Neocons on the run

Failure of a Doctrine


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

by Ardeshir Ommani
14-Feb-2008
 

In the post-cold war period, after the collapse of the U.S.S.R when the United States claimed the status of the only superpower and acted as one by unilaterally invading the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons who were schooled in the art of campaigns against socialism, national liberation and working class struggle in Europe and Asia, found fertile ground in two commanding posts: the administration of George W. Bush and the vast media channels of communication. The primary goals and cause celebre of these hard-core conservatives, who “numbered fewer than 100”, according to Joshua Muravchik, an ideologue in the American Enterprise Institute, was to produce all the justifications and plans for the U.S. war on Iraq and the feasibility of a fast victory to serve as a stepping stone for a U.S. war against Iran.

At the pinnacle of this shock troop stood all those who served in the Republican administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the conservative media. To lay bare the system of beliefs of U.S. neoconservatism, it is essential to examine the ideas held and the official positions occupied by some of the ringleaders of the group. Among them is Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist-turned politician who has served as a member of the board of advisors of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a contributing editor of the New Republic and Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, a co-signer of the 1998 open letter to President Clinton by the Project for a New American Century and a former editorial board member of the publication The National Interest, founded by Irving Kristol, another neocon ideologue.

The letter raised the specter of Iraq’s possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and drew the conclusion that the “only acceptable strategy” was “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” It also argued that in the absence of that, the security of “our friends and allies like Israel, and a significant portion of the world’s oil supply” would be threatened. Charles Krauthammer has held various positions in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.

False Prophets

This phenomena cannot be over-stated that neocons received their training during the decades of cold war, supporting corporate domination over laboring classes and the third world countries. After the fall of the Soviet Union when the neoconservative movement lost its core-enemy and fell in disarray, Charles Krauthammer wrote an essay in 1990 Foreign Affairs magazine advocating the direction that U.S. foreign policy must take. That article later on came to serve as a guideline for the neocons’ agenda, which ultimately became an ideological cornerstone for the Iraq war and George W. Bush’s “war on terror.” The article, dubbed as the “Unipolar Moment” put forth the idea that the U.S. should seize the opportunity and unilaterally impose a new world order by imposing its agenda on the world. He argued that in the period following the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union, the main enemies of the U.S. consist of “small aggressive states armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and possessing the means to deliver them.” (Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990-1991).

After 9/11, Krauthammer’s agenda served as the basis of a program for the neoconservative ideologues who gathered around the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which in turn was used as a directive for writing a series of letters to the White House, including the one on September 20, 2001 to President Bush that along with Krauthammer was signed by a group of neocons such as Elliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol and a host of other social conservatives and religious right personalities. Charles Krauthammer, who is currently a regular commentator on Fox News and other right wing channels, this false prophet of the American Century, does not only enjoy war on smaller nations, but he also appreciates torture of defenseless individuals captive in the American dungeons.

In his Dec. 5, 2005 cover story in the Weekly Standard, Krauthammer argued that torture of the foreign detainees in U.S. prisons is not only defensible, but in fact necessary and morally acceptable.

Following the events of 9/11 and prior to the invasion of Iraq, the neocons positioned in the White House, in the State and Defense Department were all on the offense, repeating exuberantly the half-truth catchword that the best defense lies in the pursuit of an offensive strategy, which became the cornerstone of the pre-emptive doctrine. The former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went as far as saying that the U.S. military machine with the backing of an ever larger defense budget is capable of fighting and winning wars not only in one country, but in two or even three simultaneously. The dimming trace of such a grand-standing could be observed today in Senator McCain’s posturing that “we are winning in Iraq”, and advocating that the U.S. must maintain permanent military bases in that country, even when it goes against the will of the people of Iraq. We must assume that is a lesson in American democracy and its sense of international justice.

The glorious though short-lived days of the neocons came fast to an end with the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Soon after the aerial carpet-bombing, the U.S. military machine was met not with a bouquet of flowers, but with an armed resistance, which resulted in high rates of U.S. troop casualties. This encounter was unexpected by the ordinary soldiers who had been lectured by their officers about the just cause of their “mission.” The ever-increasing U.S. troop casualties and the lack of its control over Iraq’s geo-politics, soon gave rise to sharp criticism of Donald Rumsfeld’s military doctrine of a smaller but fast moving army equipped with superior technology. By then there was enough blame to go around between the neo-con officers in the White House, the State and the Defense Departments.

