VIEW

"Q is a writer?"

A writer of what? Of hugely biased, unreadable posts? What publication does he work for? Who signs his paychecks? What books or magazine articles has he written? Or are you saying he gets paid for his post on Iranian.com? If so, by whom? The IRI, Iranian.com, or your aunt sally? 

To say that he's "a writer" is patently foolish, if not laughable. First of all, his style of writing is boderline mediodre to poor, at best. Second, anybody posting comments on this site can say he or she is "a writer." But this guy Q is on this site 24-7 -- he must do this professionally. If so, who does he work for?

Great comment by Artificial Intelligence

Since AI has written an excellent comment, I just have to write that I second his comment.  And please don't say that I am lazy.  I just like AI's comment a lot.

The end of this effed up regime

will mean an end to the Islamists (and their bread & butter) you see posting here. Even some of them who claim to be against this anti nationalist regime still feel that a theocracy is the way to go.

However, these people belong to the Party of Wind (no not fart, but Hezbe Baad) they will lean in the direction of their interest, so when we finally rid oursleves of this cancer, these folks will be the first ones to embarce the new system - Unfortunately, that's one of our main obsticles to sustainable reform and freedom as well.

____________________

IRAN BEFORE ISLAM 

____________________

Dame Q garm (ramin parsa)

I don't care for Mosavi to the extent that I spend any time advocating for him. But dame Q garm that he is acting based on his conviction despite all these vicious attacks he gets as a real person, specially from the well paid AIPAC supporters/employees in this site.

BTW, Q is a writer, if you didn't know. 

Q

Have you no life, seriously?

You seem to be on this site 24-7, churning out these asininely long comments, which most likely, no one reads. Seriously, if you can't make your point in a few sentences, stop while you're ahead. Those of us who are not professional propagandists will skip over your party talking points in a blink.

Didn't they teach you how to be spare in your propaganda prep courses back in Qom?

That goes for you as well, Moosir/Piaz.

Ignore the fake reformist stalkers Fred

Sanctions all the way against this regime. ALL THE WAY! Good read!

Excellent rebuttal Q, even

Excellent rebuttal Q, even though I don't believe in the opposition that is part of and believe in the same system but I whole heartedly believe that any sanction will strengthen the current regime's hand and prolong their rule. I also believe that any military attack will cause Iranians to unit together and even support the regime to fight and repeal the invaders.

I also have the same serious doubt in Fred's sincerity in caring for Iran or Iranians. I like to hear his stand about the war treats that is coming from Israel and where he stands should Israel attack Iran.

Mehrdad

P.S. Since I was going to be accused of being IRI supporter I thought, I might as well take advantage of the use of BOLD characters

Sanctions on IRI...What Sanction !

In my humble opinion .... The only way that Sanctions on IRI will work is the one that the people of IRAN would and should put on the Government of IRI .

This will be done by a MASS STRIKE... and the boycott of all aspects of the regime instruments of repression and governess....

Everything else is hot air and bullshit !

A modest proposal (inspired by mahmoudg)

A modest proposal (inspired by mahmoudg)

thanks Abarmard

Thanks for the clarification. I agree, fortunately the Sharks every now and then bite each other too, they specially like to get some bites off of the the wounded one (U.S)

moosirvapiaz: I think your

moosirvapiaz: I think your argument is beautifully well thought out and brilliant on this and ther other thread about sanctions. I like to hear Fred's response. Thanks.

No Class Fred ...

Fred,

It sounds like you are "Convinced" about a lot of things, that is your progative, though naive !

However superimposing a picture of this Evil S.O.B. (Khamenei) with the Death Mask of Neda Agah Soltan is completely tasteless and insulting to all Iranians.

I think you owe everyone an apology especially Mrs. Agha Soltan .  What are thinking dude ?!!! 

Payandeh Iran, our beloved Ahuraie Fatherland.

dangerous idealism... impatience...

I am convinced that the way IRR is abusing the nation,
disintegration, wide spread armed civil strife and general lawlessness
are not that far off, some of it already exists.

And you think airtight sanctions will not exacerbate these?

I am convinced that due to its nuke and regional interference
policies IRR is imposing a devastating war on woefully unprepared Iran
and Iranians.

