WAR

Dear Mammad: Are you

Dear Mammad: Are you suggesting that we leave the economic power of the country to the corrupt, incompetent and embezzling mullahs?? I hope I'm wrong.

There is another alternative way wherein, the Islamic leadership decides that in order to stay in power, they need to serve the interests of Iran and its people not the interest of Islam or the arabs.

They can stop lining their pockets and start to become accountable for their mismangment of the economy, politics, and the oil revenues. In this way, they can have the support of the whole nation and don't ever have to be paranoid of being overthrown. Bloodshed will be avoided and who knows they might even save their Islam in the long run.

Anonymous4now

I did not change my mind. Perhaps I was not clear. What I said was the following:

Blind, unorganized riots or even strikes will lead to bloodshed. For example, a sustained and comprehensive strike in the oil industry can break the back of the radicals in Iran. But, that needs organization and leadership that does not exist yet. That is why much work remains to be done.

 I said that the 15% of the population that supports the right-wing is armed to the teeth, will fight to death, as it has no place to go. Therefore, one important aspect of avoiding bloodshed and to make progress towards democratization would be creation of conditions in which even the 15% of the population would feel that it can no longer continue the way they are going.

To see this better, consider the apartheid regime in South Africa. The regime was not overthrown because of sanctions. The sanctions were hurting only the blacks. The regime disappeared because the white minority recognized correctly that it cannot continue. To the contrary, it correctly recognized that, by giving up political power it could still have huge influence in the country through its economic power. And we now know that this is true today.

So, to convince the minority in Iran also needs a lot of work. Of course, idiots like Ahmadinejad also help.

I agree  that the threat may be brought onto Iran by what the hardliners do. But, if the US is smart, it can take away the excuse.

Take the nuclear program, for example. Iran is past the stage that it can be deterred from having the enrichment program. It has mastered, more or less, the technology. So, if not in the full view of the world through the IAEA, it will be underground. So, by putting Iran under tight control of the IAEA and the Additional Protocol, it can control the program. So long as Iran's program is under the IAEA control, there is no way that it can use it to make the bomb. By reaching on agreement regarding this, the external threats will be eliminated. That would open up all sorts of possibilities for democratization.

Hope that this is clearer.

Mammad

To Mamad Agaha

Mamad Agah, I accept your sincere aplogy and I, in turn, apologize to you for some name calling that was due to my disgust with the notion that any perosn of good judgment will reach this conclusion that I am advocating attack on our beloved country, Iran, explicitly and/or implicitly.

In fact, the PMOI is on record: no war, no appeasment, third alternative: Democratic change from within. I support that solution. If US, EU, Japan, China, Russia etc., can help us achieve that goal, why not? War? I have no desire for that and I have said it time and again.

Mammad jaan

As abc and Anonymous500 have already said, the regime has used the external threat excuse to rally people around it, when necessary, and to brutally suppress and liquidate opposition at other times.  They will use that excuse in the future as they are doing it now so convincingly that people like you have taken an unshakable stance on it.  This “external threat” will remain for as long as the IRI wants it to remain so it can milk that cow again.  As programmer Craig said, the threat was brought onto Iran by the IRI and they have done an excellent job of maintaining it. 

It is one thing to be concerned about the “external threat” and another to embrace the tormentor and be the protector of the instrument of tyranny of some 60 Million people (I am giving you credit for your ~15% khodies).  Surely you can keep the two concepts exclusive of each other.  That is you can be against a war on Iran but not embrace the IRI unconditionally. 

Which brings me back to the impending question; How can we get rid of this regime.  You said that the regime was armed to the teeth and an uprising would lead to a lot of bloodshed, and I agreed.  This regime will kill the numbers of people they claimed the Shah did (i.e. 600,000).  You then changed your mind and said that the regime can be overthrown just as the Shah’s was.  The Shah was the antithesis of Khomeini, a weak and vacillating man, and not at all the “blood sucker of the century”.  He ordered his army not to shoot on people.  Khomeini and his successors have left a legacy behind that make Genghis and his successors seem self restrained, considering they were a foreign invading force.  DO you believe for a minute that they will not crush and uprising, the way they have crushed all opposition and dissent?  What or who will stop them from doing so in the future?  And what hope is there that the reform you speak of will come to fruition?

 How can anyone, with the remotest sense of sympathy for humanity, sympathize with this regime, which tortures its victims by  pouring acid over their skin, or gauging their eyes out, or chopping off their limbs, or kill there victims by stoning or public hanging or throwing them off of buildings?  The only conclusion I can come up with is that have convinced yourself these allegations are lies and not the truth, about the IRI that you know and embrace so willingly.

