ISRAEL

Manoucher jaan

of course, universities can be mere recyclers of standard texts, but not necessarily in every case.

did you ever come across this Washington Post article:

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

quote:
As Burton Richter, an American Nobel laureate in physics, entered the main auditorium of Tehran's prestigious Sharif University, hundreds of students rose to give him a loud and lengthy ovation. But Richter, wearing a white suit and leaning on a cane, said he was the one who should be awed.

Kuroush;

Regarding the portion that you have quated me, it appears that you are right.  In the light of what you have written here, when I looked back at it it looks more like what you said now than what I thought.  My appologies. 

The level that a nation can protect her interests (that is not defined anywhere in the international law) depends on the means that nation has at her disposal.  In brief, international relations is a real jungle that any country which has more power dominates those who are less powerful.  In practice, who is keeping to maintain this kind of jungle is those who are able to exert more power because they benifite from it. Who are in that position nowadays, it is Western Democracies.  Again, power is floating a factor that changes from hand to hand and differs in its material form.  

So, according to you, if US invades Iraq and kills people by hundreds of thousands, she doesn't owe Iraqis anything even not a simple appology.  So why they allow themselves to criticize others? If IRI harshly treats her citizen because it has the power to do so, what is others' business to criticize her?  Again, it was the Western allies and Soviets who put the foundation of the UN. The concept of the UN was to make the world more orderly and prevent the disasters like Second War.  So, if western powers are not obliged to render the values that they advocate and they do not have to touphold them what is the UN for?  Just to justify and legalize wars and invasions of weaker nations like Iraq?

Regarding specialists under the Shah, the system was not open to inventions and innovations, not knowledge was not there, and not that they were not qualified.  The best manifestation of it was lack of any innovation at the time of the Shah.  Once the same people were given the opportunity, they performed miracles.  And of course, West yearns to have someon like Shah to build and "island of stability" and ruin domestic products and import Western goods only.

If all the students who are sent abroad "as you say" are hezbllahees  and those who go to government universities in Iran are Baseejees, then the IRI has a huge domestic support.  Why everyone is saying it is isolated and people live in misory?  At the time of the Shah if you were sponsored by the military, everything was paid for your entire years of higher education plus a monthly payment that was at least few times more than what a regular university student recieved. It is a norm all over the globe.  If Mollas are so open to science and technology, why most of us call them beesavaad and retarded then?Let's not to forget that a large number of those in governments since the collapse of the Shah have higher education from the West.  Now, thirty years has passed the Revolution, those who were born in 1979 are university graduates already and definitely a young population like Iranian population provides its rulers with a vast pool of expertise; leave alone the whole generation of the youth who were born already.

These said, no one denies the realities of discriminations, denial of many basic rights, expression and you keep counting.  You may ask them about these because I escaped the country twenty-one years ago and don't have first hand information.

By the way, Israel is part of the West.  Even Japan is.  So is Autralia. Definitely, not Latin America.  West is a socio-economic concept, not a geographic location.   

regards

MY dear manochehr

there is a good side and then there is a bad side to any type of relation between any two countries in the world. It is a balancing act and needs to be carried out through effective means. No nation can be abusive of the rights of another nation if they are not allowed to. Why don't we see U.S. or any other western power exerting the same influence in Russia?

"It is interesting to hear from you that politicians in the Western nations are scared to be harshly criticized for supporting or promoting or even talking with those whom their own people have honestly and legally elected (for any reason and they are aware of the facts) while they are not scared of being criticized for invading other nations in order to plunder their natural resources while hundreds of thousands of their citizens publically demonstrated against it?"

I ABSOLUTELY DID not say that. Those are your added elaboration and analysis. All i said that the politicians in western countries don't owe anything to anybody, so that if they failed to deliver a perceived promise to another country, they should draw ire of the people of that country. that is all. The fact that the citizens of those western nations oppose their leaders for any reason is a totally separate issue. It is an internal one.
Westerners, Are under no obligation to represent the interest of another nation's people! It is up to the people themselves to form organizations and elect representatitive to protect their rights and prevent excessive interference from those western powers.

Ohh! Of course they sent students abroad, Their own people and ilk. What about others? what about a non-hezbollahi and non-basiji who had to pay a big sum of money to either buy off the duration of his millitary service, or forced to fight a war, in order to get a freaking lousy passport? You so easily looked that over.

