God-awful choice-makers


God-awful choice-makers
by Niloufar Parsi

I was reading the latest garbage on the Economist on Iran’s nuclear programme. I say ‘garbage’ because it is the same Economist that fully and unequivocally supported Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq in 2003; the same Economist that only grudgingly criticized sanctions against Iraq for over a decade prior to that murderous attack; a sanctions regime that led to half a million deaths among Iraqi children - ‘justifiably’ so, according to Mad Albright.

Now the same Economist is pushing for sanctions and a military campaign against Iran. So what I want to discuss is not so much the details of Iran’s nuclear programme, rather the colonial mindset of garbage producers like the Economist and their ilk.

To do that, let me quote the closing paragraph of the said article (Economist, Dec. 5 2009 issue, p. 29):

So which will it be: a war with Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran? Short of a revolution that sweeps away the Iranian regime – ushering in one that agrees, like post-apartheid South Africa, to give up its nuclear technology – sanctions may offer the only hope of avoiding the awful choice’.

First, let me address the sanctions/war ‘apologists’ amongst us: please note that the proposed sanctions/war would actually apply to any Iranian regime. It is irrelevant who governs Iran. What the Economist is saying is that Iran should face sanctions or war unless it gives up its ‘nuclear technology’. And if there is a regime change in Iran, the requirement that Iran must capitulate to the wishes of the West will remain.

So, let us all realise that we are dealing with a pig, despite her lipstick. This particular pig is saying that Iranians may not have nuclear technology of the kind that many other countries have, including Pakistan, Israel, Germany, France, Japan etc. Again, please note, it is not the bomb that is being disputed, but possession of the know-how itself.

This brings me to the second point: the Economist wants Iran to give up its ‘nuclear technology’. What exactly does this mean? I don’t want to open a technical argument here. It is far simpler than that: you either know how to master nuclear technology or you do not. The knowledge exists in human resources first, and materials and equipment next.

How is it possible to ‘give up’ such technology? Other than complete capitulation of national sovereignty and the right to self-govern/self-learn, how is this possible?

Actually, it is worse than that: it is not about self-government even. It is about agreeing to an externally-imposed limit on scientific knowledge. It is about giving up the right to learn physics. I for one am not sure how this is even possible in a practical sense. We would basically have to self-censure our learning and textbooks because some other countries told us to do it.

This brings me to the third point: who gave the Economist the right to assume to know or determine who has the right to such knowledge? Or even the right to such weapons?

Of course the Economist is all about the expression of opinion, and they have the right to roll out their garbage year in year out. But it must be clear to you that I am just using the article as a reflection of western double standards and actual (real) policies. So let me turn to the West directly, and ask ‘who has the right to determine such rights’?

What we have in effect is a club of nuclear powers, a number of which (e.g. Japan and Germany) have nuclear weapons capability and could produce bombs quite quickly at any time.

And let us be clear: Iran is actively being prevented from reaching this level of technology development, rather than bomb possession itself. A small group of countries in the world have decided that Iran does not have the right to possess certain aspects of the science of physics.

Essentially, it is about ‘book burning’.

The futility and stupidity - not to mention the insult - of the exercise must be clear to most of us. Sooner or later, the time is coming when nuclear/chemical/biological weapons can be produced in relatively small laboratories and carried in briefcases: how will the ‘elite’ countries manage the situation then?

They could bomb all schools in other countries perhaps?

This brings us to the question of a remedy for the situation. What can be done? Again, I will refrain from attempting any technical discussion, but will stick to the ‘philosophical’: how does one ‘cure’ a disease - a growing problem such as this nuclear proliferation?

Well there are many ways, but dealing with the symptoms (like headaches or inflammation) does not ‘cure’. It simply relieves the discomfort until the disease is cured - often by the body’s defences alone.

Sometimes, the body’s defences do not manage to cure the disease, yet the symptoms are suppressed by medication for a while until the disease spreads and erupts in a much more severe form with added complications from secondary infections. This I guess is how AIDS or cancer can become uncontrollable.

This latter course is where we are heading on the nuclear issue if we continue to be ‘led’ (or better say ‘force-fed’) by the type of elitist, unfair, self-defeating, garbage ‘advice’ given by the likes of the Economist. Why? Simple: there is no trust in the actions of anyside in this dispute. Unilateral, secretive ‘action’ is totally justified.

