POINT

To:Ari; Jafar Kiani stoned to death few months ago..

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7188121.stm

There are a dozen more on death row by stoning. Jafar was innocent and we keep continuing our silence as if nothing has happened.
The illiterate so- called judge who issued the stoning sentence, did not obey or could not read the stay of execution verdict issued by Shahroudi.
This injustice is one of the saddest event that will stay with me as long as I live. The brutality of the regime continues;
shame on all of us to stay silent and do nothing for him nor for others who are in similar situation.
Shame on SORAYA and similar so-called writers, intellectuals who shamelessly continue to defend the regime.
Shame to Soraya and alike, those who can make a difference but still stay silent and call themselves a HUMAN.

I wish them success (to Jamshid ....)

Jamshid, Alan Greenspan, a conservative U.S Republican does a very good job of discrediting many of your words when he said that :
*************************
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
**************************
Now, like you I disagree with many of internal policies of IRI, but I wish them success in continuing to defend Iran in any way they can.

Re: Mammad

You said you want "suggestions" for change in Iran, quote, "WITHOUT endagering Iran's national security and territorial integrity, starting a bloodshed, and hurting ordinary, everyday people."

You say this while The IRI, more than any of its oppostion, already IS endagering Iran's national security and territorial integrity by means of irresponsible foreign policies, already is committing bloodshed by executing its own citizens including children, and is hurting ordinary, everyday people by means of harrassments, imprisonments and otherwise terrorizing those "ordinary, everyday people."

The IRI is already doing these and more to its people on a daily basis. You don't seem to be much concerned about IRI's crimes, but you call wolf for any possiblity of IRI's overthrow.

Are you so naive to think that a brutal barbaric regime such as the IRI can be overthrown without bloodshed and without anyone being hurt? Or are you suggesting that such bloodshed and hurting is fine, as long as it is being committed by the IRI?

What is YOUR suggestion to stop the bloodshed and the hurting that is already being committed by the IRI? Join the failed reformists? Just wait another 100 years?

Today, more than any foreign country, the main enemy of the Iranian people is the IRI and its band of traitor supporters. There is no foreign country that comes even close to the IRI in oppressing, brutalizing and looting the people of Iran.

Shame and disgrace be upon those who are committing treason against Iran and its people by supporting the illegitimate IRI.

The Iran-Iraq war was the

The Iran-Iraq war was the pretext needed for this purpose. Oman became a base for Western intelligence operations, military maneuvers and logistical preparations for any defense of the oil-producing Persian Gulf."

That's nonsense, the US did not need to create a war to have bases in the gulf states or Saudi Arabia..
//www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/sword-shie...

Apologoists and appeasers of

Apologoists and appeasers of all stripes often cite that Iran has not invaded any country over 200 years; often confounding the Islamic Republic reign of mere 29 years with other Iranian governments. Given Khomeini's expansionist aspirations in the region (Khomeini:"The road to Quads via Karbala") and deliberate extension of the Iraq-Iran war in pursuit of *Regime Change* in Iraq, the Islamic Republic did indeed has had waged war against other countries in the Past 29 years.

In the Islamic Republic, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes it clear that the IR's Republic hegemonic goal has not changed. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West.

Rahmanian and others

There is no contradiction in what I said, which was:

Regardless of what one might think of Iran/Iraq war after liberation of Khorramshahr, most Iranians agree that at least up until then the war was patriotic. Therefore, when in July 1981 Mojahedin started their campaign of assassination, the war was still patriotic. Hence, no contradiction.

Regarding the source for Iran's war losses:

The UN report. In addition, a commander of Sepaah said last year in a speech in Mashhad that Iran lost 260,000 soldiers during the war, completely consistent with the UN report.

The problem here is that some Iranians translate the word casualty as dead. That is incorrect. It only means those who are no longer able to fight - dead and wounded. So, for example, the US says its total casualty in Iraq is about 34000, of which 4000 are dead.

The same thing with Iran. It is often said that Iran's casualty in the war with Iraq was 1,000,000. The number is exaggerated, but even if it is true, it means dead and wounded, not just dead.

So, point out my other "contradictions."