Failure of a Doctrine

Since October 7, 2001, the day the U.S. air force bombarded Afghanistan, about seven years ago, and since March 19, 2003, the horrible day Washington violated the sovereignty of Iraq and bombed the historical city of Baghdad, soon to be five years of brutal occupation, the U.S. policies and their neoconservative architects have come under sharp criticism by the people at home and those abroad. In the process these agents of imperial domination have lost credibility, if they had any, and their lucrative positions in the highest governmental offices and in the corporate media that so enthusiastically supported the annihilation of a 5000-year old civilization in Mesopotamia.

The first and most influential neo-conservative who became a casualty of this doctrine was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who was disgracefully booted by George W. Bush and asked to fade into oblivion, while carrying away tens of millions of dollars which were received as kickbacks from the arms and mercenary contractors. The White House announcement that Rumsfeld was leaving Bush’s cabinet came only one day after the Republican Party suffered major loses in the mid-term election of November 8, 2006.

Less than a month later, the outspoken neocon, John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was told to evacuate the post and look for a new job. He was more of a slave-driver than a country’s diplomat in dealing with Russia, China and the European community in connection with Iran’s nuclear issue. Bolton became more of a liability to the U.S., which was preparing to shift gears and be more accommodating to the European politics.

The third, but not the least significant, fall of a neoconservative was the ousting of Paul Wolfowitz, another architect of the war in Iraq, from his position as President of the World Bank, for authorizing a $60,000 salary increase for his girl friend, working under his supervision. As deputy secretary of defense from 2000 to 2005, working under Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz helped develop the plan and public rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He was neither liked by the European statesmen who opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, nor by some Republicans who attributed the U.S. loss of credibility to the mischievous plans of the neo-cons. After Wolfowitz lost his job as head of the World Bank, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., once said “that maybe we give Paul Wolfowitz a new job and send him over [to Iraq] as mayor, since the neocons got us in over there.” Wolfowitz is a long-term advocate of “pre-emption” – a military policy to strike first to eliminate a presumed threat, even if the evidence cannot be proven objectively.

During the last year, especially since the U.S. decided to join the European dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program, and almost at the same time gave the signal to Iraq’s government to invite Iran to a tripartite discussion over Iraq’s security and finally the appearance of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report admitting that Iran had suspended its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program in Fall 2003, all in all made the overall atmosphere hostile for the political habitat of the U.S. and the European neo-conservatives. Therefore, this group of reactionary politicians had to either migrate or return to hibernation.

Absolutely there is no doubt among the U.S. political class that the neoconservatives are in disarray, though not yet defeated, and furthermore, the U.S. policies with regard to the Middle East in general and Iran in particular are either in retreat or undergoing deep re-examination. It is not hard to see that Washington’s old plans for a new Middle East – drawn before 2000 with the aim of “regime change” to suit U.S. hegemonic interests – have badly failed.

Neocons on the Exit Ramp

The latest neocon on line to exit the pressure chambers of George W. Bush’s administration was Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, R. Nicholas Burns, who on January 18, 2008, just 16 days following the publication of the NIE Report, resigned from the third highest-ranking post at the U.S. State Department. Burns, representing U.S. imperialist interests in relation to Iran, made every effort to bring pressure on Russia, China and the major European countries to impose heavy economic, trade and diplomatic sanctions on Iran. But fortunately he was unsuccessful in that regard. Burns, by some mainstream press, is painted as a dove standing up to Vice President Cheney, who dreams of attacking Iran before the end of President George W. Bush’s term. Steve Clemons on www.huffingtonpost.com writes that among many political subjects, “…except perhaps Afghanistan, Nick Burns and Co. have been on one side of constructive efforts to stabilize global affairs and push forward positive ‘American global engagement’- and Cheney’s acolytes have been on another.” So much for good cop-bad cop.

In her piece in the Times on Line, entitled “Decline and Fall of the Neocons”, Sara Baxter writes “If Bush and Dick Cheney, his vice-president, are the last men standing with responsibility for the Iraq war it is only because they are protected by their four-year terms of office. One former Bush stalwart told me: “If we had a parliamentary system, Bush would have lost a vote of confidence and have resigned by now.”