What guarantees are there that airtight sanctions will not lead to a devastating confrontation in the region? Shit has been hitting the fan for decades in this part of the world partly due to misguided western calculations.  Today with an unstable Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan, you can bet that a conflict with Iran will turn the region into a ball of fire. Baluchistan is destabilised, Kurdistan area is destabilised... opportunistic ethnic groups will cease the moment and use the weakness and instability of Iran to push for independence.

Or perhaps we will see the strengthened Taliban using its Al Qaeda friends to exploit the Shiite vulnerability and attack "the people who are worse than Jews and Christians" [to misquote one of their leaders recent comments about Iran].

Or perhaps we will see Russia, China, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas etc, seeing theirs interests threatened in Iran and try to counter US influence in Iran by backing the supreme thugs in and out of Iran?

And I can even begin to imagine what would happen to the democracy movement in Iran. 

I am convinced that the opposition to the IRR, both inside and
outside, are opportunistic go with the flow type, therefore do not have
any plan to head off the coming devastation. And even if they had plans
they lack the means to face up to such barbaric regime.

I actually think that it is people like you who have not thought long and hard about the long term consequences of their actions.  I do acknowledge that IRI policy are having devastating effects on Iran and Iranians and spell dire long term effects for Iran and the region. However, I am not convinced that it is worth taking the risk to "attempt" to try and push IRR - and the society with it - over the edge in the hopes that maybe, just maybe 1) IRI will be toppled ( and not latch on to Iran like a "kaneh" as they've been doing for the past 30 years with all the sanctions already in place) 2) we will have secular democracy and freedom soon after (and not revisit the purge that was initiated soon after the first revolution)

 Sorry but no. I'm not playing the game of chance with something as important as Iran's future.

I am convinced former IRR guys, a PM, President and Speaker of
Majles, who are its opposition now as the Persian saying goes are like
the knife’s blade which does not cut its own handle. Their opposition
will not amount to anything meaningful just adding to peoples’ piled up
dashed hopes which will one day explode with devastating consequences.

This has nothing to do with sanctions but I'll bite:

One could argue that it should not be up to people in the diaspora to dictate to the people inside to choose their leaders. If they make a mistake of choosing their opposition leaders, then let THEM democratically make that mistake.You cant simply inject peoples minds with secularism and your ideal values overnight. If tomorrow you overthrow the regime from the outside and install a secular system, don't be surprised if you meet with considerable resistance while doing it.

I am convinced that unless the ruling Islamist system including the
“reformist, pragmatist and principalist” is gotten rid of by the Iranian
people, others with no care whatsoever for Iran or Iranian will do it
and nothing will stop them.

What you are saying is that the people should get rid of this regime themselves. At the same time you are encouraging foreigners - with no care what so ever for iran  as you put it - intervene. Interesting...  You make it sound like if the foreigners respond to your call to put airtight sanctions, they will just back their bags and leave Iran to its people. No my friend, they will be forced to react to the changing dynamic as soon as the sanctions are in place.

I am convinced that IRR is way past its ideological phase and now
depends on paid thugs as opposed to volunteers to do its suppression
operations; less funds will mean far less thugs beating, raping and
killing Iranians which is the basic tactic in any such fight to reduce
the regime’s forces making the it more vulnerable to people power.

You are mistakenly assuming that once we sanction  a) it will not lead to war b) it will not weaken the very people we support to fight the regime. How exactly are you expecting them to fight a machinery that has oil money on its side? 

I am convinced that without airtight sanctions in addition to moral
and material help to Iranians to soften the sanction blow and to quicken
the fall of the Islamist Rapists, war is inevitable.