Re: Mammad

I re-read Anonymous500 comment and he explicitly said that he does not want war. He wrote:

"the choice is not between War, or support for the IRI; there are many other alternatives..."

His anti-terrorism stance was too strong, but still, he did not advocate war. You misinterpreted his strong standing against the IRI as being pro-war.

Just as others misinterpret your strong anti-war stance as being pro-IRI. In my opinion, both groups are inbalanced and do not represent the voice of the majoirty of Iranians, as they are strongly against both war and the IRI as well.

The tendency to respond to your posts is not towards you, i.e., the person that you are. It is towards your views. And this in turn has a reason.

There were days some 30 years ago, that my views were very similar to yours. I was influenced by people like yourself who shared your views. That in turn made me act on those views by heavily participating in the revolution and therefore contributing to the destruction of my country.

I repented after the war with Iraq began and realized that I was misled and decieved. It does not matter whether those who misled me did so intentionally or they themselves were misled too.

There were those who did not repent. They did not have the courage to admit to their mistakes. Or perhaps their attachment to their ideology or fantasy of a "revolution" was stronger than to their own countrymen's well being and quality of life.

Naturally, I (and so many others who participated in the revolution) have rightfully developed a deep resentment towards those views that once misled us, and that are being repeated today eventhough they cost us our country, and eventhough they forced the gift of misery upon several generations of Iranians.

I hope this explains my "tendency" to respond to not only you but to all those who share your views. As you can see it is nothing personal toward you, but rather toward your views.

On the topic of change in Iran, I disagree with you because I believe incremental change is not possible with the IRI unless we are willing to wait several generations, perhaps 100-150 years before true democracy take hold.

Even Nazi Germany would have reformed after the passage of a century. The Mongols reformed too after 100 years. But what about all those generations that were massacred and whose lives were forever destroyed?

The same principle applies to to the IRI today. Do you have any plan as how to reform the IRI, say only by 50%, in 30 more years? Did the IRI reformed in any ways after its first 30 years? Or did it just backpedalled and even intensified its oppression?

Are you religious? I think you once said you are. Religious people believe in an after life. So, it is much easier for them to dismiss the importance of happiness and quality of life in this world. That in turn paves the way for them to believe that there is nothing wrong with entire generations sacrificing their whole lives by suffering and living in abject misery, since they would be rewarded in the after life anyway.

The IRI must be overthrown because it is illegitimate, unpopular, unreformable and because it is wasting away the lives of tens of millions of Iranians who deserve and could have better and happier lives in this world, and not just in the world of after-life.

Anonymous4now

I have always said that, so long as there is an external threat to Iran's national security which, under the present conditions, is also a threat to Iran's territorial integrity, then the radicals in Iran use it as an excuse to suppress the democratic movement. Now, the radicals may create such a threat by their actions, but if the West is smart enough, it can take this excuse away from them.

Therefore, that is why I am anti-war, because war will not overthrow the radicals, but only strengthen them.

Once this threat is removed, then I believe change within Iran through peaceful means is completely possible. Contrary to the radicals, the Shah was even supported by the West, and an army loyal to him. But, he was overthrown. I do not see why the same thing cannot happen again, with a population that is much better informed, educated and aware. They all have the same position as mine.

I may have my priorities wrong, but, unless I am convinced, I do not see any other way out of this situation. My position is identical with those of every human rights advocate, reformist, and democrat who lives and works in Iran, not those living in the West, and not knowing what is happening in Iran.

Mammad

Anonymous500

If I misunderstood you, and I sincerely hope that I did because I hate to see an Iranian wishing attacks on his/her native land, then I profusely, honestly, and deeply apologize to you.

You are completely right to demand an apology, if you think that I misrepresented your opinion. At the same time, if I were you, I would first demand the apology and then, if I did not get it, I would resort to name calling (I would not, but I am saying you could have done the name calling afterwards).

Whether you respond to my comments in the future is your right. But, tell me, why do you c riticize my anti-war stance, when you yourself are anti-war also, as you say? Is it because I say such things, and you view me in a certain way, like someone else does in this column?

I also suggest that you read your own writing to see whether your style of writing can, even with an infinitesimal probability, give the impression that you are not anti-war.

Mammad

Imposing such a blockade

Imposing such a blockade without United Nations authority (which the
resolution does not call for) would be considered an act of war.