What an amazing way of contradicting yourself! those engineers and doctors and educated crowd were useless under the shah's political system, yet now, the west is craving for that same system? Those same useless bunch were the ones who laid the foundation of progress, who developed the infrastructure to introduce and develope industrialization in iran. Some of them did turn against shah, but the fact is that mulla-following mohandeses are feeding off of, and taking credit for the advances that were by the blood and sweat of scientists back then.

Niloufar

first.
You have absolutely no proof of that and it is all based on your hatred of the west.

Second.
They do not and never had. They have always given the excuse that there are "preconditions" and never partipated.
West can not be just plain wrong when there are plenty example to the contrary. Israel can not be considered part of the west, if that is what you mean. Like I said, Once the living conditions in iran improved for EVERYONE and not just a selected few, Then you can come back and tell me that west is wrong or whatever, But until then i don't buy your argument.

Niloufar Jaan;

When we entered Univesity Of Shiraz in Shareevar of 1357 its name was Phalavi International University and its education language was English.  Teachers spoke English in classes except for Farsi courses.  There were plenty of foreign students from many parts of the world studying there as well as teachers who taught.  In the department of history we had a man from India.  Intersting enough that a trace of those people were still there even after the so-called Cultural Revolution.  A Japanese student of Frasi in immitation of Moslem students who said "Allaho Akbar" for prayer was saying "Budaaho Akbar" until someone told him not to say that and he stopped.  I believe universities do not necessarily mean technology.  Technology is the science materialized in practice for production, betterment of social life, or military purposes.  Science in abstract is not technology.

Regards

smhb

yes indeed, you make very interesting points there. personally, i have had scant interaction with the various groups you have described simply because of my specific situation and work.

i think this can be an advantage when it comes to forums like this because i have little notion of the 'boxes' that various people belong to, and i (admittedly naively) will discuss the matter at hand without 'external' considerations (unless of course confronted by an offensive bore or an outright fascist). 

on the IRI's anti-imperialist accomplishments, indeed it is hard to argue with that position, and there is global recognition of and admiration for this. frankly, it is hard to fathom how they have managed it for so long and against so much powerful opposition.

but let me have a go anyhow!

what i think it boils down to is the fact that iran IS one of the oldest, most self-reliant and stable nations in human history. it is traditional with a capital T and solid as a rock. it is the bridge between the west and east, and it happens to sit on more oil and gas than is good for us. persian culture has been by far the most dominant influence in the region and way beyond for the longest time, and these guys get their 'mojo' - or that audacious quest for the 'third way' - from being iranian rather than muslims. they are quintessential iranian nationalists with a twist, and a deeply held belief that the Sun rises from the East. they truly believe that they have the right to be who they are, and the west's longstanding game of global domination just can't work against such a belief system no matter what the balance of military power.

only 2 ancient nations have truly managed and survived with this approach: iran and china. neither is a democracy.

Peace!

Manoucher

very well put. to the west, 'national interest' means 'slaughter and plunder is perfectly fine'!

on eduction, i would add that the flow is not only in one direction. many foreign students study in iran today, and not just in the field of religion. science has really taken off in iran, and the country is close to being cutting edge in fields like nanotechnology and stem cell research, and of course it has joined the exclusive club of space and nuclear technology. it is pointless to try and deny these just because we don't like theocracies. it is unscientific!

Abarmard aziz: thanks for your kind words :) 

KouroshS

i respect your position and cannot argue that the IRI is in any sense an example when it comes to individual human rights. in fact the concept does not mean much to the IRI. i am going - i hope - to write a blog on demcracy in iran soon, or reasons for the lack of it, and i hope we can continue our discussion there.

just a couple of quick points:

first, the walk out was prearranged and had nothing to do with the content of the speech.

second, the IRI does engage in dialogue but it usually does not follow the dominant western line of reasoning. i would say that sometimes, the west is wrong. on this occasion regarding the issue of racism, the west was not only wrong, it was childish and deliberately confrontational in its behaviour.

Peace!

Ahmadinjad just follows the Koran.