 Ah, sounds quite familiar, I wonder where I've heard this before... oh right, on you're every other blog post.   Let me just attach the routine response from my clip board:

---

"Criminalizing Consequences of
Sanctions," Peter Andreas, International
Studies Quarterly 49 (June
2005): pp. 335-60.
Read

One of the biggest flaws of the sanctions literature has been the
failure to discuss unintended consequences. Humanitarian costs have been
raised above, but what about other side effects? Peter Andreas looks at
the consequences of the multilateral sanctions directed at the former
Yugoslavia during the 1990s and finds a disturbing legacy. Economic
sanctions, it turns out, can unintentionally contribute to the
criminalization of the state, economy, and civil society of both the
targeted country and its immediate neighbors. By trying to evade the
sanctions, private entrepreneurs and public officials are encouraged to
disregard the rule of law. This fosters an unhealthy symbiosis among
political leaders, organized crime, and transnational smuggling
networks. These criminal networks can persist even after sanctions are
lifted, contributing to public corruption and undermining governance.

"Are Smart Sanctions Feasible?" By
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull. World Politics
54
(April 2002): pp. 373-403.
Read

The comprehensive United Nations sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s
were a humanitarian disaster, leading policymakers to recognize that for
any future sanctions regimen to be politically sustainable its human
costs would have to be limited. Thus was born the concept of "smart
sanctions" -- tailored measures, such as asset freezes, travel bans, and
arms embargoes, that would supposedly target an offending regime while
minimizing collateral damage to the country's population at large. The
question now is whether smart sanctions can achieve significant results
with fewer downsides than more conventional forms of economic coercion.
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull review the evidence and conclude that the
answer is no: "Although smart sanctions may seem logically compelling
and politically attractive, such regimes are difficult to establish and
enforce because of numerous inherent operational problems and the
intricacies of the Security Council's political processes."

kharmagas

When it comes to sanctions, none of the countries can be counted to follow up with it. My argument is that sanctions don't work.

what are you trying to say? (to Abarmard)

"Russia is not trust worthy, nor is China when it comes to billions of
dollars trade. Western Europeans are not much different. South America
and Africa are also within Iranian reach. China is currently building a
refinery in Chabahar and they want to get a healthy return."

What is your point? It appears that some of the sentences in the paragraph have no relation to the others.

Fred Jan

I don't know if further sanctions are the smart thing to do at this juncture. The regime is hated by the people with or without sanctions and will eventually collapse with or without sanctions as well.

Sanctions may make it harder for the people to overthrow the regime and I don't believe that the US can negotiate with China and Russia for crippeling sanctions anyway as they will sell their first born to the highest bidder. That is why sanctions against Iraq were a complete failure and made Saddam, who had the guns, stronger. 

Furthermore, because of our history and Dai Jan Napoleon mentality of Kareh Engelisha bood, Kareh Americahiya bood, Kareh sahyonistah bood, legitimacy of any future regime, that will eventually replace these subhuman slime from the IRI, will be of great importance.

That is why sanctions may be the wrong way to go.

Mr. Fred

Sanctions are in place. You mean harsher sanctions? What do you propose as a realistic approach?

You must realize that Iran cannot be isolated. It is not possible. Countries do not trust one another and believe that if they leave Iranian market or possibilities, the other moves in. Russia is not trust worthy, nor is China when it comes to billions of dollars trade. Western Europeans are not much different. South America and Africa are also within Iranian reach. China is currently building a refinery in Chabahar and they want to get a healthy return.

Here are some problems with some of your arguments:
"I am convinced that the opposition to the IRR, both inside and outside, are opportunistic go with the flow type, therefore do not have any plan to head off the coming devastation. And even if they had plans they lack the means to face up to such barbaric regime."
I do not see any relevance to sanction in that statement. Reading from that point on, you have not put forth any true argument to support your claims that sanctions would be the right path for the people. Sanctions lead to war, not trade. Diplomacy is a good thing because it takes away the biggest weapon of the extremists, which are to blame sanctions for their shortcomings.

I believe that the ultimate debate comes to basics. Here one side could argue that sanctions are a tool to indicate the illegitimacy of a government, but that has not happened historically. The more people are dependent on government and oil money, which sanctions promote, the less chance for the people to bite the hands that feeds them.

Islamist in love with BOLD FONT type

It curious how the IRI supporters and Islamist on the site love to use BOLD type faces!  You see this in most if not all of posts by Q, JalehO, kharmagas, HollyUSA, and the other half dozen or so.

I wonder if they get paid more by word if the words are BOLD.

