadegh?

by Anonymousam (not verified) on

with your links you have clearly made the point that we have to respect Clinton's position and discard Obama as a good for nothing that thinks by sitting around the table with a bunch of fundamentalist mullahs will bring peace on earth. Sweet talks for election purposes are cheap, being in touch with reality of murder for ideal is something Mr. Obama has no understanding for. Go ahead, hate Bush and any US administration (other than Carter), all you will buy is more misery for the 72 million you raise your voice for.


I love you samsam1111

by Anonymousam (not verified) on

No one could have said it more eloquently. Dariush and the intelligent one Mammad, they are all dillusional to think Obama is the answer to quagmire. Obama lacks enough character to even stand behind his own belief. We need someone who has enough courage to stand in front of the lefties and defend the world's freedom....


samsam1111, great response.

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

samsam1111, great response. By the way, these guys don't care where you live, even if you live on Mars but say something bad about the regime in Tehran, they will character assasinate you, because that's all they got.



by Anonymous21 (not verified) on

Great work, very informative points. To add something more, in most of the recent wars, except for the Iraq and Korea, it was the democratic party that was in power. Roosevelt in WW2, Kennedy in Gulf of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, and Clinton in Yugoslavia.

thanks again for your comments and please educate us more about the American history and politics.


Excellent article as usual

by sadegh on

Excellent article as usual Omid. Clinton will never retract her remarks. On the contrary she's now vehemently defending them. This entire charade reminds me of Plato's criticism of acting in his Republic - at bottom he argued there is no moral or veracious core, there’s only ever the imitation of something else of which the actors are never privy to and are merely the simulacra. Though this is surely an unfair characterization of acting, I think it captures the 'ethic' of Hillary more than adequately: no moral core, just a chameleon-like transformation (with all the appropriate accents, rhetoric and sly asides) of who she is and what she stands for depending on who she's talking to at any particular moment in time. She will say and do absolutely anything to get elected and thus represents absolutely everything that is wrong with politics. Again thanks for the article…