As we all know there are only 10 months left to George W. Bush’s tenancy in the White House and a great majority of Americans, with the exception of a delusional minority symbolized by such militants as John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, are convinced that there is very little chance for the U.S. to win the war in Iraq. “On North Korea, and Iran, with no real options at hand,” writes Charles Krauthammer, an old neo-conservative, “the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Senator George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable.”

Now that the neo-cons have been ousted, one by one, from their positions of power, influence and easy kickbacks, the Democratic Party has an easy ride and the base of the Republican Party is left with two unexciting and mediocre figures - McCain and Huckabee - to represent it in 2008. This should be a lesson to the Democratic Party leadership that if it drags its feet, continuing the war and adding to the pain of the American society, next time the people may decide to trash both parties into the dustbin of history and create a non-corporate party.

About the author: Ardeshir Ommani is a writer and an activist in the anti-war and anti-imperialist struggle for many years, including against the Vietnam War. Ardeshir is a co-founder of the American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) which strives to build a movement promoting peace and preventing a U.S.-led war on Iran. See www.progressiveportals.com/aifc, where news and analysis of U.S.-Iran’s relations can be found, along with observations of life in Iran based on recent visits to Iran. Ardeshir helped launch the successful www.StopWarOnIran.org campaign, the very first Iran internet anti-war campaign. In the 1960's, he was a co-founder of the Iranian Students Association (ISA), which contributed to the struggle against the Shah of Iran, a U.S. puppet. Two of his recent articles: “Emergence of a United Front Against Bush" can be viewed at www.mathaba.net and “U.S. Hawks Dive for Cover” at www.payvand.com.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ardeshir OmmaniCommentsDate
The Great Heist
6
May 17, 2012
Boom!
3
Mar 01, 2012
Can the U.S. Swallow Syria?
8
Feb 12, 2012
more from Ardeshir Ommani
 
default

Dear Islamist brother JOE:

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:13 PM PST

Dear Islamist brother JOE: Your attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration is on display for everyone to see. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.


  •  
default

Joe L

by Sasan (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:09 PM PST

Dear Joe, you are a great man with a lots of pride. You are a noble man.


  •  
Joe L.

RE: God Bless America

by Joe L. on Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:01 PM PST

What you doing coming here talking trash on this site? Talking like a fifth grader? No wonder the world thinks that Americans are bunch of nitwits. Damn.Not enough that you embarrass Americans but choose a name to prove that you are a red neck hill billy who grew up in a trailer trash. Man, get a life. You are embarrassing.


  •  
default

What's interesting is to me

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:57 AM PST

What's interesting is to me is to figure out why do Iranians think that if the US ever decides to "attack" or "invade" Iran, it would be for the cause of democracy? Can't the IRanian people see that their government poses a threat to America's (All Western and infidel countries) national and economic interests by exporting militant Islam to destablize the entire ME region? Are we to leave one the ME in the hands of mad mullahs who can't even manage their own country properly and are awaiting for direction from a *well* to start Armageddon on the infidels??? I think NOT!


  •  
Abarmard

Dear MasoudA

by Abarmard on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:30 AM PST

I am aware of many consequences of war, I am not aware of all the consequences of war. The answer to your question is yes. I am against war no matter what. I believe Iran today is better than Iran under fire. There is no calculation in wars and you would not know what are all the possibilities including the sovereignty of Iran.
I am absolutely against any foreign intervention and actually condemn it harshly. The Iranian government is for Iran to resolve, and no one should dare intervene. I will not sell my country to any foreigners no matter how much I hate our system. Istn't that what MKO did?


  •  
default

R: The world in on to IR's

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:22 AM PST

R: The world in on to IR's agenda in the ME. I highly recommend you write to your Supreme Leader and ask him to not jeopardize the lives of millions of Iranians by financing and promoting terrorism and militant Islam as it is required in Iran's Constitution. You have to ask why the IRI has self-appointed itself to take on the "Great Satan"? Isn't that the Islamic Republic's foreign policy to use proxies like Hizballah to "drive Americans out the ME and onward to Returning Jerusalme to the Ummah?

Do you support the Islamic Republic's hegemonic aspirations in the region? Do you advocate IR's policy of challenging the "Great Satan's so- called "domination" in the ME?