It never fails to amaze me that most folks don 't know that the koran specifically states 'slay the infidels everywhere they are found.' This book (which seems to have poisoned human history for the last 14 centuries)lays out a wartime strategy that is intended to last indefinitely. In case you haven't figured it out I'll clue you in: by infidels the Koran means also non-muslims aka YOU!!!!. Yes you and me who are born muslims but talk againts Islamic violence. Please get it through your thick skulls, world, that the koran legalizes murder.

Political correctness be damned. We and the rest of Kafirs are targeted for MURDER. And this is not a crime in Islam. In fact,it is the idea of 'morality in Islam.

Islam is total hate and evil. No good has ever come from islam. I support Israel and how it deals with the situation created by the murdere Islamist terrorists and the Islamic Republic entity in Iran. Keep up the good work, Israel. Infact most of the world backs you up.
Anyone with common sense know there will be never be any peace as long as there is Islamic violence.

Abarmard Jaan;

I am still waiting too.

Kourosh Aziz;

My whole point is that what is number one priority for western nations (governments and companies specifically to speak) in their relations with others is what they call their national interests which they are not shy to express publically.  Those national interests are first financial, political, and military and at the end human rights if it goes along with other purposes. When a need arises, the first thing to be sacrificed is human rights.  Mudslinging, economic sanctions, warmongerring, and eventually the wars are directly in that direction.

It is interesting to hear from you that politicians in the Western nations are scared to be harshly criticized for supporting or promoting or even talking with those whom their own people have honestly and legally elected (for any reason and they are aware of the facts) while they are not scared of being criticized for invading other nations in order to plunder their natural resources while hundreds of thousands of their citizens publically demonstrated against it.  We are facing a grave contradiction here.  I think they pave the way for the success of a whole bunch of puppets to safeguard Western interests; and not represent the interests of their people.  The Family of Saud have been in power for a long time without facing any fundamental change or challenge from their Western partners. Where Western values of democracy and human rights stand?

I agree with you that Shah sent many students to Western nations for education.  Actually, it did not start with the Mohammad Reza and it started with Ghaajaars and its roots are deep in our culture as many people (especially the youths) historically were travelling long distances in order to learn the knowledge of the time.  Iran has never banned such travels even at the time of Islamic Republic.  They were sending student abroad as well; even they held interviews with students in history and politics in order to be send for higher education in other nations.  If not to the West, they sent them to India and the Philipines and many other places. 

Now, my question is why these highly educated engineers at the time of the Shah were of no use to invent or even independently immitate one single product?  Even if we claim politically they turned against him, he still had enough of those people to do so.  The reason is that there was no political will in the whole land to support them in that direction.  Any such invention would have jeopardized the Western companies' interests which the Shah was to safeguard.  In brief, if you had the whole nation of Iran with those educations, they would not have achieved anything unless the political system supported them; or gave them the opportunity to flourish.  A system like that of the Shah is what the West is dearly missing in Iran today.  The rest, Brother, is public relations.  Look at Chili, Granada, Panama, ...     

Dear Niloufar and Manoucher

I want to thank both of you for the information and well argued case. I certainly learned from you both.

Manoucher jaan, still waiting for your book :) 

Dear Manouchehr

What people say about voting for hammas resembling voting for hiltler is absolutely true! western powers , essentially and fundamentally are not obligated to deliver a certain product, i.e. values to other nations, which could qualify them for a harsh criticism upon failure to deliver. All they can do is to pave the way to success and the rest MUST be done by the people who live in those countries.

The bulk of the progress that Iran ever made in its history, was initiated by the huge number of engineers and doctors and researchers that were trained at european and american universities at the time of shah, since it was immediately after the revolution that getting permission to leave the country was next to impossible, let alone the abiity to obtain visa to study in other countries. Our great research and higher education institutions are run by those who were educated long before or close to the events of 1979, and decided to come back.

On the Merits of IRI as an advocate of Anything!!

Niloufar

In fact, The UN could do much better without having such fascist and corrupt administrations on its list.
Perhaps you were not paying close enough attention, but the walking out occured while the speech was being delivered. That is what prompted the event, and the real subject was discussing the status of racism in the world, not just israeli's apartheid system and Iri has used every opportunity at every international gathering to make an issue out of this. That is not just a reflection of the sad international state of affairs, that is just pure and plain pathetic.