Both Iran and her opposition – the Security Council, Israel and Germany - are acting as self-serving, manipulative, power-hungry parties that have no real interest in nuclear disarmament at all. What they are fighting over is who should have nuclear weapons technology, and this is a fight that is bound to have more losers than winners. It can only accelerate the rush to building more nuclear weapons, as these seem to bring privileges and unfair advantages for some nations at the direct expense ofothers. So somebody somewhere will break out of the mould and produce something really nasty without anyone noticing it.

One of these advantages is virtual (though not total) immunity from any serious attack by a foreign power. This is why Iran wants it and Israel is so desperate to ensure that it does not get it. Unfortunately for Israel, any fair-minded person would see Iran’s right to self-defence as long as Israel has such weapons.

Any serious person can see that a realsolution would have to be a multilateral one that does not isolate any particular country for chastisement. That way, any country or group that steps out of line would subject itself to discipline. The current path, however, leaves Iran looking like the victim in the eyes of impartial observers.

Not in the eyes of the Economist, mind you. Then again, what is an economist doing giving advice on global security issues? Perhaps best if they would stick to economics? But they could not even manage to see the financial crisis coming, could they?

Pigs can‘t fly, but with the right lipstick, they obviously can imitate economists who dish out global security advice. God-awful choice-makers.


Recently by Niloufar ParsiCommentsDate
US media double standard
Jul 21, 2010
patriot dog
Jul 13, 2010
the trouble with capitalism
May 24, 2010
more from Niloufar Parsi

FB jan

by IRANdokht on

I would love to have that zereshk polo but bunny wabbits? oh noooo...


I just read the comments and frankly I don't see why you should be apologizing to me!!!  I would have loved to be able to engage in a serious debate like you can! I'm the one who should take it as a compliment ;-)

Jaleh jan you killed me with your comment (being accused of worse things...) you are always smart, witty and very kind to me.

Niloufar jan

I am sorry that people show the bad sense of ruining a discussion on your blog for their personal vendettas. Heif!  I truly enjoy reading your views and how you engage people in real discussions. Please do not allow them to discourage you from submitting your blogs and discussing your ideas, no matter how they try to distract and deter! ;-)



Response to sheeshaki eh? Kharamadarese

by KouroshS on

You deserve every response that you get from me. be it polite or impolite. There really is nothing you can do about it. You have witnessed that everytime you start being a prick i am a couple of steps ahead of you.

You still have not drilled this into your head that there is no obligations, no rules, no standars that would prevent me or anyone else to no comment on something that has not been addressed to them.

It will happen again and again and again.

It is all up to to you to make it all stop.

over and out.

marhoum Kharmagas

Jaleh-e aziz (to Souri too)

by marhoum Kharmagas on

I can't go beyond .... for that link, Souri jAn will flag me (*), and JJ jAn will crash me! 


(*) after drinking her wine

marhoum Kharmagas


by marhoum Kharmagas on

No Souri, today was not exception, it was standard procedure, code named "response to Sheeshaki"! :)


marhoum kharmagas aziz

by Jaleho on

you're killing me with that bear hunter joke! I have heard you mention it twice, but never tell the actual joke. And now this link


 come on!!!!

PS. Did I correctly see Jamshid post his expected "thank you" post to Souri about fourteen times? :-)

Niloufar jan, sorry for hijacking your blog. I know you don't mind our finding a chatting spot!


Dear Souri

by jamshid on

Thank you for the clarification regarding the deletion. And once again I find you to be impartial in your judgement, which I can certainly appreciate.

In my opinion, there is a distinct difference between being straight and stating an opinion about somebody or something on one hand, and being rude and reverting to name calling on the other hand. The former could fall in the gray area, but the latter always constitute grounds for deletion.

However, I never flag comments because I think offensive comments that use foul language speak volumes to the public about the person who writes them.

Yes, perhaps you should have let me know about the deletion privately in order to avoid opening a can of worms. As you know there are much intense feelings (read: anger and hatred) going on in here.

I also want to tell you that there are individuals in this site that take notes of people's previous remarks that could be used against them at a later time. They then force "conclusions" based on these remarks and shove it down the victim's throat.