  •  
default

US: Iran Must Confess to

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:13 AM PST

US: Iran Must Confess to Nuclear Arms

February 15, 2008
The Associated Press
George Jahn

VIENNA, Austria -- The U.S. on Friday demanded that Iran confess to trying to make atomic weapons, suggesting that anything short of that would doom an International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Tehran's nuclear past.

The call by Gregory L. Schulte, chief U.S. delegate to the Vienna-based IAEA, appeared to set the bar insurmountably high for the investigation by the U.N. agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.

There is only about a week left before he reports on the probe's progress, and Iran has steadfastly denied ever working on a nuclear weapons program.

Schulte said the "measure for progress is whether Iran fully discloses its past weapons work and allows IAEA inspectors to verify it's halted."

"This," he told reporters, "includes explaining past work on weapons design and weaponization and the role of the Iranian military."

Schulte spoke a day after diplomats told The Associated Press that the U.S. had recently shared new intelligence on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work. One of them also said that Washington also gave the IAEA permission to confront Iran with at least some of the evidence in an attempt to pry details out of the Islamic republic on the activities.

Tehran insists its program is intended only to produce energy and has refused U.N. demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program — technology that can produce both fuel for nuclear reactors and the fissile material for a bomb.

The U.S. is leading the push for a third set of U.N. sanctions against Iran. A recent U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran had a clandestine weapons program but stopped working on it four years ago has hurt Washington's attempts to have the U.N. Security Council impose the new sanctions.

A March 3 meeting of the 35-nation IAEA board will evaluate ElBaradei's efforts to probe Tehran's nuclear past — including alleged attempts to make weapons. The probe was to have been completed months ago, but agency officials have privately acknowledged it could drag on even past the board meeting.

Reflecting Western dissatisfaction — and the possibility that ElBaradei's report would fall short of expectations — Britain, France and the United States have begun consulting on a resolution for the March meeting that would "draw a line in the sand" both for the IAEA chief and Iran, said a diplomat accredited to the agency.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

The last board resolution referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council in late 2006. Any new resolution would reflect frustration with Russian and Chinese opposition to tough U.N. sanctions on Iran, he said.

If ElBaradei's probe is deemed unsatisfactory, the board, through a new resolution "has to report to the Security Council that the agency has done all that it can do, and that it cannot guarantee for the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," the diplomat said.

Iran is already under two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, which it started developing during nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity built on illicit purchases and revealed only five years ago.

Since then, IAEA experts have uncovered activities, experiments, and blueprints and materials that point to possible efforts by Iran to create nuclear weapons, even though Tehran insists its nuclear project is peaceful.

U.S. to Produce Data on Iran's Nuclear Program

//www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/world/middleeast...

//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_re_mi_ea...

Polls? LOL


  •  
default

Your position has nothing to

by R (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:08 AM PST

Your position has nothing to do with the "world's" position. Please read opinions, and check the opinion polls taken in the "world",

including in the "free world".


  •  
default

"The free world cannot sit

by R (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:06 AM PST

"The free world cannot sit with hands tied behind her back."

Yes sirree. I think a translation is definitely required for this statement of yours (I will leave it to the readers to figure it out themselves).

Still trying to play the role of the innocent and victim who has no choice but to go blow countries and people, and America's treasury, and America's real interests up? I think the majority (75%) of Americans disagree with your position, but what do they know.

Your position has nothing to do with the "world's" position. Please read opinions, and check the opinion polls taken in the "world".


  •  
default

To R: We will never

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:50 AM PST

To R: We will never surrender to barberism and cruelty that your government tries to export to the world. We have nothing against the people of Iran. It is the government of Iran who has decided to take on "the arrogant powers" and endangers the lives of its citizens by threatning other countries. The free world cannot sit with hands tied behind her back.

The Islmaic Republic had declared war on the US 28 years ago and we will eventually respond...definitely not under President Bush. Even if Obama wins, nothing will change.


  •  
default

Joe L., It is people like

by R (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:40 AM PST

Joe L.,

It is people like you who contribute to the advancement of society and the world. It is people like you who make help with furthering the cause of sanity and reason. And there are people like you in all countries of the world. You are part of the majority of the citizens of the world, and also a great American. It is people like you who help make America proud.

Rest assured, Iranians in Iran have a very good understanding of America and Americans. They know better not to generalize Americans under one incorrect and negative light. Recently there were two articles in New York Times by their journalists who travelled to Iran, you may find them informative. In it the journalists spoke with different Iranians.