Reply to Rosie

Given that my response to just one of your questions requires a historical visit, although I am aware of your Columbia education as you state, I am afraid that you may have to accept one reply for now and not think me “aloof”. :-)
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Oil diplomacy has always been a major U.S. policy, the other being putting Israel’s interest above its own. According to a study by V. H. Oppenheim, Nixon advocated higher oil prices which would give the US a competitive edge over Europe and Japan knowing it could rely on key allies Saudi Arabia and Iran (Kissinger, “Years of Upheaval” p. 863). In light of this, access to the region was/is vital. After the fall of its ally the Shah, The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with Iran or Iraq, but the war was a blessing in disguise for America. In spite of announcing its neutrality in the war, in 1983 a state department official said: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power." (source: Time, 25 July 1983, p. 28). Contrary to the claim, the U.S. was not indifferent to the conflict; it sought to prolong the war.
The reason is not hard to fathom. The supply of arms and financing of the war would make Iraq dependent on ‘friendly’ Persian Gulf states and other Middle Eastern allies, and repair ties between Egypt, Arab States and Iraq. Equally important, Iran would become dependant on the U.S. Not only would the war create dependency, but it would create the opportunity for the US to carry out covert actions in both countries. The war would also make the Arab countries feel vulnerable and allow more military cooperation with America.
Moscow did in fact stay out of the conflict and even turned back its arms which had already left for Iraq refusing to supply any arms to Iraq (John W. Amos II, "The Iraq-Iran War: Conflict, Linkage, and Spillover in the Middle East," in Gulf Security into the 1980s: Perceptual and Strategic Dimensions, ed. Robert G. Darius, John W. Amos II, Ralph H. Magnus, Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1984, p. 65.)
In January 1980, President Carter proclaimed the "Carter Doctrine," U.S. commitments to "defend" the oil fields. “In 1982 the Pentagon's secret Defense Guidance document stated that the Soviet Union might extend its forces into the Gulf area "by means other than outright invasion." It continued: "Whatever the circumstances, we should be prepared to introduce American forces directly into the region should it appear that the security of access to Persian Gulf oil is threatened...." (New York Times, 25 Sept. 1982) Many in the Senate felt that the bigger threat was "deterring and, if necessary, fighting regional wars or leftist or nationalist insurgencies that threatened U.S. and allied access to the region's oil supplies." (Congressional Quarterly Inc., U.S. Defense Policy, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: 1983, p. 193. The quote is Congressional Quarterly's summary).
On the other hand, in order to support Carter’s newly created RDF (Rapid Deployment Force), the Pentagon needed a network of bases, and not just in the Middle East, but worldwide. It was felt that the Persian Gulf States had a special importance and Pentagon urged "as substantial a land presence in the Middle East as can be managed." (Wenger "Central Command," p. 22, citing Wooten).
The Iran-Iraq war was the pretext needed for this purpose. Oman became a base for Western intelligence operations, military maneuvers and logistical preparations for any defense of the oil-producing Persian Gulf." (Judith Miller and Jeff Gerth, "U.S. Is Said to Develop Oman as Its major Ally in the Gulf," _New York Times, 25 Mar. 1985, pp. A1, A8), Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to use their territory for bases soon thereafter.
One must also be mindful that starting in 1982, in gross violation of the Algiers Treaty signed in January 1981, the CIA provided $100,000/month to the Front for the Liberation of Iran headquartered in Paris. This group, headed by Ali Amini had helped to turn over the oil to foreign control after the 1953 coup against Mossadeq (Bob Woodward, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p. 480.). In addition to this, America also supported 2 paramilitary groups who were based in Turkey at the time – one of them General Aryana and close to Bakhtiar (David Binder, "U.S. Concedes It Is Behind Anti-Khomeini Broadcasts," New York Times, 29 June 1980, p. 3).
At the same time, the US showed an interest in re-establishing ties with the IRI and informed them of the ‘threat’ posed by ‘communist Tudeh’. This led to the mass executions. (Tower Commission, pp. 103-04). Israel supplied Iran with weapons in 1984 to deplete Iran’s supply of weaponry knowing that none would replace it.

