IRAN-U.S.

McCain should and will bomb the Islamic Republic

It is the right thing to do. It's up to the citizens of Iran to take advantage of this opportunity and once and for all resque themselves from the Mullahs, the leftists, the Mujaheds, the Moosaeqiollahies, ect.

I pray to God that McCain bombs the Islamic Republic and in the process if a couple of millions of the regime supporters, thugs and, the regime beneficiaries die I say all the better!?

God Bless the Republicans and why not?

Attacking Iran?

This is just like Y2K bug with computers. Much a do about nothing! It just generates revenue for the speculators and of course wanna be analysts who want air time.

Thank you donthaveacow!!

Whatever ones' view, likes or dislike of a regime, war is bad for any country and its people. All we have do is look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, including the U.S.A. and even Israel. I don't think the people of any of these countries are happy and satisfied with their situation.

Just look the mess this country is in, burdend with debt, economy is sinking, dollar has lost it's value, trillions of dollars of deficit which the next generation has to pay for. This does not include the many killed from all sides, and others who have been maimed, have psychological disorder, and are displaced; including the American soldiers who have returned home. This does not even take into account the loss of credibility of the U.S. in the international community. The entire word "democracy promotion" is being rediculed!!

Governments are responsible for their own destruction (and of course some with the assistance of foreign influence, but still the responsibility lies with that gov. for being foolish enough to fall into the trap and not pledging their top priority for the welfare and benefit of their own citizens), and this does not exclude the U.S.A. or any regime in any country.

No wonder there is a craze for Obama - because people are fed up with a government which has put them in this mess, and anyone who hints at a potential of another war is discredited, but a few who in every society will always be warmongers. And I say a few because in comparison with the 300MM population those who are voting for McCain do not represent even a slight majority of the American populace.

Iran is not out of danger, regardless of what the NIE report said. Any invasion, or surgical strikes on Iran whether by the U.S. or Israel will be a catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions taking Iran to the stone age. And no Iran is not in the stone age, as many of you may like to portray.

As such, I praise any group, who is making an attempt to tour the U.S. to bring awareness to the current crisis in order to prevent war with Iran.
It is a most worthy cause. By the way, you may not agree with everything that Kinser says, but he is no idiot, neither is Reese.

Some people write books in promotion of war, and others against war. Both profit, but while one is prmoting evil and destruction the other is promoting awareness, understanding, dialogue and peace. I would support the latter any day. Anyway Kinser has written this book a long time ago, it is not new! It might be a new edition of his previous book with the same title.

As to Mr. Baharamrad's question - who cares about what the Pahlavis did; they are long gone and irrelevant to IRAN TODAY!! We can learn from history, but we can't re-live it, nor do we want to.

Past is gone and done with, the present is what we have to work with for a better future for our country and our people.

Prtection of Iran, and the Iranian people should be our number one priority. Sanctions are another form of warfare and only hurt the common citizens of a country.

Thank you Faribors

You are the most sane person of all the people who write on this site. Now I understand why you write like this: BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Luv yu

Hassani xxxx

shah educated the people?

Do you deny that Reza Shah and Mohammed reza Shah were the instruments and the felicitators of modern Schools and universities in Iran? Did they dot send thousand upon thousands to these schools and universities and abroad to get educated?

I suppose you are saying that, since the 1979 you can now write any book and print anything you like without "approval" and get it through the sensors in Islamic republic of Idiots?

Dear warmongers et. al, It

Dear warmongers et. al,

It is rather interesting how some are sitting in the luxury and comfort of their home or offices, or some internet cafe' and being so vigilant. It is not about getting rid of the Stupid Mullah regime. It is about the countless lives which will be lost in a war with Iran just like it has happened in Iraq. It is about the total destruction of the fundamentals of a society. It is about loss of a great civilization. Those who are so angry about this regime, that they are ready to get rid of them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives, should get their collective head out of their rear end and see the light. I guess as long as nobody you know dies, then I guess who cares about the rest of the population suffering. Thinking like this is totally inhumane. I bet those who are so vigilant in attacking Kinser have never done any research in this regard and only show up when it is time to dump on someone who did.

