QUESTION
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
What threat?
05-Jul-2010
The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term "stability" here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control. In June 2010 Congress strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding US offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacks in the Central Command area. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators," the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.
"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003," accelerating under Obama.
The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is "to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran." British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the US will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior military staff along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. The meeting focused "on the preparation by both Israel and the U.S. for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran," according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasized that "I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective." Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.
The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.
Some analysts who seem to be taken seriously describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that "The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East," no less. If Iran's nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will "move toward" the new Iranian "superpower." To rephrase in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the US. In the US army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a US attack that targets not only Iran's nuclear facilities but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure -- meaning, the civilian society. "This kind of military action is akin to sanctions - causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."
Such inflammatory pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by military and intelligence reports to Congress in April 2010 [Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, US Senate, 14 April 2010; Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran, April 2010; John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service, "Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats," April 2010, //www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58833.].
The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to US allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.
The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and of course minuscule as compared to the US. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive,É designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).
But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship).
Beyond these crimes, Iran is also carrying out and supporting terrorism, the reports continue. Its Revolutionary Guards "are behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past three decades," including attacks on US military facilities in the region and "many of the insurgent attacks on Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq since 2003." Furthermore Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, the major political forces in Lebanon and in Palestine -- if elections matter. The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon's latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the US and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election. These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world. It is normal for elite opinion to fear the threat of democracy and to act to deter it, but this is a rather striking case, particularly alongside of strong US support for the regional dictatorships, emphasized by Obama with his strong praise for the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak on the way to his famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo.
The terrorist acts attributed to Hamas and Hezbollah pale in comparison to US-Israeli terrorism in the same region, but they are worth a look nevertheless.
On May 25 Lebanon celebrated its national holiday Liberation Day, commemorating Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance -- described by Israeli authorities as "Iranian aggression" against Israel in Israeli-occupied Lebanon (Ephraim Sneh). That too is normal imperial usage. Thus President John F. Kennedy condemned the "the assault from the inside" in South Vietnam, "which is manipulated from the North." This criminal assault by the South Vietnamese resistance against Kennedy's bombers, chemical warfare, programs to drive peasants to virtual concentration camps, and other such benign measures was denounced as "internal aggression" by Kennedy's UN Ambassador, liberal hero Adlai Stevenson. North Vietnamese support for their countrymen in the US-occupied South is aggression, intolerable interference with Washington's righteous mission. Kennedy advisors Arthur Schlesinger and Theodore Sorenson, considered doves, also praised Washington's intervention to reverse "aggression" in South Vietnam -- by the indigenous resistance, as they knew, at least if they read US intelligence reports. In 1955 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had defined several types of "aggression," including "Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare, or subversion." For example, an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World.
Hamas resists Israel's military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognize Israel (political parties do not recognize states). In contrast, the US and Israel not only do not recognize Palestine, but have been acting relentlessly and decisively for decades to ensure that it can never come into existence in any meaningful form. The governing party in Israel, in its 1999 campaign platform, bars the existence of any Palestinian state -- a step towards accommodation beyond the official positions of the US and Israel a decade earlier, which held that there cannot be "an additional Palestinian state" between Israel and Jordan, the latter a "Palestinian state" by US-Israeli fiat whatever its benighted inhabitants and government might believe.
Hamas is charged with rocketing Israeli settlements on the border, criminal acts no doubt, though a fraction of Israel's violence in Gaza, let alone elsewhere. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, that the US and Israel know exactly how to terminate the terror that they deplore with such passion. Israel officially concedes that there were no Hamas rockets as long as Israel partially observed a truce with Hamas in 2008. Israel rejected Hamas's offer to renew the truce, preferring to launch the murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008, with full US backing, an exploit of murderous aggression without the slightest credible pretext on either legal or moral grounds.
The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the US. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95% of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.
The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil's president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once -- recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran's resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.
Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the US sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington. Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the US and that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West," AP reported, "a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally."
The political class understands as well. Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" -- following orders like good democrats. A New York Times headline captured the general mood: "Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader's Legacy." In brief, do what we say, or else.
There is no indication that other countries in the region favor US sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran's opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the US is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 US treaty with India supporting its nuclear programs -- and indirectly its nuclear weapons programs -- was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with US support, and still do.
No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. The issue arose (again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.
Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted -- and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel." Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.