Yes, blockade's are an act of war. But many acts of war have been committed between Iran and the US over the last 3 decades, beginning with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. So, what's new?

The act of war only becomes REAL war if the IRI chooses to respond to the blockade with force. Which is, in my opinion, unlikely.

By the way, do you consider the israelis the aggressors in the 1967 war? Why do I never see anyone pointing out that when Nasser blockadedisraeli ports on May 22, 1967 that was an act of war that the Israelis had every right to respond to? Double standards. Gotta love em, right?

Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure supplying Iraqi insurgents with advanced IEDs is an act of war against the US... Yep...I'm absolutely positive that it is. So, lets just put this "act of war" talk behind us, shall we?

Dear Mammad: External

Dear Mammad: External threats on Iran will never end because the regime will not let it. External threats and creating crisis after crisis are how the regime has been able to survive all these years. Why would the regime end this efficient/systematic practice ??? It would be suicidal for the regime to stop; how else is the IRI going to justify its incompetence in running the country?

Jihadists frear of war

Why is that you guys are all afraid of war? Your great imam khominei used to say “ WAR is a grace fallen from God”, jang yek mohebat ellahist, “everything we have is from WAR“. You should welcome and pounce on this opportunity to show your jihad capability and embrace martyrdom and give a lesson to great satan. Your brave basij and sepah can take a break from torturing and killing unarmed Iranians and demonstrate their greatness once again and conquer Washington thru Jerusalem like before when they conquered Qods thru Karbala. Uhh but you guys are concerned about those poor, innocent Iranians who might get hurt, you are to serve and protect the people, yeah riiiiiiight, I forgot!!!!! if you people are devoted muslims and love IRI, why are you not part of the jihad already? Sitting here in the west spending all those petro dollars, advising our people to wait and appease with this barbaric regime. Boozak namir bahar miyad, kombozeh ba khiyar miyad.

As Anonymous500 said, you people are all afraid of the threat from outside and more importantly from Iranian people to your beloved regime and your interests. Your fear is the day the threat from outside to coincide with the threat from inside. You know well the day the first bomb hits, your regime and source of illegitimate wealth will not only be gone but you traitors specially the mullah class imported from Lebanon and Iraq will be purged from Iran forever. No more akhoond o moft khori o harf moft zani for mullah mafia and their supporters.

Syyaid you are right, Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan which did not exist as countries even 100 years ago. Also again you are right, aerials will not remove IRI, people of iran will and they won‘t certainly rally behind a regime they want so badly gone. Once the regime is toppled and democracy has come, it will be spread and sustained in Iran by its people and mullah o mullah zadeh will be deported back to where they come from to south Lebanon’s jebel amel and Iraq. Not only your mulla’s are gone but their Islamic-fascism will be gone from iran forever too. That is what you are all afraid of. I suggest you pro-IRI in the west to start looking for another source of income, looks like this oil well from iran is drying up soon for you. I am sorry, if these words hit a cord in somebody’s brain and feels like it should not be here then I guess you are in the same category. Get out of the way and let people decide.

Mammad Agha

You are full of paradoxical paradigms, as usual.  You are for regime change but, not now, under the guise of “external threat”.  30 years of killing and suffering are not enough and Iranians should take your advice and live with it, until reform finds its way through the hearts and minds of the mullahs.  You say, you want a step wise moderate coarse of change, for the nature of this regime, but you admit that it is brutal and enjoys the support of 15% of the population who are armed to the teeth.  You would have to believe that a regime “armed to the teeth”, would allow a constitutional change that would undermine its own survival, and accept a reformed judiciary that could potentially prosecute the regime crimes.  

Your point of view, with regards to the IRI’s behavior and reputation, borders on narcissism.  You believe that because you are a patriot and you love Iran, any criticism of this regime is equivalent to criticism of Iran, its people and its place in history and hence must be directed by either the traditional Western enemies of Iran or vatanforoosh warmongers, like those who have the opposing point of view.  What is more comical than anything else, is that you consider yourself democratic, but have no tolerance for the opposing point of view and try to package and box in, the opposing view, as the proponent of the destruction of Iran.  

If you assign a value to the suffering of an individuals, to the lack of opportunities to live a normal life, to the missed opportunities in this short life, to the killing, torturing, and humiliation that the Iranian population has gone through for the past 30 years, what would that value be?

If you further allowed the present situation to linger on in the hopes that someday the regime may go through the reforms that you advocate, what would be the value of that suffering in that time, and how would it compare to the value for the past 30 years?