In spite of the war, the price of oil fell 50%. , yet the U.S. voiced concern over free navigation from the Strait of Hormuz – without giving consideration that U.S. navy and all national navies withdraw from the Persian Gulf and replaced by the U.N. The New York Times wrote that it was in fact the United States, and not Iran, that could have closed the Gulf to Persian exports (sound familiar?). Furthermore, it was Iraq that started the tanker wars in 1981 and continued the attacks until 1984 without a parallel Iranian response at sea. This served to intimidate the Arab states and prompt them to cooperate militarily with the U.S. The Associated Press reported cited a U.S. general in charge of the RDF "United States gained unprecedented credibility with Arab leaders as a result of its large-scale naval commitment in the Persian Gulf." “This commitment, he said, enabled the U.S. to establish better diplomatic and military ties with Gulf States.” ("U.S. Wins Arab Respect with Gulf Ship Escorts," Newark Star Ledger_, 19 Oct. 1988, p. 4; see also Richard Halloran, _New York Times, 4 Dec. 1988, p. 32).
The U.S. actions gave it a carte blanche to operate under the guise of mistakes. This included the taking down of a passenger airliner. The blame of this tragedy was put on the pilot, if not’ then it was Tehran’s fault for not ending the war. This common view of the war is promoted by Washington – that Iran was the sole obstacle to peace. is the common view of the war, widely promoted by Washington -- that Iran was the sole obstacle to peace. A review of the diplomacy of the war shows otherwise. Most certainly, Khomeini bears tremendous blame, but one must not overlook all the evidence of the war and not put the blame entirely on his shoulders for prolonging the war.
Also recall that when Iraq attacked Iran on September 22, 1980, the United Nations Security Council waited four days before even holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479 calling for an end to the fighting. More importantly, the resolution did not condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not call for a return to internationally recognized boundaries. Does this remind you of a more recent war perhaps?

Notes: Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, Professor of political science at William Paterson University, New Jersey

Ari

Let's look at the issues you have raised from a different perspective and examine the facts before leaping to conclusions about whether showing a "fake" photo amounts to lying or not.

I don't know the ladies you have mentioned and I haven't seen the photo in question and would avoid viewing it even if I had a chance to do so.

However, to respond to your question I would like to say the following:

Brutalities perpetrated by the regime against Iranians are well documented and cannot be denied. Whether you perceive these brutalities as legitimate or not is another issue, but the fact remains that thousands of Iranians have been murdered in the hands of the Ayatolahs and the militarists ruling Iran.

Now, the depiction of these brutalities may take different forms or methods. Recently there was a video clip of the executions of Iranians in cold blood ordered by Khalkhali on this site. There are photos, stories, books and paintings of such brutalities.

Speaking of paintings, I could not help remembering Pablo Picasso's renowned artistic rendition of the brutal devastation of the city of Guernica by the German fascists which killed as many as sixteen hundred people.

The bombing of Guernica was perhaps a dress rehearsal for tens of thousands of more bombings during the Second World War which claimed, according to some sources, about seventy million lives.

Artistically, Guernica is considered one of the greatest pieces of art. If I'm not mistaken, commercially, it is priced at fifty million U.S. dollars. But what is most important here for my argument is the symbolic aspect of this powerful painting.

Can we look at Guernica, the painting and call it a fake or an untrue depiction of the destruction of a beautiful city simply because of its artistic genre, Cubism, or because it is not a photograph taken on the spot of a real scene of the war?

Now let's go back the photograph in question. You may be right and the photo may not have been taken directly from a "real" scene of an execution, but you certainly cannot call it a lie because it does not match your criteria of what is true or untrue.

The photo may not be exactly what you consider appropriate, but it certainly is a symbolic representation of the brutalities of the Iranian regime.

Just look at it as an artistic rendition of the realities of Iran under the despotic rule of the Ayatolahs.

OKAY, it's already started so i WON'T move the I-I War topic

to another blog as I suggested below.  All's fair in love and war.

Let the games begin.  Sorry, Soraya... People, PLEASE don't kill each other over this.  Quarter million, half million, what's the diff?  Enough people died in that war already.