At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to" the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight, AP reported.
It is rarely noted that the US and UK have a special responsibility to work to establish a Middle East NWFZ. In attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of the Iraq in 2003, they appealed to Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which called on Iraq to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. The US and UK claimed that they had not done so. We need not tarry on the excuse, but that Resolution commits its signers to move to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East.
Parenthetically, we may add that US insistence on maintaining nuclear facilities in Diego Garcia undermines the NWFZ) established by the African Union, just as Washington continues to block a Pacific NWFZ by excluding its Pacific dependencies.
Obama's rhetorical commitment to non-proliferation has received much praise, even a Nobel peace prize. One practical step in this direction is establishment of NWFZs. Another is to withdraw support for the nuclear programs of the three non-signers of the NPT. As often, rhetoric and actions are hardly aligned, in fact are in direct contradiction in this case, facts that pass with as little attention as most of what has just been briefly reviewed.
Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US is taking major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not suffice. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine, however grim the consequences, yet another illustration of "the savage injustice of the Europeans" that Adam Smith deplored in 1776, with the command center since shifted to their imperial settlement across the seas.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Your least informed visitor asks
by bushtheliberator on Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:46 PM PDTdear Fooladi,& AMIR173,
Is impossible that the IRI can be reformed ? I may change my nic to "Pollyana", but I don't see any other peaceful way out for Iran except as a struggle ABOUT Islam,but always within the IRI framework.
Mr. Chomsky's rant contains at least one obvious untruth ;
" These have been the only free elections in the Arab world".
I'm not surprised he didn't think of Iraq,but when his usual rant goes paranoid with Obama, the Bomber"s Bunker Busters,I have to wonder ; is Chomsky suffering with Post Traumatic BUSH syndrome ?
You never read Chomsky’s garbage! because?
by reader1 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 02:43 PM PDTBecause he is a giant of an intellect? A decent and courageous Jew who tells the bitter truth on Israel's occupation and treatment of the Palestinian? Exposes the ineptness of USA foreign policy in ME?
Probably none of the above. Sometimes the truth is not what you want it to be.
It is
by Doctor X on Tue Jul 06, 2010 01:04 PM PDTWhere you state that There should be no "pre-conditions" or Prerequisites, and that individuals should not be bound by any particular ideology, yet you have always maintained that everybody should follow the MaJority Regardless of whether it agrees with their own individual belife system.
Doctor X,
by No Fear on Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:33 PM PDTWelcome to the debate.
Where is the contradiction?
Majority Rule
by Doctor X on Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:25 PM PDTWithout prerequisites and conditions = what Stalin+mosolini+hitler HAd in mind.
It really wont help the debate if someone comes and say the prerequisite for democracy is to bound by islamic laws, or the prerequisite of democracy is to bound by human rights law, or the prerequisite of democracy is to be bound by this or that.
Good job Contradicting yourself :)
Benross,
by No Fear on Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:02 PM PDTIt really wont help the debate if someone comes and say the prerequisite for democracy is to bound by islamic laws, or the prerequisite of democracy is to bound by human rights law, or the prerequisite of democracy is to be bound by this or that.
You will continue to have your foot deep in the crap that you have now. We should all accept the basic meaning of democracy as the rule of majority without any prerequisites.
Once you start defining it with prerequisites, you need to justify why they are above the rule of majority. You just opened the can of worm, back to square one again.
No Fear
by Doctor X on Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:56 AM PDTThe idea of Majority rule comes with the right of the Minority to raise its concerns and objections which could lead to certain modifications in the proposed laws. There is the option where such campagins can be pursued through a relatively unbiased and fair Judicial system, which is the norm in many Western countries (democratic systems), Where The judicial system's resources can be used to revive the rights of the citizens.
secularism is one inherent feature of Democracy, It is naturllay implied no individual shall be forced to adopt the religious doctrine necessarily compatible with that of the Government. It is not as simple as Individuals following the Majority rules, just because they are the Majority, whether They agree with it or not. You have gotten this absolutely backwards.
Having Ifs and Buts in a democratic system is what it is all about. Otherwise it would not even make any sense, it would not really provide the freedom that it promises to deliver.
These must be supported if it is compatible with the rule of majority. To deny the entire ideology and to disregard its influence in our society will make you less efficient and politically incompetent, to a point that your only option is to ask foreign forces to eliminate IR for you or to play a big role in it.