Grow up warmongers. War never fixed anything and it only fuels the nationalistic rhetoric that the mullahs would attach themselves to and use it to unify the people with themselves against the aggressor. If no country attacks Iran, who would these bastard mullah would use as "the great Satan" to divert the attenntion of the masses from their daily problems?

shah educated the people?

The shah of Iran worked hand in hand with 7 US Presidents for 25 years to develop his country from a backward 3rd world county into a prosperous and EDUCATED society.

If the Shah of Iran did that, then why the people revolted against him?
You generalized not me.

Shah educated the people?
YOu couldn't write a book without approval from the Shah's sensors. I guess that is what you call education.

REPLY: to Ayatollah Hassan Kachal of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

I answer your question once and for all with all honesty of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of iran:

No, I had an operation! And may all jealous people go blind, I performed the (transplant) operation myself in front of a mirror, a technique that I learned from the honorable leader of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of iran, AYATOLLAH K..-O-ALLAH KHOMEINI.

gouyand maraa cho zaad maadar,
shiram nadaad-o paroundam ounvar.

Question: DO WE NEED STRANGERS TO SHOU US THE WAY?

And now I answer it for you: STRANGERS ARE SHOUING US THE WAY, the strangers that were imported from the holly Najaf, and wholly Nefle-de-chateau, using their estrange arab religion and strange arab god, imported from arabia when all people of iran welcome them 1400 years ago when the honorable people of iran tired of kaiser persis shahs invited them. Some say that Kaisers were replaced by Hitler, I say so be it. Hitler was a good man and so was his islamic counterpart in ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of iran, AYATOLLAH K..-O-ALLAH KHOMEINI. They both sent all mofsed-o-fel-arz people to hell, or if mistaken to heaven, only on an express lane and free of charge, except for the cost of the bullets, but only in the case of AYATOLLAH K..-O-ALLAH KHOMEINI.

Allready as the Imam(r....) was stil alive I heard from Iran these words: With whom you ever speaks in not satisfied BUT whenever HE calls they come in ZILLIONS. And where on earth are the beings satisfied? every body can make out his own answer.
Greeting

The meme about "Iran has not

The meme about "Iran has not attacked any country for 200 years" is misleading. The implication is that the Iranian government has stayed the same for over 200 years. After 1978, Iran's government and hence it's foreign policy and objectives changed. One needs to read Khomeini's book "The Islamic Government" to see what kind of foreign policy he had set out for the IR.

And it is not exactly true that Iran under Khomeini did not try to wage war of expansion. Khomeini extended the war needlessly for 6 more years despite Sadam's numerous requests to end the war. Khomeini wanted to go to Jerusalme via Karbala. Read the article below in full for more info:

THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT

A Note from Al-Moharer

In response to the enquiries of our Readers about the Iraq-Iran Conflict Al-Moharer decided to republish THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT which was first published in 1981 by “The Institute of Studies and Research” doing so, we believe, will help shed some lights on the present role of Iran in the destruction and occupation of Iraq and its support of the sectarian gangs which were established by the Mullahs, and brought to Iraq by the United States and anointed them to be the “rulers” in the Green Zone, an area of four square miles, in Iraq. The US and Iran may appear at odds, but in reality both share the same ambition in ripping Iraq apart and robbing it from its wealth and distorting its history.

Best Regards

Ibrahim Ebeid,

Co-Editor, Al-Moharer.net

The Arab-Iranian conflict is as old as the history of this region of the world. The historian will not fail to call attention to the fact that the present-day war between Iraq and Iran has broken out between two peoples belonging to dissimilar civilizations, and whose origins date back to the ancient times of Arabia and Persia (1). As history amply demonstrates, the numerous divergences between these two countries are obvious from a purely geographical point of view as well as from the ethnic and cultural traits of their peoples..Much more...

//www.al-moharer.net/iraqi_files/iraq_iran_co...

They were also provocations by the IRI prior to Iraq-Iran war in Iraq where the IRI set a school on fire in Iraq ...more on

//angryarab.blogspot.com

Political Islam in the

Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism
by Samir Amin

//www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm

Most islamic movements are surprisingly skewed in their economic outlook against the very (usually poor) popular base that supports them. And many would cut a deal with the Imperialists.

Iranian Foreign Minister

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki arrived in Lebanon on Thursday to take part in the funeral procession of Imad Mughniyeh

//www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=86...