By asking you "who has not been receptive to dialogues" i was attempting to single out iran as the only party that refuses to participate in any dialogue on various excuses and made-up reasons. Iri is not the true advocate of the shared one-state equal rights solution, precisely based on their worse than poor human rights and granting equal rights to iranian citizens. That is a major major disqualifier for the regime of any country to come up to a universal stage and show off its support for equality.

Yes. It is beyond imagination, and should be beyond imagination, and such an oppressive system is totally out of line for holding such positions. Bigoted? Condescending? Sure, if you insist. But remember who you are dealing with. A regime that sends its agents out on the streets to speciafically and on a daily basis remind them of their daily duties in the most Humiliating and condescending manner. One that in essence is making subordinates out of regular citizens.
At least, In the countries that those regimes that walked out of the confrenece, represented, we see more signs of people having decent lives than many well-deserving and innocent people in iran.
At least they put their money where they mouth is. Wish i could say the same about Iri.

Mr. Kaashaanee

It seems to me that you do not differenciate between technology and construction and hospitals.  The Pahlavis never had so many destructive obstacles as Iran has been having after the 1979 Revolution.  Actually, they were so tame that they never made a mistake.  The nuclear energy that you are talking about at the time of Shah first, was not in the hands of Iranians; second they only had started some plants like that of Bushehr that was totally dependent on the fuels that the West was supposed to provide.  By the same token they could suffocate it as they wished and wanted and we saw that they unilaterally revoked all the agreements that they had signed.  

During the Pahlavis not one single engine or missile was produced in Iran and by Iranians.  A vast majority of university students in Iran were studying literature. Largest construction projects for University of Shiraz was being build by Americans Sir.  This I saw with my own eyes leave alone those that were in their hands all over Iran.  Iranians always came the last.  Do not forget every revolution has its own root causes and reasons that are present in the society where they take place. 

Every revolution in the beginning is undertaken by honest people.  Don't tell me millions of mostly under thirty years of age revolutionaries in Iran were dreaming of the bloodbath that followed.  It is so in the case of the US independence.  Whatever the founding fathers of that country had in mind, I do not agree that US bombed Vietnam with every kind of weapons to promote human rights.  They did not invade Iraq to promote human rights either.  And of course, all Latin America's dictators came to power through US help.  Definitely, Alende was not a criminal like Pinoche.  Neither was Mosaddegh a murderer like the Shah.  Other allies of the US against Communism were military rulers of Greece and Turkey, Thailand, Pakestan, the Philipins and go ahead counting.  India was never an ally of the US against Communism any way.

All revolutionaries have had amibitious claims.  Even Americans as you just stated wanted to spread what they call human rights and democracy.  But, in practice they become tools of invasion and occupation and exploitation.  When people vote for Hamas and Hezbollah, they compare that to the Germans' voting for Hitler.  What is democracy?  Realities of the last quarter of the twentieth century and the present years is that Western values have given so much false promises to the people of what is called developing world that no one believes them any more except some corrupt puppets who are appointed by them to control their countries in their behalf.  The real reason behind Iranian Revolution were these not Mr. X and Mr. Y's ambitions and deceitful tactics.  Power and wealth are the main corrupting elements in history and the West is at that stage.  This is not my invention.  In early twentieth century Swald Spingler of Germany predicted this as well as others; and count since then how many destructive wars have taken place on this planet that the West has direct hand in them.

Smhb,   Since you said

Smhb,  

Since you said that IRI “has safeguarded Iran’s integrity and independence” and made that outrageous remark, let me ask you, how does a government safeguard a country’s dignity? And independence? Please outline the methods that it does that.

Was Iran pre 1979 an independent country or not? It’s a simple yes or no question. Please answer that and explain how IRI achieved Iran’s “independence”!!!