It is obvious that you really do not believe in the separation of church and state (religion and politics). It is just so well-embedded in you , that you can barely disguise it. Somehow, you have created the notion that not going along with the dominant ideology of the land, automatically translated into being politically incompetent or naive. Does that really make sense to you???
How does one's request for freedom in choice ie. religion constitue inviting a foreign invasion or asking for it? How is one being inefficient when one proposes a different path based on various religious or even non-religious schools of thought? Why are you so ardently try to inter-relate relgious beliefs with political activities?
Apart from the standard definition Democracy, one thing that it bring about in a society, is the restriction-free adoption of a path that leads to the best possible political, economic, social outcom. A society where people would not have to consistently look over their shoulders.
Marhoum Jaan
by No Fear on Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:49 AM PDTIran, even in its current state under Ahmadinejad is far from my ideal as a country i wish to see. Me and 25 millions like me chose Ahmadinejad because we believe he is able to put our political and economical developement on the right track. We never assumed during a 4-8 years term , he can magically turn Iran in to heaven.
I support Ahmadinejad's message. I really don't care about the messenger. To me, he is a taboo breaker which will make the transitions easier for the next candidate.
It is okay if you disagree with me and support a different candidate. You can vote for him in about two years and get your man in office.
In regards to my dislike of leftist revolutionary approaches, i mostly rely on historical facts. I have realized that most revolutions which violently toppled a regime or government had been strongly influenced by leftist ideologies. I would be grateful if you can provide me with an example which a rightwing group was instrumental in a revolution anywhere in the world ( Not just a mere participant ).
I despise revolutions. I am anti revolutionary. I believe the gap between the people and their government should be reduced. i believe bridges must be built between people and governments. I would never support a movement which wants to topple any regime or government. Revolutions points to our failure as a nation.
No Fear
by benross on Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:38 AM PDTDon't try mumbling around your nonsense. The prerequisite of democracy is freedom of expression and freedom of association. Without them, Saddaam also can get %99 of the votes.
Chomsky doesn't talk about it -I never read his garbage- because he already has it. When we get our freedom of expression and freedom of association in Iran, then I might take a look at his garbage.
Do you even know what democracy means?
by No Fear on Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:23 AM PDTDemocracy:
majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
There is NO mention of secularism in any definition of democracy. Even " Christian democracy" which you find contradictory exist in quite a few countries in the world. If they win the majority votes, they will form the government whether you agree with it or not. With the majority of the votes, democracies can change or create any laws that they wish. Here is a list of Christian democratic parties;
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_democratic_parties
The point i am trying to make is Democracy is what it is. And that is the rule of MAJORITY. There is NO ifs and buts about it and it has nothing to do with secularism. ( Unless like turkey you enforce secularism with military power ).
I understand the benefits of a secular society and i support a president who has done more for secularism in Iran than ordinary people can understand. But you are going the wrong way about this.And as i said before, I don't see any difference in the methods that you advocate with those who you oppose so much.
In regards to your absolute and final judgement on Islam , and whether its anti democratic, You are wrong again. The answer is in the interpretation. There are many scholars who have reached a different interpretation about Islam. These must be supported if it is compatible with the rule of majority. To deny the entire ideology and to disregard its influence in our society will make you less efficient and politically incompetent, to a point that your only option is to ask foreign forces to eliminate IR for you or to play a big role in it.
“No Fear” Political Islam Revelations
by Demo on Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:45 AM PDTIf one sincerely believes in Islam & could testify that Qurran is the Book of the Creator of the Universe (i.e. one (or uni-) verse or message by itself in its entirety) then he/she should have “No Fear” to read/learn the “messages” inscribed therein. Such might prevent him/her from issuing his/her own invented revelations, from running judgment against others, & from using the phrase “Islamic” altogether as none of the “messages” contain such phrase. God Almighty might then open up/expand his/her vision about what is in horizon.
PS: The "messenger" of the Quran spent 25 years of his life by spending most of his daily/night hours praying in a cave. He was living in the desert, in a tent & had no access to internet. Instead he was “Fearful” of his creator, had no “icon” to represent himself with & strongly believed in a world following the earthly life to stand his creator’s judgment court.
what is it with left!!!? (to No Fear)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Tue Jul 06, 2010 07:30 AM PDTNo Fear says: "An uncompromising revolutionary approach which disregards the message
in its entirety and believes in the physical removal of its opponent.