I think this is what some people are doing with you in here regarding your past remarks. So be your graceful self, and just ignore them, as I don't think you need to explain yourself to anyone.


Either you are hyper sensitive nowadays or.....

by Souri on

It is the Christmas time which make you different!

I know what happened there Kharmagas, I was following that thread.

But did you forget that you two were always playing this game together? Since a long while, you have been always chasing each other with a little humor and teasing each other.

That was not any different today! Just you were more sensitive......?


marhoum Kharmagas

the Bear hunter story! (to Souri)

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Souri, I can assure you that those people you are defending did shoot at the bear, not vice versa ..... your pet this morning "joked" with me regarding a comment that I DID NOT ADRESS to  him ....

Here is the linkd to the bear hunter story:



Fozoul Bashi

by jamshid on

Belitteling people by calling them "little pet" only reveals your anger, hatred and most importantly, your feelings of helplessness towards an opposing view. These character deficiencies could perhaps date back to the time of your upbringing.

I suggest you work on these weaknesses. You can start by stopping to revert to name calling, and instead focus on argumentation.



by Souri on

I don't' assume anything. You already assured me of the fact that you don't think the same way as I do (in that other blog)

I never thought you do agree with me (actually I don't mind it) I know I have more in common politically with you than with Kourosh, but never mind, I said I do respect both of you.

It doesnt' matter for me who you do respect or not respect. What matter, really is the fact that I think we should not say things like this to the people with whom we disagree. [Did you see me saying a word of hoopla to the people that you mentioned the name here below?]

I've just asked you politely not to do it. It is up to you to accept my request or not. I asked you, because I like you and I didn't want you to say ugly things.....I didn't ask the same thing from Mr Fateh who had initiated it. He has his own style.

Now, Kharmagas jan, you have always been doing whatever pleased you. I can't tell you what to do and what not to do.

Remember I'd asked you about that person who once called you "Malijak" and a month later was your buddy ?

You said, I was taking thing too much in serious. Remember?

And now, you are taking things too much in serious dear. You want to joke with Kourosh, or fight with Kourosh, this is your business.

I just told (to both of you) very friendly that it was not nice.

If I haven't said to Jamshid that I'd flagged Niloufar's comment, I wouldn't have so much trouble with you guys, isn't it?

Honesty cost me too much, most of the time!


Souri jan,

by Jaleho on

Although I don't know you personally, from your writings I have the understanding that you are a happily married lady. So, no, I did not have any funny intentions if that's what you meant. I honestly, just like I siad, felt you might unconciously treat men preferentially to women. I wondered and uttered it honestly since you yourself had no problem saying so. As you see, I am not the only person who found your defense of Jamshid and flagging of Niloufar's comment a bit strange. You know me enough to know that I am more direct than "nish and kenayeh." So no, no hidden intentions. Just what I said openly and exactly just what I wondered.

marhoum Kharmagas

Bollywood dancers (to Souri Khanom)

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Please don't assume that I respect many of these people that you respect. I have no illusion about any of IRI factions but I have no respect for many of these Bollywood like dancers (*) that are getting excited while my hamvatans are tearing each other apart ......... 

(*) Hollow, Shifteh and the rest of them

Fouzul Bashi

Souri - you are lying and you know it darling!

by Fouzul Bashi on

You are lying and instead of addressing it when you are caught you have the gall to call me a hypocrite!  You LIED when you said I was the one who first insulted Jamshid, and in fact my comment which was exactly as he had called me stayed there for a few seconds before I deleted it!!  Now who is a hypocrite AND a liar!  Congratulations!

As for everyone knowing that I am a SHE, I don't object to it ;)  I love women too much ;) 



by Souri on

You said:

"I did remember that you had told me once that because you respect your
dad more than your mom, you sometimes generalize it to other men and
women. I wondered if this might have been an example of that."

No this  is not an example of it.....

and the smart girl you are, I am sure you already know it very well. 

but I  am becoming septic about your intention now, as this is not the first time (nor the second, but more) that you repeat this statement of mine! 

And you try to apply it to what I do whenever you don't approve it!!!

Have you ever noticed how many times (honestly you surprize me) how many times, I came to the defense of the women against the bllying men in this site?