Fresh from its 1979 siege of the U.S. embassy and the humiliating hostage-taking that ensued, the Islamic Republic of Iran — through the intercession of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — created Hezbollah in 1982. Primarily based in Lebanon, where American forces were massed to calm the bloody aftermath of Israel’s expulsion of Arafat’s PLO, the “Party of God” (Hizb Allah) claimed in its manifesto to be

the vanguard … made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: [Ayatollah] Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!
Over the quarter century that followed, Hezbollah received billions in aid from Iran, as well as aid, logistical support, and safe haven from Syria, with which it works hand-in-glove to strangle Lebanon and wage war against Israel.

Hezbollah’s founding quickly resulted in a spate of kidnappings, torture, and bombing. (See this useful timeline from CAMERA.) In April 1983, for example, a Hezbollah car bomb killed 63 people, including eight CIA officials, at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. More infamously, the organization six months later truck-bombed a military barracks in Beirut, murdering 241 United States Marines (and killing 58 French soldiers in a separate attack). These operations, like many other Hezbollah atrocities, were orchestrated by Imad Mugniyah, long the organization’s most ruthless operative.

On December 12, 1983, the U.S. embassy in Kuwait was bombed, killing six and wounding scores of others. The bombers were tied to al-Dawa, a terror organization backed by Iran and leading the Shiite resistance against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime (with which Iran was at war). The leader of Dawa’s “jihad office” in Syria at the time was none other than Nouri al-Maliki — now the prime Minister of Iraq (and who, having opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, currently squabbles with American authorities, draws his country ever closer to Iran and Syria, and professes his support for Hezbollah). Among the “Dawa 17” convicted and sentenced to death for the bombing was Imad Mugniyah’s cousin and brother in law, Youssef Badreddin. (Badreddin escaped in the chaos of Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.)

Meanwhile, in 1984, Hezbollah bombed both the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut, killing two, and a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force base in Torrejon, Spain, killing 18 American servicemen. On March 16 of that year, Hezbollah operatives kidnapped William Francis Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut. He was whisked to Damascus and onto Tehran, where he became one of the hostages whose detention led to the Iran/Contra affair. Under Mugniyah’s direction, Buckley was tortured for 15 months, dying of a heart attack under that duress.

Hezbollah hijackers seized a Kuwait Airlines plane in December 1984, murdering four of the passengers, including two Americans. Six months later, Hezbollah operatives hijacked TWA Flight 847 after it left Greece. The jihadists discovered that one of their hostages was a U.S. Navy diver named Robert Stethem. They beat him severely and then shot him to death before dumping his body onto the tarmac of Beirut airport. In early 1988, Hezbollah kidnapped and ultimately murdered Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving in Lebanon.

A question for Fariborz

Fariborz jan I repeat a very simple question that I had asked you at the beginning of this year again and hoe this time I get an answer from you (before the JJ "nothing is sacred" censorship kicks in):

Are you naturally Koss Khol or do you make an effort towards it too?

Thanks
HK

Correction, I doubt if even

Correction, I doubt if even a total of 5,000 Iranians and citizens of Iranian origin in different countries support Iran to be attacked and dragged in another foolish war.

5,000(approx.)/72,000,000(approx.) = .000069%

Kinser et al are what I call

Kinser et al are what I call doosti-e-yeh Khaleh Kherseh because they are lazy intellectuals who don't do their homeworks because they seek fame and noteriety first and foremost. Mr. Kinser would you like to elaborate on what issues are you willing to talk about with the mullahs and what grand concessions are you willing to provide to the Islamic Republic or you just want to chat with the mullah for the sake of chatting?

Ladan K, What you stated

Ladan K,

What you stated against starting a war with Iran is the position of, and supported by the MAJORITY of Iranians and also people of Iranian origin outside of Iran (I would guess the percentage is in the approximate 99.5% range).

And the MAJORITY of Americans are against more very costly, inhuman, and very foolish wars (per polls).

And this is of course to the dismay of the blind inhuman fanatics who want Iran to be attacked and another cruel and very costly war to begin (may they be of the EXTREME minority of Iranians abroad, the Chalabi-wanna-bes of different stripes, or the permanent Iranians-in-disguise-only in this site, or the "neo-cons"). Such an act will not benefit the United States of America at all (despite America's military power).