Its a leftist mindset if you ask me."
Yes, some in the left are that way, just as some in the right are that way and some believers in religion are that way. Hey, many of us don't say much against IRI or Ahamadinejad and Temsah Yazdi as Iran is under constant pressure from military corporate fascism but don't be under the illusion that some of you Ahmadinejad supporters are gods of freedom and democracy!!
Would you accept political
by AMIR1973 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 05:08 AM PDTWould you accept political Islam as form of a government if this form of government is been chosen by our people through majority votes? In other words, which is more important, secularism or democracy? ( And no, they are not related at all ).
All the democracies in North & South America, Europe, South Africa, and Asia are largely secular. They are not "Christian democracies", "Buddhist republics", etc. It is possible for parties with an Islamist leaning to play a political role in a Muslim-majority country, but an "Islamic republic" (and certainly this so-called "Islamic republic") is incompatible with democracy (as it is practiced in the countries which are considered democratic). Islamism, as manifested in IRI, is an anti-democratic ideology.
Chomsky as an American
by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 03:26 AM PDTHas always said that he holds himself responsible to what his government does. Which is why he always talks about America's behavior first and foremost in the world. This doesn't mean that he is not uncritical of the ways things are run in other parts of the world.
That Noam, he's a clever
by Sargord Pirouz on Tue Jul 06, 2010 03:08 AM PDTThat Noam, he's a clever guy. Who could argue with any of this?
Indeed a great article
by Bavafa on Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:29 PM PDTAlthough I doubt that such attack is going to take place by Obama regime, nevertheless this great country, the US of A, has proven many times in the past that it is capable of such grand crimes against humanity just as recently as in Iraq.
So, no reason for falling sleep and not be vigilant to rise our voices against yet another criminal war.
Mehrdad
Amir, a few days ago i
by No Fear on Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:09 PM PDTAmir, a few days ago i asked you a question which went unanswered. Help me to understand you better by answering it now.
Would you accept political Islam as form of a government if this form of government is been chosen by our people through majority votes? In other words, which is more important, secularism or democracy? ( And no, they are not related at all ).
I can no longer follow our old discussion on this thread. I tried hard to keep this discussion about the message and the messenger, but its hard to keep it on track if all you say is how evil IR is and how justified US is to do what it is doing even if its very similar to IR.
( One hundred thousands
by AMIR1973 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 09:31 PM PDT( One hundred thousands iraqi civilians died during the first week of US attack on Iraq due to ariel bombing)
I've never seen evidence suggesting that the U.S. killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in 1 week of bombing (the number killed and especially in that time frame seems very, very questionable). I find that very hard to believe. I've never seen that claim anywhere else.
It seems to me that your hatred towards Islam is clouding your better judgement. You justify US atrocities in our neighborhood because Arabs and islamists are stupid and technologically backwards. Do you feel that your parents came from an inferior and primitive culture and country?
When have I said anything against Islam as a religion? I am opposed to Islamism as a political ideology, just as I am opposed to Baathism, Marxism-Leninsm, Maoism, etc. I don't justify U.S. atrocities, but not all interventions are atrocities (some are). I didn't say that Arabs are stupid. Many Arabs who live in the U.S. are as successful as anyone else and contribute to the U.S. I said that I don't think the Arab countries would be much better off without U.S. intervention, because they suffer from deeper problems of political culture that are not related to the U.S.
South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc all had to deal with more direct American intervention in their affairs than most of the Arab countries, and yet they are among the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced nations. Indeed, they are economic rivals of the U.S. and not "puppets". The major problem for the Arabs is not U.S. intervention, but the Arabs' political culture.
No, I don't think that Iran has a primitive culture. On the contrary, I think Iranians are often very cultured and generally well-mannered people (at least no worse than most other people). However, Islamism and the IRI represent the worst strain in Iran, just as the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. or fascism in Europe.
I agree with you. US and
by No Fear on Mon Jul 05, 2010 08:58 PM PDTI agree with you. US and all other countries are after their own benefits. But wouldn't you wish if khomeini didn't kill all those prisoners to accomplish his goal? if the answer to this question is yes, then why would you support similar methods which results in thousands and thousands of civilians deaths due to US intervention policies in the middle east? ( One hundred thousands iraqi civilians died during the first week of US attack on Iraq due to ariel bombing).