Rahmanian: "most Iranians

Rahmanian:
"most Iranians agree that at least the first two years of the war was a patriotic war"

Mammad qualified his statement by saying "at least" the first two years...

Also, great observation on the hypocrisy of those who criticize the US for overthrowing Sadam.

Mammad,

Please read your own comment on Rosie's questions several times and try to find the contradictions you have made in a matter of a few paragraphs.

I will be glad to point them out to you, if you can't find them on your own.

For starters: How can you call the second phase of the Iran-Iraq war which lasted six years and claimed, according to the figures you have provided, approximately 240,000 innocent Iranian lives, a patriotic war when you say earlier that you believe the war should have ended and was not due to recommendations of some military commanders?

By definition, a war is patriotic when the citizens of a country defend their country against an enemy and not when they plan to overthrow another government and instal a friendly regime there .

With such logic, you cannot argue against the invasion of Iraq and what's in the plans for Iran.

I will get back to you in several hours. In the meantime, good luck with your search.

Mammad, Iran-Iraq War-Thanks!!

I'm thinking we should move this discussion to its own blog./.  I'm SO grateful for your reply.  But it's all so complex and the discussion around it will be so POLARIZED that it really deserves its own blog. Also, in faiirness to Soraya, it's really only ONE small point (with HUG ramications) and her article as a whole  should be being addressed here.

So I will do that LATER (IF I can copy and paste from our two posts).  You really can't imagine how grateful I am for the time and effort you put.  Just hope it aasn't SO much time that you'll be too tired to jump in again--considering blogs usually last ONE day on the homepage.

I wonder if this would qualify as an article?  I don't see why NOT?  Your post ALONE would make a far better article that MANY on this website. Hmmm...?

Rosie: You might be

Rosie: You might be interested to read this article:

Iran: Khomeini's 'killer poison' returns

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Former Iranian president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has published a confidential letter by the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which has stirred a great deal of controversy in Iran, in part because the letter refers to a military commander's call to pursue nuclear weapons to be deployed against Iran's hostile neighbor, Iraq>>>

Mr. Mammad: Where are your

Mr. Mammad: Where are your citations in regards to the number of casualties??

Rosie T.: About Iran/Iraq war

Regarding Iran/Iraq war:

All the statistics claiming that 1 million or half a million Iranians were killed during the war are false.

According to the UN, the total number of Iranian soldiers killed during the war was 273000. About 35000 were killed during the first two years, and the rest over the next 6 years. The 1 million, which is exaggerated, include injured soldiers, many of whom severely.

Iran was certainly in a strong position in 1982 to have a ceasefire with Iraq, after Iranian forces liberated most of Iran's province of Khuzestan. It is said, but never confirmed, that Saudi Arabia had proposed mediation and payment to Iran of tens of billions of $$, but Iran did not accept it. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was commander-in-chief of Iranian forces during most of the fighting said two years ago that Iran never received such a proposal. There is also no mention of this anywhere in the UN report. At the same time, while Iraq did want a ceasefire in 1982, it was still making the same claims about its territorial ambitions toward Iran, and was still occupying parts of Iranian territory to the north, so many interpreted the ceasefire as a tactic by Saddam Hussein to regroup his troops. Iraq had also started using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

It is also true that,

(1) Saddam Hussein hated Iranians. If he could, he would have attacked Iran even before the Iranian revolution. But, because at that time Iraq was supported by the Soviet Union while the Shah's regime was supported by the US, Saddam did not dare to do it. So, all the talk about Iran provoking the war was nonsense.  Yes, there was hot rhetoric by Iran, but so also was by the US against the Soviet Union which never led to any war.

(2) Some ideologue on Iranian side wanted to pursue the war until they overrun Iraq. But they were in minority.  Most Iranian commanders wanted to defend Iran and Iran only.

I have a friend living in Iran who was very close to top Iranian leadership at that time, including Ayatollah Khomeini (who presided over my friend's wedding) at that time. He was a French translator for the Ayatollah when he was in France, and flew back to Iran with him, but he quit his pro-government activities in the mid 1980s after execution of political prisoners, including his own brother, whom I also knew very well and who was a Shah's foe and jailed by him (he is now a professor in Iran). He told me that Ayatollah Khomeini had told Iranian commanders that once Khuzestan was liberated, Iran would end the war.