I didn't mean to exclude you Capt_Ah ...... You are in a class all by your own ....... Yani inke khar pishe to Anishtaneh (Einstein)! 

well said, Fred

you discuss and pointedly bring some every valid arguments, among which are also the big possibility of military strategic and surgical strikes on the regime's assets.  If in the process 200K die, one has to understand, will be the same basij militia and Pasdar commandos who are and were killing our country men in the last 4 months.  they will stop at nothing including a devasting genocide of the magnitude of millions to cling to power.  So all calculations indicate that surgical stirkes if and when diplomatic efforts and sanctions fail, would still bear the least human cost to the nation.

I came to that conclusion 4 years ago

But unfortunately the USA was bing led by cabal of Christian right-wing fundamentalists  who were in reality no morally different than the Iranian fundamentalists  ...

Today the world is facing an economic crisis that is on par with a past world crisis that hasn't been seen since 1929  

Furthermore if Iran explodes into an all out civil war WWIII is not too far behind ...

Interesting opinion of Iranians, Fred

I commend you for formulating your pro sanctions position as anti war. I suppose you have seen the success that a message of peace carries and now would like to adopt it. The problem is that sanctions can only lead to two things.

First possiblity is that further sanctions will be ineffective, much like the sanctions Iran has lived under for the past 30 years. In this capacity they will lead only to isolation and a bunker mentality for not just IRI, but all Iranians. This happened during 8 years of war. This happened in North Korea, Cuba and just about every other 'model'. So only the people will be hurt while the government becomes less open and hostile.

The second possiblity is total sanctions with enforcement. This means for example stopping all imports by force.

The only way this will happen is through the UN which is very remote. The US can't unilaterally stop other countries' companies from doing business with Iran. But even if such a draconian action is taken by the UNSC, it would have to be supported by force. The model of relevance here, of course, is Iraq in the 90's.

If the UNSC action is unlikely UNSC action + troop deployment is impossibility. This now means that US troops will have to do the enforcing if anyone at all.

Now, I'm sure you are smart enough to understand that this is a declaration of war. That is why, I have to conclude that you are not truthful when you say you are against war or you are trying to avoid war.

The next point is the disheartening and undemocratic position that "Iranians can't do anything." What you and other hawks were saying before the emergence of the Green movement was exactly the same. No scenario put forward by your or people in your camp foresaw the kind of mass uprising that was delivered in the months after the election. For you to conclude now, exactly as you had before, that:

opposition will not amount to anything meaningful just adding to peoples’ piled up dashed hopes which will one day explode with devastating consequences.

is either severely miguided and ignorant of the facts, or an opportunistic attack on the only force with any legitimacy to bring any kind of change to the Iranian government.

My last point is about the nuclear issue. When reading your position in this regard, I can't help but think you're almost more worried about other countries than those of Iran.

It may not be popular, but it is an absolute slippery slope to say that IRI will develop weapons, and even more fantastic will start a war after that.

Surely you have read every single credible expert that says Iran's insistence on nuclear self-suffiency is defensive in nature. Surely you've seen the analysis that says Iran's oil will be more valuable in the future and unless domestic consumption is cut, not much of it will be available for exports.

Even the people claiming Iran really wants to go toward nuclear weapons, or at least a nuclear-horizon-ready scenario always emphasize that this would be to compensate for Iran's fragile conventional arms and that is it as a result of western encriclement of Iran. Please show me one good analysis from a reputable sourcde (sorry no "NewsMAX"), that claims Iran wants nuclear weapons so it can go to war.

You did not say it here, but you have said elsewhere that if Iran get's nukes the IRI will not fall. (Here you have shifted to IRI will impose a war on Iranian people.)

Surely you understand that this scenario, even if credible (which it isn't right now), cannot possibly be used against the Iranian democracy movement or any kind of internal regime change.

IRI can't use nukes to stay in power. That is preposterous. It can't nuke Tehran to get rid of protestors. Nukes are meaningless to this discussion if you're concerned about a legitimate democratic regime change. They are however, very important if you are talking about a military attack or forceful take over of Iran.

That's the only situation where having nukes makes a difference. And that's why I say you are not worried about Iran, you are worried about other countries' ability to wage war against Iran.