You are dangerously close of becoming a hypocrite if you fail to understand the similarities between these methods.
It seems to me that your hatred towards Islam is clouding your better judgement. You justify US atrocities in our neighborhood because Arabs and islamists are stupid and technologically backwards. Do you feel that your parents came from an inferior and primitive culture and country?
At this point, your arguements doesn't make much sense politically and rather than being supported by logic and reasons, it sounds more like a personal cry for help.
I enjoyed this debate and have learnt a few points from you. If you wish to continue this topic with a new or fresh outlook, i am all ears.
It's double edge sword: US/Israel imperialist+IRI fascist regime
by obama on Mon Jul 05, 2010 09:05 PM PDTI just came back from watching the South of the border by Oliver Stone which shows how the US which is only after petro, in 2002 created another coup similar to 1953 against Chavez; because he was not taking orders from washington and he was only after his people's good! (Interesting, showed Iran built them SILOU for processing grains, and US called it helping them make Nuclear bomb!)
I really don't know how supporting the US to rape our country is a good thing! US policies in So. America has made all those countries more leftist than ever before since the people have suffered the most. Is that too much to ask for equality? Do you always want us to put the yoke around our necks and be slaves to the big brother? Iran has the right to ask for her independence as a soverign nation. We will work as partners, but not as subordinates!
IRI,IRI, you really have f'..ed us all. I like the idea of standing up for our independence, but this is the wrong way to go! Youhave to learn the language of diplomacy! AN has really screwed us up badly!
IRI is the problem and I hate to see the US is taking advaantage of it and using it against my country to achieve her imperialst goals of stealing our oil again! Those who support IRI, I really find it very hard to understand! IRI has literally raped Iran and the Iranian people including many virgins, males and females!
This is not an islamic country! This is an islamic rapist mafia regime!
IRI has destroyed our culture, religion and taught everyone to lie and cheat and steal. IRI has killed millions of our brothers and sisters either physically, or mentaly, and put many more in jails and tortures as we speak. Forget about the economy that has destroyed our families as well, except a few corrupt ones who are disgrace! How can you with a clear conscience support this evil regime?
This is the problem, IRI sucks, US and China suck too! Yes, we do live here in exile and life is comfortable, but many of us with families in Iran are not forgeting about them! We cannot be selfish! We want to be able to live with our families in our own country. Relatives and friends are dying and we are left alone!
Long live Iran and Iranian patriots! Down with dictatorship (IRI) and imperialsts!
I do blame the IRI for current problems, not the US! If IRI would get her act together, US wouldn't be able to do a thing! If we have a good government, how could the US make us protest and try to overthrow them? IRI has first to get her house in order! I am against any outside interference in Iran!
Pastor,
by G. Rahmanian on Mon Jul 05, 2010 08:30 PM PDTYou are hilarious.
As for Chomsky, I lost total respect for him when he claimed Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be erased off the map of the world!
Blame the Great Satan...again
by AMIR1973 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 08:08 PM PDTThe message is about US interventionist policies in middle east. I am sure you are smart enough to understand US is not in our neighborhood to promote democracy. They are after their own benefit and they don't give a rats ass about what you believe or think.
Of course the U.S. is there to promote its own interests. That's only natural and what every government in the world should do. But without U.S. intervention, the Mideast would be in a worse state. The anti-U.S. states (IRI, Syria, and Sudan) are a lot worse and have killed far more people than the pro-U.S. states (Jordan, Egypt, Gulf States). You can't blame the U.S. if the Arabs have a violent, medieval, backwards tribal political culture. Do you blame the U.S. for the fact that they decapitate each other, blow each other up, use kids as suicide bombers, stone each other to death, and chop off limbs? Do you blame the U.S. for the fact that they burn the Danish embassy over a bunch of cartoons? Cartoons, for f*ck's sake. It is the Arabs' predominant mindset that keeps most of their countries in such an awful state, not the intervention of the Great Satan. The Arabs have themselves to blame for the sorry state of affairs of their countries.
Back to topic
by No Fear on Mon Jul 05, 2010 07:10 PM PDTThe message is about US interventionist policies in middle east.
I am sure you are smart enough to understand US is not in our neighborhood to promote democracy. They are after their own benefit and they don't give a rats ass about what you believe or think.