But, he also told me that, after Khorramshahr, Iran's most important port on the Persian Gulf, was liberated,  the Iranian commanders told the Ayatollah that if they occupy Basra in Southern Iraq, Saddam will be overthrown and a government friendly to Iran will emerge (which we now see in Iraq).

This was, of course, completely similar to Saddam's thinking about Iran when his forces attacked Iran. Saddam had thought that if Iraq can occupy a portion of Iran, the government in Tehran will be overthrown and  one friendly, or at least less hostile, to Iraq would emerge. So, the exiled Iranian opposition fails to mention this, and just claims that, yes, it was the Ayatollah who continued the war. 

Iranian forces could not take Basra in 1982 and were badly defeated, so the war turned into one of attrition on both sides. Personally, I believe that Iran should have ended the war in 1982, as it was in a very strong position.

(3) The war with Iraq was used to suppress the political opposition in Iran. However, in fairness, it must also be said that, in 1981, while  large parts of Iran's territory were still occupied by Iraq and Iran was in completely defensive positions, the Iranian  opposition group Mojahedin Khalgh started armed struggle against the government in July 1981, and assassinated hundreds of government officials and others. That was a prime factor in the bloodbath that was developed. Note that up until two weeks before the start of their assassination campaign, Mojahedin were still supposedly defending and supporting Iran's war efforts. Personally, I consider it a treason to start such a campaign of assassination in the midst of a patriotic war; most Iranians agree that at least the first two years of the war was a patriotic war.

Mrs. Ulrich's original essay

Mrs. Ulrich's original essay was printed here:

//www.countercurrents.org/ulrich030608.htm

Mrs. Ulrich is wrong on so many accounts; however, it's useless to engage in refuting her half-truths since she usually opts for monolgue not dialogue.

We have an obligation to tell the truth and expose the lies!

I hope everyone agrees with this.

Now I don't give a hoot about Banafsheh Zand-Bonnazi, or Mandana Karimi-Zand-Ervin. Individuals like these two women are many.

However, what must be disclosed is the fabricated information and lies which some of these people use to brain wash the American public as well as Iranian dissidents.

I posted a comment yesterday exposing one of these lies; a photograph which has become the symbol of IRI brutality of stonning women. The photograph was used by David Horowitz during the Islamo-Fascist week as well as by Iranian dissidents (Ms. Banafsheh Zand-Bonnazi).
In fact it was Ms. Banafsheh Zand-Bonnazi who told David Horowitz that the picture is real, the stonning of the women took place in 1992 and was smuggled by the photographer out of Iran in 2002 and gave it to her partner at Iranian News Press (which is a propaganda web-site for Ms. Zand).

THIS WAS ALL A LIE - THE PICTURE WAS FALSE; HER ENTIRE STORY WAS FALSE.

HOWEVER, THESE PHOTOS AND SIMILAR ONES WHICH WERE FALSE WERE HELD AROUND THE CAMPUS AT COLUMBIA U. WHEN AHMADINEJAD WAS GOING TO SPEAK AS WELL AS AROUND OTHER CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.

Does freedom of speech and expression mean one does not have a responsibility to the public? Freedom of speech and expression have their limits when one distorts the truth to serve their own agenda and no one elses.

I ask JJ why this comment was not posted?

I want the truth and nothing but the truth, but I will never accept that we should lie, cheat, distort, and use false imagery to serve our own opportunist agenda.

When people lie, it destroys other peoples credibility when they post something which is the truth.

Not exposing lies and falsehoods is a disservice to all of us.

I would appreciate a response.

Soraya, a few points/questions

I.  (and most importantly) Iran-Iraq War 

Soraya, you say Iran was the victim.  It is my understanding that after the hell was over, the UN determined that while Iraq had indeed instigated the Iran-Iraq War, that Saddam Hussein was willing early on for the UN to broker a peace, but that Khomeini refused, and the UN determined that from then on the responsiblity was Iran's. 