That's why they, the fanatics with a twisted agenda try to discredit anyone who is against another very foolish war, with their sleazy verbal attacks and tactics.

someone who was against America.............

in contrary to many recomendations which i have recieved, I have not read the article. The comment shou that it was right that i just took the title and wrote my comment "folly........" without loosing time reading the article. And i confess my english is misrable and i am not willing to complett my english knowledge. The article is as the comments to it shou full of UNLOGIC.
Question: DO WE NEED STRANGERS TO SHOU US THE WAY? The honourable Iranian Nation, living in Iran do not pay any attention to these meaningsless words. They have other problems and are willing to stand them through. Allready as the Imam(r) was stil alive I heard from Iran these words: With whom you ever speaks in not satisfied BUT whenever HE calls they come in MILLIONS. And where on earth are the beings satisfied? every body can make out his own answer.
Greeting

the enlightened people on

the enlightened people on this tour advocate talks over war (Something we should all be doing). Not because they love the Mullahs so much that they can't stand to see them die, OR because they hate the Shah, but because it is essential to a civilized society, and in the process will bring back a humanity and popularity to the US government that has been shockingly absent as of late.

Since when did advocating peace mean become being an agent of the IRI? When was it anything other than absolutely the RIGHT THING TO DO?

Are they really advocating peace? I hope they are but either they are naive or willfully ignorant. Their version of "facts" are skewed and biase and divorced from realities on the ground both on the US and Islamic Republic's side.

This is nothing but a scam to make profit. If they were really interested in peace, they would tackle the real outstanding issues between the US and Iran. What is this "glorious Talk" suppose to achieve provided that the mullahs are willing to talk at this juncture, which seems highly unlikely given the recent shifts and developments in the power/political/economic structure of the Islamic Republic. The Osoolgara (principled) faction in Iran have purged all the moderates and are on their way to consolidate their power even further. This faction welcomes war because it is the only way that will postpone their internal implosion. Please tell Mr. Kinser, we haven't subcontracted our intellect yet to a two bit journalists like him. His orientalist argumetns are an insult to our intelligence. And he also sucks at being a realist who cannot see past his nose.

Kinser is a fiction writer

Kinser is a fiction writer (using anectodes as facts and using agenda-driven anonymous sources) who had to become journalist to get paid. He has no credibility as a scholar. Where is his book on Iran prior to Pahlavis? Where is his book on History of Clergies iron grip on economic and social power on Iran for the past 1000 years before Pahlavis stripped them of their undeserved power?

Journalist become journalist not just because they want to inform the public, not just factually but philosophically. They demand not merely that their "facts" be accepted without question (though a great many of those are in fact highly questionable), but their judgment and worldview be uncritically accepted as well. They want us not just to take their word as regards their somewhat dubious area of expertise -- reportage of facts -- but they want us to also accept their take, their spin, their belief in how the world works-- and how it should work.

All of these arguments about the need for reporters to report facts are dishonest. Journalist become journalist to shape (and mislead) public opinion in ways they find best for the public good. These people did not get into journalism, after all, to report on 3M's quarterly earnings advisory. They got into journalism to change things in their own worldview.
leveraging their entirely-unrelated qualifications to collect and disseminate raw information into a role they actually desire and feel they are worthy of-- a certified, credentialed priesthood of general wisdom, weighing in expertly on matters of politics, scientific and technological ethical dilemmas, foreign policy and of course military strategy, etc. They conceive themselves as Generic Universal Omniscient All-In-One Experts Without Portfolio, a highly-trained Vanguard of Information which is especially well-equipped to tell the public not only what the facts are, but which facts are important and which should be ignored entirely due to their capacity to "mislead" less highly-trained citizens, and what the public should think of such facts and what conclusions they should draw from them.

No one -- no one -- ever got into the media to report on local car collisions or new and exciting federal farm subsidies.

What they got into the media to do was to tell people how and what to think, and its that prerogative of the Intellectual Aristocracy, and not the unglamorous business of information collection, collation, and dissemination, that they're crying about losing.

Note that they do not dare actually state their belief that they are specially qualified to do the thinking for the American public. They can't say such a thing. The public would laugh at their presumption -- some idiots went to a one year finishing school (and not a particularly academically demanding one besides) and now they have the special privilege of deciding what the public should think about each and every issue?