Yes, you are a she, and everybody knows it...

by Souri on

But this is not the point.

When people attack Jaleho and gang up against her and bully her, when I come to her defense in a worst moment (that I usually should not) nobody call Jaleho my pet!

Guys, get straight and think rational please. I don t have any pet here and this is very ugly to call people names like this.

I always fight rudeness and always defend everybody who is bullied. After all, Jamshid and I do not see eye to eye all the time. Neither is the case for Jaleho and myself.

Madame Fosoul Bashi, please you stop your hypocrisy games. This is no more funny for anybody here. Thanks.


Souri, I never flag any comment

by Jaleho on

I know that you don't like nasty comments, and you have tried to clean up a lot of nasty comments against me. I look at it this more "digitally." Like I have always said, I even want the nasitiest comments written against me to stay on site.

For me, they reveal the character of people. It helps me distinguish wheat from chaff, helps me understand who is of value to have a back and forth with, who is not. You might not mind a personality like Shazdeh to change his ugly tone, few of his ugly comments to you get flagged and deleted, and then you can chat with him as normal. For me, his character (lack of it) has been revealed by the type of comments he is capable of making. He can write some humorous stuff once a while, but I find it below myself to ever engage with a character like him, all thanks to the unflagged comments that has shown me his character.

What I was amazed was not your flagging a comment, but rather it was flagging Niloufar of all the people....and that in a debate with Jamshid who although polite in many consversations with myself, is clearly no match to Niloufar when it comes to self-control.

Anyway, I did remember that you had told me once that because you respect your dad more than your mom, you sometimes generalize it to other men and women. I wondered if this might have been an example of that.

Fouzul Bashi

Souri's khanoum's little pet :0

by Fouzul Bashi on

Yes, I noticed Souri khanoum flagging Niloufar but not seeing anything wrong with her little pet's loutish remark towards myself ;)

Souri Khanum, YOU ARE LYING!  loool  It was your pet who called me retarded, and my initial comment of "Are you retarded" was in response to his comment!  It only stayed there for a few seconds and I thought he was not worth it and deleted it. 

 As for the little pet, he keeps on repeating the same paragraph like a dumb parrot but can't elaborate loool  Souri Khanoum you might wish to help him clarify his sanction position, his needle is stuck ;o)

FYI, not that I hold a grudge against women - unlike yourself ;0 - but as it happens I am not a she :) 



Sorry guys if I offended you

by Souri on

By all mean I do respect Niloufar and you and Jamshid in the same way. I do respect Q, but it happened to me to flag his comments too, when i found them offensive or rude.

Kharmagas jan, I love you so much, it is more than just respecting. I didn't say anything bad to you, just said don't play with that game, as Holly and Kourosh are both the nice and respected members of the site. My comment was addressed to both of you (Kharmagas and Kourosh) equally.

That comment of Niloufar was bad, It was bad even for her own image. I couldn't believe she was able to talk to the people in this way.

Again, I'm sorry if you are offended, but you may consider the fact that, I just flag what I find offensive. But this is not me who delete the comment and if the nature of a comment is not really Rude or Offensive, the editor will not delete them.

Jaleho, you asked me why I didn't flag Jamshid's comment to Fozoul bashi? Guess why?

It was first Fozoul Bashi who post her comment under this same title : Jamshid are you retarded?

and then she changed the subject, leaving the same comment.

Plus, if you find Jamshid comments offensive, why don't you flag them? I know there are many people out there who are more than glad to flag Jamshid's posts.....but few people do it with Niloufar.

But there's no difference for me, who is the author of the offensive comment. Each time I see one, I flag it, proudly.



I am not surprised

by IRANdokht on

Jaleh jan

I am not surprised. I remember that conversation and that outrageous comment real well actually. I guess being a woman and being a misogynist at the same time makes for one hell of a paradox though, doesn't it?  :o)


marhoum Kharmagas

I am not dumbfounded (to Jaleh)

by marhoum Kharmagas on

One of her annoying pets that I have been ignoring (as much as possible) started "joking" with me today, and I replied back with my joke .... and then she jumps in .... defending the "smart" and "respectable" pet when the pet is put in its place.