I also understand that this refusal led to the death of a half a million to a million Iranians, including all those child "martyrs" we've heard so much about. From that point on, the UN determined that Iran was indeed the victim, as you say, but the victim of Khomeini, not Iraq.

And I have read several analyses that Khomeini did so to consolidate his power base by keeping an enemy from without to rally around at a time when this power base was quite fragile.  I think it was because he'd already begun his persecutions not only of the Monarchists, but also of those diverse factions who'd supported him during the Revolution, and Iran was on the brink of Civil War..  But I'm not sure my chronology is right on this.Soraya, or someone, could you please help  clarify?

II.  Hyphenated American in Name or Allegiance?

Soraya I understand your point about these women being hyphenated Americans in terms of their allegances, not only their names, but it's confusing because you don't seem to mention that you're hyphenated in name too.  It was also confusing because as far as I know the usage "hyphenated American" refers to terms like Iranian-American, Mexican-American, etc., not to women (and men) who've adopted the recent  practice of taking on their spouse's last name while keeping their own. If that were the usage, married people named Jones-Smith or Washington-Jefferson would be conidered hyphenated Americans too. And also, then Woodrow Wilson would never have spoken about hyphenated Americans, because that practice with last names is only about two decades old..

Is there something I'm MISSING here?  I mean no offense, really, I'm seriously ASKING.

III.  Iranican Political Allegience 

Finally, you seem to be supporting  Wilson's belief that hyphenated Americans should have political allegiencel to the U.S. rather than to the old country, and you also say repeatedly--and no doubt justly--that these two women  are betraying Iran (as well as the U.S.  and Obama).  And you point out paradoxes and contradictions in these women which are perhaps accurate but still, what if we just said, for argument's sake, that Iranian-Americans should have EQUAL political allegiance to both the U.S. and Iran?  At least those who left Iran involuntarily in 1979 and kept thinking they'd be able to go back soon and eventually realized they'd have to give up that hope for quite some time.

Isn't that how YOU feel?  Don't you feel you have equal political allegiance to both countries?  Isn't that why you write BOTH to Obama and to this website?  Is it conceivable that these two women, though they may have a reprehsible political ideology, diametrically opposed to yours (and mine) feel the same way?

Soraya could you PLEASE respond to me on at least ONE of these points? You know, Oscar Wilde once said that women are sphinxes with no secrets.  I believe you have MANY secrets, that is to say much knowledge and some wisdom.  So then why be a sphinx? :o)

Thanks,
Robin Jayne Goldsmith 

"Special people"

I highly doubt Obama or his Secretary of Defense will be receiving any war advice from mentally challenged likes of Manda Zand or Banafsheh. It takes a quick discussion under 60 seconds to realize how preemptive and moronic their lobbying case is for war with Iran. I personally saw/heard Zand-Ervin in front of congressional hearing (talking to Sen. Brownback in summer of 2005) makeing her case by saying … “a war with Iran will be justified because millions of young Iranians will welcome the American troops in streets of Tehran by kissing their boots”. These outdated psychos and their retarded partner Amir-Abass Fakhravar are sore losers and no one will ever take them serious. These people wish to be like Ahmed Chalabi but they’re 8 years too late. Chalabi was at least a successful banker! The Zand mother and doughter + Fakhravar have an IQ of a single peanut butter and jelly sandwich put together.

Parthian

We are all still waiting to be enlightened by your response to the question that you yourself posed, and your thoughts for how to make deep changes in Iran, WITHOUT endagering Iran's national security and territorial integrity, starting a bloodshed, and hurting ordinary, everyday people.

Dr. Pouran

"Rest assured?" Why does this give you peace of mind? What do you think should be done, if not negotiate?

Enlighten us with your thoughts, doc.

Great article Soraya, like always

The IRI is an Iranian problem, not an American, if all the wannabe Iranians in Los Angeles would spend more time going back, demonstrating, investing and working for their people instead of sitting on their fat kabob eating asses begging the neo-fascist.. cons to do their job, the IRI would have been a closed chapter a long time ago.

Any Iranian wanting war against Iran, or sanctions against Iran, is a traitor, nothing more, nothing less, because these to actions harm the people, not the IRI.