The other side of your arguement is your persistant to overthrow IR at all cost without any regards to any reasonable objection. I tried to draw similarities between your methods and those who you so strongly oppose. I argued that this method is a characteristic of a leftist revolutionary mindset which you oppose so much but follow the same doctorine as them. To me , this is a contradiction and is for you to figure out.
Mind you, while the message mostly remains the same whether its IR or any other group, Its the methods of reaching that message that really makes a different.
In that sense, I don't see much difference between you and your enemy.
Kharmagas, Kharmagas
by Doctor X on Mon Jul 05, 2010 07:05 PM PDTHemayatat mikonim.
Kharmagas Kharmagas Hedayat. Hedayat.
Marhoum Kharmagas: Nashod digeh
by AMIR1973 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 06:30 PM PDTI live here because I like to live here
But this is Sheytan-e Bozorg. IRI supporters shouldn't like Sheytan-e Bozorg.
Trotting out AIPAC so soon? You could have waited a little longer, no? What's the problem anyway? Press TV, Fars News, and the rest of the gang are always advertising IRI's latest military and technological achievements, like its Saeqeh fighter plane, Sijjil missile, and saying that IRI is a regional superpower. The IRI is a very advanced country and will "cut off the hands" of the U.S. (as Ahmadinejad likes to predict), so you have nothing to fear. Emam-e Zaman is supporting IRI too. If the IRI provokes another war with the U.S. like it did with Iraq, then IRI will be victorious over Sheytan-e Bozorg :-)
prayers for peace (to Doctor "jaan")
by marhoum Kharmagas on Mon Jul 05, 2010 06:11 PM PDT"For example, Kharmagas, why would a person like yourself not settle down in the IRI? It would be nice to hear your opinion. "
Sure Docotor "jaan", here is your answer: I live here because I like to live here, and precisely because of that I write against deranged Iranian exiles and AIPAC criminals, and .... who push for war.
The "message" is not true
by AMIR1973 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 05:43 PM PDTNaturally, there is some indignation and emotion in my stance (which is only human) but also a good deal of realism based on 31 years of the IRI's reality. The difference between now and 30 years ago is that the Shah's regime was reformable, that it didn't subscribe to an extremist Islamist ideology, and that it didn't employ anywhere near the levels of violence and killing that the IRI has employed (just to give one example among many, the Shah foolishly spared Khomeini's life in 1963 at the behest of Hassan Pakravan and/or Ayatollah Shariatmadari, depending on what source you read. Khomeini had Pakravan executed and Shariatmadari, who was Khomeini's senior in clerical ranks and who had actually made Khomeini a "Grand" Ayatollah in order to spare his life, was framed and humiliated, and he and his family members were tortured after the catastrophe of 1979).
I don't believe that I've ever used the word "revolution" or "revolutionary" in any of my posts, but you are free to label me as you see fit. Remember, we are living in a democratic country and such freedoms are provided even to individuals who propagandize on behalf of anti-American terrorist regimes.
Opposing at all cost?
by No Fear on Mon Jul 05, 2010 04:38 PM PDTDo you mean you will oppose IR regardless of whether the message is true or not?
Don't you think there is a fair bit of emotion in your stance? Is that good?
30 years ago, a very similar way of thinking brought IR to power. An uncompromising revolutionary approach which disregards the message in its entirety and believes in the physical removal of its opponent. Its a leftist mindset if you ask me. One that you don't like.
Any thoughts?
No Fear: I oppose the "message"
by AMIR1973 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 04:27 PM PDTI oppose the IRI's "message", and I oppose its actions for the past 31 years. Any decent Iranian and human being should find the IRI to be a morally repugnant entity (and a disaster for Iranians).
Follow the message
by No Fear on Mon Jul 05, 2010 04:22 PM PDTAmir,
Thank you for your reply.
Shouldn't we take this a step further and discuss the situation regardless of who the messenger is?
As politically matured people, we do not need to know about the messenger. Only the message should interest us. The messenger does not validate the message.
I know khomeini deviated from the message that he was preaching. But that is also partly our mistake ( As people ) for not making our politicians accountable towards the message itself. We followed khomeini thinking he is above the message.
The next point i am trying to make is, we have to remain objective towards the situations. IR might have the right message in some times which must be supported regardless of who is advocating it.
Agree or disagree?