I think you have your priorities all wrong.  You are worried about the physical destruction that Iran may suffer, if there is an attack on Iran, but completely oblivious to the suffering of Iranians, without whom Iran as an entity, is meaningless.  

 So we have a dilemma.  You believe that an uprising will cause a lot of deaths at the hands of this brutal regime, and I agree with you fully.  But what options are left?  We all agree this regime is unacceptable for the good people of Iran, but what is the solution?  Can we all come to a logical conclusion that will minimize the suffering of all Iranians and end the tyranny, or are Iranians doomed to suffer, for at least, the foreseeable future?

To Mamad

Mamad, only a charlatan would come to this conclusion that I have implicitly or explicitly endorsed attacking Iran. In my humble opinion, you are one proven charlatan and a chronic liar.

The reason I did not respond to you, and, very likely, wont in the future, has a lot to do with the fact taht: Discussing issues with Hezbollahi parasites on this BB is futile. Period.

If you have an ounce of honesty, integrity, honor and sense of justice you would come back and apologize to me and all honorable Iranians on this BB for spreading this criminal and pernicious lie about me that I have explicitly or implicitly endorsed attacking Iran.

Now let us see, if you measure up to any minimums of standards of decency.

Jamshid

Anonymous500 has explicitly amd implicitly endorsed the idea of attacking Iran. In his comments on what I had written he also said that it is legitimate for Iranians to use violence against the IRI. He also listed many things that the next US president do against Iran, many of which imply only war. If something acts like a rabbit, walks like a rabbit, and looks like a rabbit, it must be a rabbit, even if it  itself denies that it is a rabbit.

You seem to have a tendency to respond to whatever I write, regardless of what I write. You had said in the past that you think Iranians should unite and attack (not physically, I understood) first those organs of the IRI that seem to be the weakest. At least that is what I understood.

Now, how is this different from what I had written about how to make changes in Iran? I did not say that those changes should be pushed for AFTER Velaayat-e Faghih has changed or eliminated, rather this should be towards the last stages when other important changes have been pushed for and, therefore, weakened the position of VF.

In other words, what I said was not recursive, but sequential. But, even recursive, as I understand it as someone who has good background in mathematics, means what I said, because recursive means anything at the present depends on things in the past. Therefore, progress in step B depends on progress in step A: You achieve A and, therefore, you pave the way for B.

In my view, it is idealistic and impractical to say that we Iranians should set aside this or that, things that have deep roots in our culture and changing them, even if necessary and feasible, would take generations, not a simple proclamation of change. 

Have a good day. Let's move on.

Mammad

Anonymous7

The man you commented on has a sense of grandiosity about himself. That is why he pats people on their back, "good job," "good responses," "great comeback," "we will do this," etc. He always sides with people whose only job is attacking other people, Zion, Fred, abc, and that racist Amil Imani who refers to muslims as subhuman.

He acts as the God Father of extreme right winger on this site who has never seen anything that the US and Israel do that he has not liked. He always talks with 100% certainty: "The vast majority of Iranians," "the whole world knows," ...

He is chagrined that there are people who oppose him and his like-minded "friends" on this site. I guess his type of "democracy" is one in which everybody agrees with everybody else and, of course, he congratulates and pats them on the back, in his role as the God Father, for being in agreement. And, what does he do when he reads an opposing view? Immediately labels them as leftist, Marxist, (the non-existent) Islamic Marxist, etc. This indicates another aspect of his sense of grandiosity: He sees himself as the symbol of the "right" way of thinking and, therefore, anybody who opposes him must be a leftist, Marxist, ....

The amazing thing about this man is that he writes an "article" in which he rebukes Iranians for having one or more of ten "characteristics" or "tendencies" that he lists, implying once again that, he an Iranian, is above such "pittyful" tendencies. That is another manifestation of his sense of grandiosity.

Finally, despite all of this, he considers himself a "progressive." Yes, he makes constant progress in his march toward extreme right-wing, anti-people positions!

Mammad

you are not confused (to Zion)

Zion says: "You are not an Islamist? Oh dear, but then, why this passion for your camel? How come? I'm confused."

My friend Zion, your calling him an Islamist based on his passion for camels comes from your deeply racist ideology, not your confusion.

Mola

You are not an Islamist? Oh dear, but then, why this passion for your camel? How come? I'm confused.

Re: Mammad

Mammad, you asked me to show you when or where did you say that if one is against IRI, one is pro-war? 

In your response to Anonymous500 who repetitively said he/she is against any military intervention, you responded by saying things such as "Attack, invade, kill, destroy, occupy" and son on. Doesn't it sound like you are saying he is pro-war?