There also comments of different Americans in the internet who wrote about their experiences travelling to Iran, and also their conversations with the people.

I hope Obama wins. There are some Americans who wrap themselves with the flag. And some, as is very clear, on the surface only. They are causing the biggest harm to the country, and from inside.

Take care, my friend


  •  
default

"The work that we face in

by God Bless America (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:31 AM PST

"The work that we face in our time is great, but our opportunities greater still. In a time of war, and the terrible sacrifices it entails, the promise of a better future is not always clear. But I promise you, my friends, we face no enemy, no matter how cruel; and no challenge, no matter how daunting, greater than the courage, patriotism and determination of Americans. We are the makers of history, not its victims. And as we confront this enemy, the people privileged to serve in public office should not evade our mutual responsibility to defeat them because we are more concerned with personal or partisan ambition. Whatever the differences between us, so much more should unite us. And nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself. We must all pull together in this critical hour and proclaim that the history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe, but by the aspirations, ideals, faith and courage of free people. In this great, historic task, we will never surrender. They will."--John McCain

Political Islam is doomed.


  •  
masoudA

To Abarmard -

by masoudA on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:18 AM PST

I say this to you, because I feel like you are against the mullahs.

Would you be anti war - if it turns out to be the only rescue for the oppressed Iranian population ?   Wishing for war is bad - but what is worst for an Iranian to live outside Iran and oppose any solution which may rescue those inside Iran. 


  •  
default

To Joe L

by Paykan (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:05 AM PST

Thanks for your kind words. People like you make the world a better place otherwise look at those who criticize you. A bigger man, a stronger man is who admits his mistakes. America made a mistake and we know all know it. You are definitely the bigger man.
Thanks.


  •  
Abarmard

Jahanshah Rashidian

by Abarmard on Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:54 AM PST

I am actually in line with them (CASMII). I have been a advocate against any military intervention to our land and CASMII represents that.

The mistake that one could make is because CAMII is not an affiliate political group, which represents IRI or Iranians out of Iran, one could mistake them to agree with IRI. I don't see it that way. NIAC is also labeled as IRI agency, I don't agree with that either. I know many of their staff personally and can assure you that they are not part of the IRI lobby. They have to try to explain the position of IRI in order to minimize the possibilities of war, and that's logical. Their position and situation is much more complex than you think. If you wish, I can get in to more detail about that.

 


  •  
default

Neo-Cons like Paper Tigers

by ex-U.S. Marine (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:52 AM PST

Mr. Ommani

Last year, the former Iranian revolutionary commander made a statement, "AMERICA is like a paper tiger that is fading away. AMERICANS are between life and death of their empire. Landsize does not matter. If U.S. attacks IRAN, there will be a civil war inside the United States economically, socially, and politically." The point is that IRANIANS have to make their own choice now. You are on the path of true democracy. Dr. Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator claimed, "IRAN is the most democratic Islamic nation because none of the Arab states have voting system, women taking parts, or national IDs. U.S. has no attitude toward them but does toward IRAN." Listen to their speeches on www.memritv.og This shows that the neo-cons are bunch of liars! Look at the economic recession that is taking place in this country right now. It is aweful and shameful. We are no longer a sovereign nation.


  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

Mr. Sasan

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:00 AM PST

As I emphasised, I am not a fan of neocons, or US policy in general, but our main problem remains the IRI.  Character assassination fits Islamist thugs on the site. I am one of their victims. But describing these thugs and the political or religious impetus behind them does not equate “character assassination”.

The author is not an Islamist thug but a sold intellectual, who is a co-founder of CASMII in 2006. This organisation lobbies IRI’s interests in the US while working under the direction of IRI’s foreign ministry.


  •  
default

It's time for America to change

by Thinker (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 08:54 AM PST

Just like the blacks in America advanced Music, Dance, Lyrics and sports: Culture. Now they have to advance the politics. Yes we can. We need to upgrade. Could you imagine if the art world still belonged to the Whites exclusively?
Yes we can. We will be better, we will be America that we want to be. Yes we can. America belongs to all of us now. Rejoice, Yes We Can.


  •  
default

Mr. Jahanshah Rashidian

by Sasan (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:57 AM PST

Maybe, But I think this is a great and informative article. His political views are his own business. I don't see things in packages but separately. This article doesn't explain crying wolf to me. You have every right to disagree with him. I think it's much better for us Iranians to stop character assassination and instead when we read something focus on the topic specifically and provide our own incites if we have any. We learn better that way in my opinion.