Souri, I am dumbfounded

by Jaleho on

Although once you told me in a poetry blog that in general you respect and trust men more than women, still I am amazed that you can flag Niloufar's comment in a discussion with Jamshid!

Having read many of Niloufar's debates, i have found her extremely polite to all unless she's been insulted badly, and even then she tries to respond politely. Now, I see Jamshid's comment to Fozoul Bashi "Are you retarded?," and I don't see you flagging that one. What gives?!


Dear Jamshid

by Souri on

Please calm down. I'd flagged one of the Niloufar comment which I'd found rude and offensive. When it got deleted, your post was deleted with it as it was a reply to that one.

Having said that, I'm now done with this blog and won't read the following comments. Just ask you two, to consider your way of discussing and arguing together.

Merry Christmas and Happy new year.




by jamshid on

My conclusions are based on the contents of your own blogs. If you agree, and due to the current events in Iran, let's supspend our argument for now, and focus energy on helping the cause of the people in Iran.

Niloufar Parsi

clutching at straws?

by Niloufar Parsi on

with garbage like this:

" You are against war and sanctions because you want to prolong IRI's miserable existence."

Do you really expect anyone to take your comments seriously? you sound like you are looking for someone to blame for your own failings. you are a real sad charater.


Basiji mentality fate

by jamshid on

Pay close attention to the time frame 2:59. It is a testimony to the fate of Basiji mentality:





by jamshid on

I agree with you.


Reposting deleted comment

by jamshid on

What do Hezbollahis do when their deceptive argumentation is exposed? Censur, resort to name calling and ganging up a-la-basij against the victim.

My comment below was deleted. I am reposting it:

The last two paragraphs must have hit a nerve, didn't they? Is that why you called them garbage? Your similarties with the way IRI treats opposing views, even the use of similar words, is beginning to get scary.

In your haste to condemn an opposing view (like the IRI does), you made your own false conclusions about what I wrote on South African sanctions.

I never said that the exact same methods applied to South Africa will work against the IRI, as no two countries are the same. But I said that targeted sanctions with a massive focus (simlar in scale to South Africa) on supporting the struggles of the Iranian people for human rights and democracy will help Iranians' cause in the long term.

I also said that such focus is not in sanctioners' list of priorities and therefore without that focus, sanctions will fail to help the people's cause.

You wrote, "you actually agree with me and the gist of the contents of the blog."

I couldn't have read anything more nauseating than this sentence claiming that you and I are in agreement. I'll have to go and wash my eyes. What a disgusting claim. Let me make something very clear to you.

The fact that we both oppose war and sanctions does not bring us into agreement. Far from it. That will be the day.

You are against war and sanctions because you want to prolong IRI's miserable existence. You care less for the people of Iran. I am against war and sanctions because I believe they will hurt the people's cause and solidify the IRI.

Two opposite reasons.

At the top of your blogs, you have written:

"The lotus ... is a symbol of compassion, wisdom and women's emancipation in eastern philosophy."

Yet you support a regime that has no compassion, no wisdom and has stepped on women's emancipation in every possible way. How does that make you feel about yourself?


To Jamshid and others

by amirkabear4u on

I think as 2010 starts soon we should put out differnces aside and try to save Iran. It is understandable we all have our own opionon in politics. But it may be the right time for those who particularly hate islam to be more democratic. You can not agree to DEMOCRACY and going on and on against a religion. It does not work like that. Since I joined this site, nearly two years ago, I have seen it over and over again some trying to distroy religion in the name of democracy. The truth is that god's religion is not at fault, it is the politicians who are at fault. One can not insult and abuse one religion and praise the other one or ones then claim about democracy. News from Iran is not good and it is always the ordinary people who get into trouble all the time. Maybe we should think of something instead of arguing about religion etc etc. Finally being nationalist does not give the person the right to insult others and their religion as it is undemocratic.

Have a happy new year.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

a very happy holiday to you and your wife

marhoum Kharmagas


by marhoum Kharmagas on

Thank you very much FB, although my wife (a christian believer)is convinced that I am the grinch as I don't participate in all Christmas things!

NP, last time I told that story, Jamshid blew a gasket . this time I might end up becoming marhoum marhoum KM, so I can't tell you the story ... 

Happy holidays to both of you