Holding a gun in the air and asking for “nafaskesh” in the world and alienating the world against us and ruining our reputation and image and making enemies all round the world  is how its’ “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”?  If it wasn’t for the respect the world has for the Iranian people who strongly oppose the existence of the IRI regime, we would’ve annihilated by now. Claiming to be against an “unjustified global system” which has benefited billions around the world to get out of poverty and achieve democracy and live a better and more dignified life I s“challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Murdering Iranians in the name of Islam is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Imprisoning Iranians for slightest criticism of government is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Exiling millions of Iran’s best is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Forcing a medieval dress code (Hijab) on half of the population is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Imprisoning millions of our youth for wearing “unsanctioned and unIslamic” cloth and make up and drinking and listening to music is ““challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Treating women as 2nd class citizens is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Holocaust against the Bahais is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Taking way every single social freedom you can think of is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Treating religious and ethnic minorities as 2nd class citizens is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Promoting Fundamentalism and inspiring Terrorism around the world is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Being the only country in the world ruled by clergy who still live in the 7th century is “challenging Zionism and safeguard’s Iran’s dignity”? Please enlighten us!

The only thing IRI has done is take back Iran into the 7th century, ruin Iran’s image and values, alienate the world, crush the dignity of Iran and Iranians, murder and imprison Iranians and bring the country yet again, closer to a devastating war.

It’s a shame that after 30 years of murder, there are Iranians who support this regime. Truly a shame.

sickofIRI, thank you aziz.

sickofIRI, thank you aziz.  

 Mr. Azarnia,  

As far Iranian progress under Shah, well, did you know that the peaceful nuclear energy program was started during the Pahlavi? Who do you think build all the roads and hospitals and airports and other things we have right now? Please note that I’m not defending the Shah. I’ve always said besides the fact that Monarchy is drastically against what I stand for, Pahlav’s 50 years reign did not do nearly enough for Iranians. Poverty was everywhere, lack of political freedoms and other things.

As far as Western democracy, I differentiate between what France, England and other previous colonial powers did and between the U.S. This country was founded on global promotion of human rights. That was the honest intent of the founding fathers and it has been a foreign policy cornerstone. That’s unlike France and Russia and others who had occupying lands and plundering resources in mind. Furthermore, what you said about Taiwan and S Korea fighting communism is an assertion of what I’ve been saying all along. U.S allied with all countries that rightly so feared communism, and look at where they at now. Each country that fought and defeated Communism/Ultra Socialism has advanced. Each country has to take responsibility for its own actions unless occupied or attacked by a foreign country. Latin American dictatorships is not that fault of the U.S, it’s the fault of enablers in those countries who make it happen. U.S allied with them to fight communism, sure, so what? Were all the countries that U.S allied with to fight communism ruled by dictators? Ridicules! How about Western Europe? Or Japan? Or Australia? Or Canada? Or Singapore? Or S Korea? Or India? Furthermore, there haven been far worst dictatorships in the world by those who are fiercely anti American than the ones who claim to be pro American. Examples are all over the place. Which one did more atrocities in their countries? Shah or Khomeini (both bad, who’s worst? Somoza or Sandinista? Bautista or Castro? The Czars or the USSR? Pre communist China or Communist china? All bad, sure, but which worse?

As far regime change, guess what, Khomeini declared 30 years ago that the ultimate goal of IRI’s reign is to eventually at some point “raise the flag of Islam over the white house”? Sir, do you have any ideas what that means? Do you think some “Akhoond just made some bluff”? Let’s pretend he’s bluffing and doesn’t know that he can’t do it, have they worked towards achieving that goal or not? It’s a revolutionary government; it has to have that message. Same thing with the French revolution, when they came to power, they said we will change the world; the result was all the powerful countries uniting against France and attacking it. Off course no comparison between the noble French revolution ideas and fundamentalist medieval Khomeini regime’s ideas.

Niloufar Parsi

I am in full agreement with your positions. However one has to be cognizant of who one is engaging. As Iranians we are familiar with the mindset and attitude of our countrymen and women. Lets start with the monarchist (pro pahlavi) specially. They have created a religion worshiping the monarch and his father and are totally blind to the historical context of reza shah's rise to power, his brutality and theft and the colonization of Iran by the british that led to his rize topower. They cant see how his son was also weak and corrupt and totally dependent on foreign powers to maintain his rule. The myth surrounding the pahlavis is promoted paricularly by zionists, freemasons who in Iran historically were guided by the british.

Then you have the MEK and their likes that are totally lost in a cult and eventhough a great majority of them have good academic backgrounds yet they cant see and fathom how an organization founded on anti imperialist / anti zionist goals has reached a point that it spies and serves the zionists and imperialists. Their hatred and personal sense of vandeta has blinded them to the most basic historical and social facts.