There are other examples. You should be more careful with your choice of words if that is not your intention.

I did read your response as how the regime should be changed. Unfortunately, that thread was closed. I responded to you in another thread that was opened by a contributor in response to the first thread being closed. You probably didn't get the chance to read it.

In short, you said that the regime should change in an incremental fashion. You brought up many points that sounds logical but not feasible. The reason for it is that the changes you want to take place will happen only if the IRI is ALREADY changed. Your logic was recursive: "A" (the abolishment of velayate faghih, guardian concil, etc) needs to be done in order to achieve "B" (change). However, "A" should not be such that it depends on "B" having already be done.

The IRI will never allow its arms and legs to be cut off. This is not the Shah's regime we are talking about.

I responded by telling you that change will happen when we the people of Iran change first, by staying away from self-destructive ideologies. Until then, we will keep falling from one chaleh into another chaah.

Regarding your insults to the Kurds, I know I don't have to represent everybody. However, I have many Kurd friends which I respect, and I felt I have to say that your opinion of Kurds was unfair.

You then justify this insult by saying that you just brought up historical facts. Well, the IRI is doing the same too, aren't they? Don't they deal with the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and in the past Germans, French, or even Israel and the US during the war, whoever just in order to survive. So the IRI must be the king of dealings and wheelings. In fact all countries do this.

The thing is that the Kurds have been historically oppressed and found themselves in situations where they had to do some dealing and wheelings of their own in order to avoid being stepped on. Remove the "cause", the oppression, and all would be well.

Regarding Iraqi Kurds, what would you do if your people were gased to death and then later several hundred thousands of your people were massacred? Just stand still? Or would you deal with Israel too if that could help your cause?

Lastly, you wrote, "it was only recently that, after a stern warning, you moderated your writings. "

I have not moderated my writing. "Stern" warnings for having called IRI supporters debased traitors, would not change my views or my writing. Just so that you are assured, let me repeat my view again:

In my opinion, the supporters of the IRI are tied in many ways to the regime, mostly financial and positions of power; their policies work against the interest of the people of Iran, and therefore they are a bunch of immoral and debased traitors.

good job Kashani!

Hey Kashani, it seems your job here is going around and saying "good resposes" etc., sometimes doing your job several times in a single article! I thought I drop you a note letting you know that you are doing a good job with your good jobing. Good job Kashani_jAn! :)

It is about the conflict of

It is about the conflict of interest. What else can be expected when president, vice president and their supporters are having huge financial gains from wars. If there was no gain for them, they wouldn't start any wars.

Mamad

Now that you brought up Barzani let me tell you his quote "Where ever It’s Kurd that's Iran" off course they allied with Iran during Shah and IRI and sacrificed their lives (gassed by Saddam). Would you want it otherwise???? As for Komole, well I'm not a part of any of those groups however they were and are resisting the IRI for their right as other political group. They only difference is they believe that talk with IRI would lead to nothing but being either assassinate or be put in jail. Do you know how many Iranian Kurds were killed by this regime. All of these different factions like Komole, KDPI are fighting for their rights. If you look at their website they all seek democracy and equal rights for all Iranians.

Kurdish Warrior, Bijan A M,

Kurdish Warrior, Bijan A M, abc, BK, jamshid, Zion and guys...good responses.

in defense of Zion (to Mola )

Mola, I am also against war and any kind of Iran sanctions, and have criticized Zion in many occasions. In particular I criticized him sometime ago when he was advocating "limited war" against Iran, and reminded him of the past two humiliating defeats the Israelis have had in Lebanon.
However I appreciate that he is hanging around. What is it going to be gained if we don't argue with likes of Zion. It would be better to have more not less AIPAC and Israeli supporters here debating with us .....
I prefer to debate with Zion in this life rather than next life. Maybe JJ will end up in heaven and there will be no free iranian.hell.com!

be careful Zion

if you're supposed to be the "high class" of Zionist upbringing, you will inadvertantly confirm all of our stereotypes. I'm sure you don't want that!

Jamshid

When or where did I say that if one is against IRI, one is prowar? Show me.

I am against the IRI and I am also against war. I do not care whether you, or anybody else for that matter, believes me or not. I freely and with utmost honesty express my opinion in this site, at the risk of being accused of a supporter of IRI by you or others, simply because I am a voice of moderation and rationality. I do not fantasize about how to get rid of the regime. One must be practical. In another post, and in response to your own question, I described how I believe the struggle for democracy in Iran should proceed.