The rest of don't give a whit how steeply-discounted their dubious expertise is offered -- we didn't subcontract our thinking to them and it will be an unseasonably cold day in hell when America complies with their demands to concede that they alone are capable of doing the intellectual work of democratic governance.

And seriously? Not to harp on this, but really, guys. It's a frigging three semester degree of recent invention and dubious academic rigor. Get over yourselves already, for the love of all that's holy. You're embarrassing yourselves.

You know what you call a guy who couldn't get into med school?

Dentist.

You know what you call a guy who couldn't get into dental school?

Journalist.

I'm sorry, but it's about time you collectively took a more realistic look at yourselves and your ranking in the intellectual/academic pecking order. Graduates of the Kennedy School of Government are dime a dozen in DC, but every single one of them -- every single one -- has more policy-wonkery training and much better policy-analysis credentials than you.

//ace.mu.nu/archives/237750.php

Kinser is an opportunist, as

Kinser is an opportunist, as simple as that. He has no credentials as a scholar to claim anything fact-based on Iran. . His views are contradictions in terms and his agenda transparent. Politicizing suffering of the oppressed Iranians to gain domestic partisan political gains is immoral and bankrupt.

Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism
by Samir Amin

Most islamic movements are surprisingly skewed in their economic outlook against the very (usually poor) popular base that supports them. And many would cut a deal with the Imperialists if given a chance.

//www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm

Re-“warmongers”

Not all those who oppose appeasing Islamist Republic are “warmongers” as not all those who are proponent of it are Islamist Agents. The use of prepackage Islamist line with 200 years not attacking another country (which is technically incorrect with proxy agents Hamas. Hezbollah, etc...), enlightened people talk it out and alike might lull some but there are those who know where it is heading. An atomic armed Islamist Republic will not be tolerated by others and will precipitate untold horrors for the entity we now call Iran and Iranians. That is why some who are not Pahlavi struck, or financially enamored are advocating for helping the Iranians to get rid of this regime before it is too late.

FYI/Photos of Mossadegh In the US

//www.parstimes.com/history/mossadegh_us/

Same goes with the shah and various US Leaders :

//www.parstimes.com/images/shah_kennedy_01.jpg

//iranian.com/Pictory/2003/February/s28.html

 They both visited the same places : Arlington the White house and Washington's Mansion)

A few Observations: Nixon+China= Iran+ Isfahan=Tiananmen ?

Again I think that this initiative is interesting and deserves attention.

That said if the Nixon Administration's warming with China led to a detente in US Sino Relations and reduced the risks of a nuclear confict between two giants. The issue of HUMAN RIGHTS was NEVER solved. China embraced Capitalism but that did not change the dictatorial nature of the regime. The best Example is Tiananmen ( mind you it overshadowed Khomeiny's death) in 1989.

Also the comparison of Iran with China is not entirely true cause Iran is NOT even A Nuclear Power as China Was. So what benefit would America have in restoring diplomatic ties with Iran knowing that the recognition of the current regime by the US would imply normalizing relations with a regime that in both rherotic and practice is supporting Al Queda and upheaval in Iraq ?

The US has the upper hand as far as economic sanctions are concerned. True normalization can diminish the threats of a military confrontation but NOT the risks of Nuclear Proliferation.

The other issue that is troublesome in this approach would be to give credit to the Iranian regime which would on a short term appear as having achieved a diplomatic victory. It will greatly benefit from such a victory particularly back home and would continue to prolong its own existence while it will continue ot suppress political dissidence and violate Human Rights.

Also I personally do not think that the struggle for democracy in Iran should be entirely confused with Dr. Mossadegh's nationalistic struggle for you overshadow the importance of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. The Islamic revolution on the contrary managed to confiscate the ideals of the Constitutional Revolution which was not against the Monarchy as an institution unlike the Revolution of 1979. It also contradicts another point in that I am not certain that Dr. Mossadegh would have supported Ayatollah Khomeiny rise to power for that was not the case of Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar who accepted the post of Prime Minister under the Royal Constitution itself.