The IRI is not perfect by any stretch of imagination, as there are no perfect societies, governements, and people. However IRI has managed to accomplish what was so impossible and distant to those who fought in the constitutional revolution and later on confronted the russian and british intrigue from the palace and then the british and their domination of Iran's polity and then american and zionist domination of Iran. The IRI successfully challenged world imperial power(s) and safeguarded Iran's integrity and independence. Something that was lost after the death of Agha Mohamad Khan and the rise to power of Fathali Shah and other Qajar monarchs who managed to put Iran up for sale. The only notable exception is Ahmad Shah Qajar who due to his sense of honor and independence was forced out by the british in a 1925 coup d'tate that officially brought reza khan the illiterate to power as the shah, eventhough reza khan was in power since the coup of 1921.

The intellectual left overs of this painful era who benefited immensly from the plunder of Iran are now the advocates of human rights and decency and progress and ......

What they just dont seem to get is that the Iranian people regarded them as trash while they and their ilk were in Iran and threw them out just like trash. They are socially, culturally, politically and intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing to offer Iran except to advocate the cause of the zionists and imperialists and the people of Iran regardless of their social and political conditions will never turn to these people for guidance and help as they realize that would be the end of their hard earned independence and the begining of a new wave of domination of Iran.

Why is it that Ahmadinejad

Why is it that Ahmadinejad and his like deny the hallucost? He doesn't really think the Jews suffered that musch under Hitler for What Germans did to the Jew s in not really comparable to what Islam has done to the others.Over the last 1400 years, 270 million non-believers were murdered by Muslim jihadists.
Islam destroyed the Christian Middle East and Christian North Africa. It is estimated
that upwards of 60 million Christians were slaughtered during this conquest.
Also, half the Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus murdered.
Islamic jihad also destroyed over 10 million Buddhists.
In other words, Islam is a killing machine.

KouroshS

i think it is you who is changing the subject. certainly the raison d'etre of the UN is not up to the US or IRI. the UN remains what it is and has to be respected as a forum for international dialogue by all parties or we will have nothing left but violence as the mechanism for settling disputes.

as far as i can see it is the IRI that attended and expressed its opinion but a bunch of clowns literally led the west out before people even spoke. and here is the real 'subject': Israel is a racist apartheid state. there is no denying that except for desperate zionist apologists. that it falls to the IRI to make the point is a reflection of the sorry state of international affairs. might pretends to be right, but we know better.

as for your questions, pls tell me what you believe the answers to be. i am not sure i even understand what you mean. i certainly don't choose my beliefs to suit or follow any particular regime. we all know what is right, but some choose to side with the oppressors as they confuse opportunism and overt self-interest with values.

having said all that, i am not blind to the plight of the jews at the hands of european racism before 1945. nobody - well, not me anyhow - advocates for the destruction of israel or driving jews out of israel. the answer is in coexistence and sharing of the land. equal rights for palestinians and jews in the palestinian homeland - and it is the PALESTINIAN homeland - is the necessary compromise today. if they chose to, israelis could be of tremendous help and support to palestinians, especially in setting up a real democracy, unlike the standard arab states.

and to get there, there has to be an agreement to give equal political rights to all. to settle issues through the ballot box. all issues that is.

now, check this KouroshS: as it happens, the IRI is advocating precisely this (or something close to it). are you seriously going to say that Just Because the IRI holds this line on the issue, then it HAS to be wrong? that the answer is NOT in sharing and equality, even in the context of a 2-state solution (that i happen to think is the less practical choice)? what then would you advocate?

is it not conceivable that on some issues at least the IRI can be Right or close to it? is it beyond imagination? why do so many implicitly deny them the mere possibility of being right about some international issues? where does that come from? is it not simply sectarian, condescending and bigoted?

Mr. Bagher zadeh I thank you

Mr. Bagher zadeh
I thank you for your articles and writings, always a pleasure to read.

Mr. Zereshk
You said it brother, sensible and how very true! Thank you!

Niloufar! DOn't change the subject

Promotion of security through Dialouge?? And who has been the most receptive of all countries in the world, when it comes to Having a dialogue?