It saddens me that when the intelligent young people in Iran gradually reform this government, the same sick, twisted traitors abroad will return and rest their fat kabob eating asses in Kish instead of Los Angeles.

Obama is still just a pretty face, and Im willing to bet he will have no dialogue with Iran what so ever.

Yes, kaveh, some people are probably afraid of you...

because you write so well and express yourself withs such biting trenchancy that when you are angry you're a bit frightening..  But that's OKAY.  As long as you frame your discourse WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT IS LETIMATE DISCOURSE WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT OF free speech WAS. within those parameter.

To other readers, I apologize for continuing a discussion here which I TOLD Kaveh in our now deleted posts should be moved to the moderation blog on the homepage).  But those two posts having been deleted HERE, this discussion becomes on-topic. and I needed to reply HERE.

Nevertheless, I still think it is better to have it THERE, not here.  As Kaveh is already doing by also posting about this THERE.

Settle Down Everyone

You people are screaming your heads off for no reason. Barack Obama will NOT be elected President of the United States. He will just not have the electoral points needed. Unfortunately, a good chunk of this country is still not ready to vote an African American with a Muslim middle name into the White House....and I say this as a lifelong Democrat. So, stop wasting your time and concentrate on something else that may help your country.

The Mayor of Rome Gianni

The Mayor of Rome Gianni Alemanno dimmed the lights on the City Hall Plaza in protest of Ahmadinejad's visit to the city.

//www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/c-9295/pro...

New York Sen. Hillary

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton also spoke at AIPAC this morning, following Obama by just a few minutes. Clinton did not directly acknowledge Obama as the presumptive nominee.

The closest she came was to say, "I know Sen. Obama will be a good friend to Israel."

//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

to engage in negotiations with Iran (to Dr. Pouran)

DPR says: "Hearing Mr Obama's speech yesterday at the AIPAC one can rest assured that he will stand firm on Iran. Long live Isreal and all those who are against anti semitisicm and Islamic apartheid."

Yes for the past several years AIPAC warmongering tendencies has played a good part in creating disasters in the Middle East, mainly in Iraq and Lebanon. But those tendencies are starting to make many, including Jewish liberals unhappy. Here is what George Soros says:
"I am not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC; but I must speak out in favor of the critical process that is at the heart of our open society. I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq."

Iranian neocons go after Obama

Hearing Mr Obama's speech yesterday at the AIPAC one can rest assured that he will stand firm on Iran. Long live Isreal and all those who are against anti semitisicm and Islamic apartheid.
Furtheremore watching the demonstrations in Rome against the regimes puppet Mahmoud Jan Ahmadinejad it seems the Europeans are also getting their act toghether to stand firm against this despotic aparthied regime run by the most hedious of all men.
Two fellows were not inivited to the dinner hosted by the Italian president amongst the dignitaries attending the FAO conference in Rome. One was Mr Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the other was our very own Irooni Mahmoud Jan Ahmadinejad. An insult to 70 million Iranians.
And the author talks about women's rights in Iran. Sure is an absolute joke.
Dr Pouran Rostamian of Sharifabad, Yazd
N Van,BC, Canada

I can tell you why, Rosie.

Because it was HONEST.

Some people must be afraid of me. Sad, really. I don't represent a threat to anyone, nor do I have any geo-political connections of any sort. I'm simply someone who expresses my opinion on various issues here, as do so many others. 

But as I've stated before, I don't care whether people here like me or opinions or if they don't. But if someone has an issue with me or my opinion, be a grown adult and bring it out in the open instead of slapping the top of your head screaming, "khoda marg am bedeh" and deleting everything.

Ari said it best....

Parthian, you've accompolished a lot, but you are letting your hatred of the IRI cloud your better judgement.

You see, I still don't have a good pulse on this portal as I'm an occassional visiter, but I have seen enough and I'm experienced enough to know when 2 and 2 doesn't add up. Including the obama picture, which I should add I considered a clever choice by Soraya.

I"m convinced a few of you boys have fallen madly in love with her and all this IRI agent BS is simply your desperate attempt for her attention. Yes Kaveh, you are on the list as well. You are a very articulate man, yet all you could come up with was an argument on grammer. Get real!!