You say that I repeat the same arguments. First of all, my arguments are out of conviction after at least 36 years of being a political activist. I have not fallen into the hands of anybody. Those who know me well know that I am an independent thinker. I also do not change my positions, depending on which direction the wind is blowing.

Secondly, if repeating the same argument is bad, tell me, what do you do? You also repeat the same arguments again and again and again. So, you doing it is fine, but not me? I do not get it.

No, unlike what you say, I do not do things from the comfort of my home. I do not issue, like many do in this site, a manifesto about what Iranian people SHOULD DO OR SHOULD NOT DO. I always say, in my opinion. I always say, this is something that Iranian people who live in Iran should decide for themselves. I always say, it is the Iranian people who live in Iran that should decide what they want to do and how they want to do it, and the most that people like me can do is being a voice of reason, and moderation. You can disagree with me, and that is fine. 

Regarding my alleged insulting: First of all, you should not take it upon yourself to represent everybody. Secondly, it was only recently that, after a stern warning, you moderated your writings.

But, most importantly, I did not insult anybody. I made an observation regarding a historical fact. The Kurds made an alliance with the Shah ("General" Mostafa Barzani, and others) against Saddam. Then, they made an alliance witn the IRI during Iran/Iraq war, while at the same time, the Komeleh faction kept attacking Iranian forces. My own brother was part of the regular Iranian army for 28 months in Kurdestan during the war, and has given me first-hand account of what was going on.

Then, the Kurds made an alliance with Britain and the US. Most recently, northern Iraq has become a center of operation and planning by Israel's agents. Do not take or accept any of this from me. Check its accuracy by yourself. These are all documented.

Mammad

zion, as always crying foul, oh "I the victim" tactic

first you lable people then you try to put them down. Well this is gradeschool playground bully's tactic. You start a foul interaction on this webside and then cry out foul. The classic "I the victim syndrom" in action.

If you are so smart why are you hanging around here? Is it because the enlightened jews don't want your warmongering on their website and the extremist jews couldn't take you seriously?  Or maybe you enjoy the attention that you get for your outrageous ideas. Why don't you explain your motives to be here?

I am not an Islamist but you are the mouthpiece of neo-cons and Israeli propaganda machine as you name implies.

Good to know

and always a pleasure to witness the high class of Islamist upbringing.

Zion my camel was fine and...

sent his greetings to your sister.

Whatever you say Mola

but you didn't answer my question. How was your camel?

yek irani digar: Your

yek irani digar: Your anectodal argument is not representative of what's going on in Iran.

Free healthcare??? Perhaps for Basiji and the IRGC et al but not for anyone else. Business is booming for whom??? Khodies which comprise 15% of the population.

Basijis, mullah and talabeh's, and IRGC Inc. do not represent the Iranian nation.

Bijan A: I would add more to

Bijan A: I would add more to your list:

You should be ashamed whilst the oil revenues for Iran has never been higher, more than 40% of Iranians live in poverty and the income per capita (median salary) is $1800 (lower than Turkey and Peru) which is much lower than what it was in 1978. Same thing is true of GDP.

It's crying shame that Iran does not have the capcity to refine its oil. The electricity has to be cut off; the oil has to be rationed; jobs are not created; oil revenues are squandered on buying influence and building roads and hospitals for Lebanese....Rice farmeres are cheated; //africa.reuters.com/commodities/news/usnHOS8...

and so on.

You should be ashamed to overlook the corruption and the looting of limited natural resources which is tantamount to robbing the future generation of Iranian children of prosperity and progress while Aghazadaha and Khanoomzadeh are living in a lap of luxry in UAE, Canda, and Dubai.

Iran has become an Islamic North Korea instead of Islamic Japan.

!
جان من
رسید به لبم

1- وطن یعنی دویدن در پی نان
وطن یعنی کمک کردن به لبنان
وطن یعنی عرب را چاق کردن
معلم های خود را داغ کردن
وطن یعنی خرید تاید و شامپو
وطن یعنی رئیس جمهور هالو

2- باز هم در باره وطن

وطن یعنی صف نون و صف شیر
وطن یعنی همش درگیر درگیر
وطن یعنی همین بنزین، همین نفت
همین نفتی که توی سفره ها رفت
وطن یعنی که اصلاحات "چینی"
وطن یعنی که روی خوش نبینی
وطن یعنی همین آیینه دق
وطن یعنی خلایق هر چه لایق
تهران 7/4/1387