"those who claim to promote such values have a duty to practice what they preach or they should opt for honesty instead"

Really? That sounds like a very familiar claim iri officials have been making, yet we never see them adhereing to those claims.
Yes, Indeed we have a situation in those
democratic soceities
mass incarceration of innocents in our own country, genocide of the special kind by the leaders, let's give them credit for not subjugating other nations Just yet(It is on the list once weapons are actually obtained).
And they still have the Por-roee to talk about having their grivances heard?

KouroshS

the UN was not set up to ram democracy and freedom down the throats of governments and societies the world over. it was set up to promote human rights and security through dialogue. those who claim to promote such values have a duty to practice what they preach or they should opt for honesty instead. now we have a situation where 'democracies' practice genocide, torture, mass incarceration of innocents, subjugation of whole nations, indefinite occupation of other countries, a fascistic preoccupation with the prevention of the spread of nuclear technology (i.e. the advancement of science) based on utter double standards, and the list goes on. and it has been going on for far too long. when a minority fails to sit down and listen to the grievances of the world in a UN forum on the question of racism and israeli apartheid, it has, so to speak, no leg to stand on.

Peace!

Niloufar

Oh, so It is wonderful to have the right to be heard and to say what one wants unconditionally and without the fear of retribution, isn't it? Democracy is a beautiful thing right? You don't think that a regime who is entitled to its democratic right of being able topresent its view points at The UN, MUST grant the same right to its own citizens and within its own society, so an innocent young man would not lose his life over making jokes about the country's leader? or that all those who have been accused of imaginary crimesshould get access to a fair trial?

Has it escaped your mind, sadly, that it was during the reign of this "Picture of gentleness and diplomacy" that the right to freedom of expression was literally taken away due to a wave of newpaper closures?

Mr. Kaashaanee

Very well said Sir, but tell me where was Iranian progress in technology under fifty years of pro-western Pahlavi regime?  Why Iranian Constitutional Revolution leads to Reza Khan's dictatorship with the full support of the British?  What happened to the Mosaddegh government Sir?  Where is Iraqi peoples' assets and wealth?  Where they stand now?  Were they better off under a murderer like Saddam or now?  Where is the beautiful democracy in Western poppets of Arab World?  If there is some progress in South Korea and Taiwan, Sir, it was because of the fear of falling to communism not because Western powers loved them.  They needed a base there and had to curtail communism and they heavily invested there.  If South Africa has progress, it was because of racist white government which was heavily supported by the West until recenly.  Is the whole mighty continent of Africa South Africa sir?  Where are other African nations?  Are their rulers Moslem?  Are they governed by Akhonds?  Where is huge progress in Latin America with all those military governments supported by the West in fear of Communism?  Look at the White Revolution in Iran.  It is right after the Revolution in Cuba.  The result was that Iran became a huge market for Western products in exchange for oil. By the way, which one of the nations that you brought up to support your stand was under Western Powers' sanction?  Which one is under their military threat? 

Is it Western forces concentrated around Iranian borders or it is Iranian forces who have surrounded Western World?  Who is chanting the slogan of regime change?  Who is showing fangs and claws?  Who is telling the world they would divide Iran according to their plans?  Who is publishing those maps? Who are they to make decision for a nation like Iran or Iraq? 

Historically sir, when a nation is under threat, that nation makes dear sacrifices even takes refuge in cults of matydom and holiness of her kingdom only and only to survive.  The best example Sir is the holiness of kingdom in ancient Iranian culture. 

In 2000 some social movements in Iran started to surface and perhaps was going to get momentum; but invasion of Iraq by Western Allies of Free World and the autrocities they committed there, clearly showed Iranian people that from such an anti-regime social movement not only they will receive nothing but also they will lose the minimum security that they have and they stopped preasurring the ruling government for those reasons.  Do not forget Sir that all freedoms that 1979 Revolution brought for Iran was trampelled after Saddam's invasion of Iran and not before that.  And of course, it is easy to impose a war (do you understand what a war is? If you don't, please refer to the US and Iraqi economies before and after the invasion of Iraq) on a nation for eight full years and destroy its infrastructure and put every kind of sanctions against it, and ask its rulers to build a paradise for its people.  

As long as there is military threat and military invasion of the Western powers against Iran, you will see freedom in your dreams only.  People will not risk their lives to lose everything to fight for freedom while some are sitting in waiting to rob its fruits and impose another dictatorship.  The threat is real and it is taking a toll.  On single example is the huge military expenses that the government has to spend, leave alone territorial claims of some pupet states.  

best

FK: Your last rebuttle was

FK: Your last rebuttle was utterly brilliant. Thanks.