  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

Mr. Sasan

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:44 AM PST

If you know the author, his previous posts, his background, his political orientations and finally his pro IRI organisation, CASMII, you will easily find out that his string is attached somewhere with the IRI's apparatus.

His cry for wolf! Is a dictated slogan from his Mullahs.


  •  
default

Just out of curiosity

by mama (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:32 AM PST

Why are all these so called Neocons Jewish?
And why do all their patriotic polices happen to be in the best interest of Israel? I think everybody agrees that going to war with Iraq was not in the best interest of the US.
And why do the Neocene policies always involve shipping the US tax dollars to Israel in various forms?

And why the real American conservatives such Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and others are dead against these deceitful 5th columners?


  •  
Iranian-

Very informative article!

by Iranian- on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:24 AM PST

I hope that you can publish this article in as many publications and newspapers as possible.


  •  
default

Mr. Jahanshah Rashidian

by Sasan (not verified) on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:19 AM PST

I don't see how his article has to do with misdirecting people from the crimes of IRI?
Are you saying that IRI is bad so America can't be? That doesn't make sense.
Those who think people are dumb and stupid generally are against freedom of press. They think the "wrong" information might misguide the "stupid" public!
I read this article and agree with it, at the same time I still dislike IRI. How do you explain that?
Just because IRI is bad doesn't mean US is always right. So you should embrace this kind of thoughts and add to it rather than "warn" against the evil "author" who wants to stop your revolution against IRI. I mean come on.
This was a great piece, Thanks Mr. Ommani.


  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

The author's aims

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:03 AM PST

Let’s first remind you that I criticise the Bush administration for its unchained liberalism, for its Iraqi invasion, for its world hegemony, for the lack of respect for democracy in the US and sovereignty of other nations.

However, the author of this article has other motives for his anti-Bush, least of which is concern for democracy, social justice and sovereignity of peoples in Iran, Iraq or democracy in the US.

As a pro-IRI, the author seems to be supposed to use the “imperialist” US as a scarecrow to distract attention from the plague of the IRI. His “anti-imperialist” propaganda is not following a line of socialism, Marxism, communism, which all of them would call the Mullahs’ regime the worst kind of “opiate of people”.

The fact is that the author belongs to one the notorious IRI's proxies, CASMII, which behind the banner of anti war is in fact an unconditional supporter of the most undemocratic, un-socialist, un-civilised totalitarin regime.

Although for the author, as an old Stalinist with an atheist faith,
Imperialism is imperialism! No matter Republicans or Democrats lead the
White House, it seems that he is now wired up by “Big Brothers” of Ghom to post about US elections.

The author is a part of the IRI’s lobbyists in the US who usually and unconditionally post pro-IRI materials, but this time he has new instructions from the masters to set a new double edged sword:

- distract Iranians from the ills of the IRI

- capitalise on some candidates.

 


  •  
Joe L.

programmer craig

by Joe L. on Fri Feb 15, 2008 04:25 AM PST

Shut up white boy. You are arrogant and from what I see a lost casue. I don't care about you and your mentality. I just hope that Iranians don't think that America means people like you.


  •  
default

No it's not colonialism, the intent was "democracy"

by Joe (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 09:21 PM PST

Now, the neo-cons call their intentions and actions "democracy".

"If the neocons had been able to do what they WANTED to do in Iraq, Iraq would be a stable and prosperous democracy right now". - P.Craig

Forget "if", many millions DEVASTATED,
many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, DEAD.


  •  
default

Keer to koon Ardeshir Tombani and

by Anonymous^2 (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 07:16 PM PST

his pals...


  •  
programmer craig

Joe L

by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 05:02 PM PST

Could you possible kiss ass and suck up any more than that? You only got the job half way done, man.


  •  
default

programmer craig

by Ramin. (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:52 PM PST

I suck at debates, I like to see what people say. Sometimes people try to explain things that are just ridiculous. I didn't mean to be rude, I like to laugh :)


  •  
default

No Ramin

by Jamaleto (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:48 PM PST

The Masterpiece in that argument is:
"neocons didn't set the stage for what's happened the last 8 years" And the key word is "didn't set the stage". lol


  •  
« first‹ previous123next ›last »