Mr. Azarnia,   Blind

Mr. Azarnia,

Blind anti Westernism is as foolish as any other misguided ideology. You are very much subscribed to that worldview. Prosperous and successful nations at some point move on, unlike you guys who want to hold Iran back for something Russia did 200 years ago, India was occupied too, wasn’t it? Wasn’t S Korea occupied by Japan? Wasn’t America itself occupied by England? Wasn’t South Africa occupied by England? Where are they now and where is Iran? The difference is that they have moved on, and you want us to be stuck and not move. How can someone with the smallest sense of analytical ability justify what IRI is doing in Iran to our country being occupied in the past by Europeans? If IRI knew all that, and wanted a change from that, shouldn’t it be the most freedom loving government in the world? On the contrary, they have taken people’s basic rights and they blame it on America! And their supporters blame it “colonial past”????

The reason I’m saying that what I just said has nothing to do with Iran being occupied in the past by some European. The idea that you bash the West for anything and everything, and the idea to change the subject to European misdeeds is a sign of losing track of what the real issue is. If you are speaking about my other comments, please refer to them and explain how am I putting the Iranian people in the same basket as the IRI regime?

Just a hint here sir, someone like me who calls for a free Iran, cannot be doing that, because if I believe Iranians want the IRI regime, what’s the point of me saying that Iranians want something better and call for a free Iran? I would just leave them alone and claim “well, they support the regime and that’s why they want, so why bother?”. Does that make it clearer for you?

Niloufar parsi

Very well said, I totally agree with you on this.

Try to work for an Israeli

Try to work for an Israeli boss in us company then you get the answer if they ae racist or not.
just see if they treat you fairly even in US under Us laws.
discrimination is everywhere int the world and you can find israeli bosses in us who hire their own people while laying off others including poor americans and persians in particular.
israelies in US ask illegal questions during interviews to find out what your national origin is.
Also in stock options and salary comensations do same.
So i am not surprised if they do discriminate because of race.
but this does not mean mr. anejad is smart./ he is not and he does nto even know how to talk or dress.

hessein aqa

you have stirred quite a debate with your piece. I agree with Abarmard that you lack balance in your position, and your attempt to fix the bias in your comment is unconvincing.

For a start, the UN is precisely there for the very purpose of dialogue and exchanges of views. as you know, this world is not homogenous in terms of reason, beliefs or political ideology. diversity is the name of the game, and the fact that some like you would call the expression of their opinion - which in this case happened to be much closer to 'world opinion' - as 'doshman tarashi' is a clear example of how some try to set preconditions for dialogue. it smacks of 'either with us or against us', and they won't even sit and listen to anyone being against them. then they wonder why they are engaged in so many unnecessary conflicts all over the place. hypocrisy is a term that comes to mind.

then your claim that this latest western reaction to ahmadinejad was 'unprecedented' is baseless. i do not remember a time when the west has reacted in any different way even if they did not make a pathetic and childish theatre out of walking out while being rather aptly led by clowns. i agree in that this may be a new low for the west, but their attitude has always been confrontational. remember that it was khatami - that picture of gentleness and diplomacy - who was labelled a part of the 'axis of evil', not ahmadinejad.

what you miss is the fact that this total lack of basic dimplomacy and disregard for the special status of the UN and the inaliable right of all nations to participate and express their viewpoint within it and without precondition (set by a minority) is what is driving the world away from both the UN and the oppressive policies of the west.

it is not just this new generation of iranians who are fed up with the assymetrical and unsupportable relations among nations today. right across the world there is growing support for iran, not because of its own record on human rights, but because it says what it wants to say without fear. that is what democracy is supposed to be like, and a UN conference is precisely the right place to exercise that right.

i would respectfully suggest to you that instead of applauding the greatest racists of the modern era for childishly walking out of a UN conference on racism, you would do better to keep the focus on the matter at hand: racism, and the fact that there remains an intolerable Apartheid state in our region.

your criticism of ahmadinejad would be better placed where criticism is due rather than when he is expressing the truth in an international arena designed for the purpose.