See Bakhtiar's speach in LA ( after an introduction by actress Shohreh Aghdashloo):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMvWKRtbs9A 

I wish a peaceful and bloodless solution to not only the Iran US conflict but for any possibility of political reform and transition towards a truly democratic system of government in Iran.

The only reason that would make me support Kinzer and Trita Parsi's initiative is the guarantee that this would enhance the role of Civil Society in Iran and encourage a gradual departure from the political arena of ALL religious statesmen ( Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Khatami etc) regardless of whether they are moderate or not. Obviously moderates would be welcome to enter debates but not to hold or governmental offices. HOWEVER I believe that in doing so you also need to include ALL Secular Democrats in this process and that includes LeftWing and Right Wing parties or sympathizers as well as Republicans AND Constitutional Monarchists. Why the latter ? Because the Constitutional Revolution is an event on which everyone including monarchists and Republicans consider as a major step towards self determination and democracy. Obviously that would mean taking in account the role of Reza Pahlavi as a political figure (however controversial his father's reign has been in the eyes of the Iranian intelligenstia before and after the Revolution) Mind you I said political figure and not Leader.

Unlike his father Reza Pahlavi has embraced both the idea of Human Rights and Democracy and I think that we should not underestimate his political role and utility not as a "catalyst" but as representing a constituency that embraces democratic values but remains attached to the historical institutions which derived from the 1906 revolution.

Mr. Kinzer say's that negotiations are meaningful and useful only between enemies or opponents so that should also apply to  political foes ( particularly if they do not advocate violence or terrorism to achieve that goal) like Republicans and Constitutional Monarchists who differ only on the form of the future democratic government that would prevail in case of an "implosion" of the current Iranian leadership and regime ?

My Humble Opinion,

DK

Dear Warmongers

I also attended one of Mr. Kinzer's talk on this tour, and I have listened to this tape, and no where do I get any impression that Kinzer is pro IRI or Against the Shah. I think we all agree that Shah brought many good things to the country (if with a dash of oppression), and not once have I heard any of the other speakers, Ms. Salvin, Mr. Ellrich, or any of the Generals or Military types on this tour defend the IRI and religious indoctrination. Just because Mossadegh hated the British and (mistakenly) embraced the US as his potential ally, does not mean that the Shah was anti Amercian (Bahramerad).

Quite the contrary, the enlightened people on this tour advocate talks over war (Something we should all be doing). Not because they love the Mullahs so much that they can't stand to see them die, OR because they hate the Shah, but because it is essential to a civilized society, and in the process will bring back a humanity and popularity to the US government that has been shockingly absent as of late.

Since when did advocating peace mean become being an agent of the IRI? When was it anything other than absolutely the RIGHT THING TO DO?

War and killing is a sin in any religion. It is a fact that we Iranians have not attacked another country in over 200 years. (And we're not even a religious people). Let's not force the hands of these undereducated Mullahs and have them ruin our great track record. They need to be made unpopular at a grass roots level. And all this talk of war and killing makes them the more popular underdog.

You may not realize it, but with all this infighting, we are making ourselves unwitting agents of war and terror. And just ask yourselves, who is it who benefits from war?

Follow the money. The real money.

"The Folly of Attacking Iran"

I am afraid Mr. Stephen Kinzer's logic is a little warped and does not entirly add up to anything meaningful.

In the second part of the first tape and the beginning of the second tape — he clearly says that in 1953 - the USA and the British - replaced Mossadegh - someone who was a Democrat and liked all things American - (and he gives the anecdote that when Mossadegh came to America, he asked to go to see mount rushmore because he was in loved America) — and replaced him with someone who was against America.

Well, that is all a load of rubbish.

The shah of Iran worked hand in hand with 7 US Presidents for 25 years to develop his country from a backward 3rd world county into a prosperous and EDUCATED society.

If the Shah was so much against the Americans - what replaced him should have been (by Mr. Kinzer's logic) a new system more democratic and more like what Mossadegh wanted but that did not happened and what replaced the Shah was a the worst kind of anti American islamic Zealots.

The only reason why this man is spreading all these lies is that he is a paid up member of the Islamic republic of Idiots. They are paying him to say all these rubbish and rewriting of a false history because just like Saddam Hussain they are spending millions lining up the pockets of these two bit has beens with oil money.

If you do not believe me — then watch the tapes again and see what a load of bollocks he talks about

" The Folly of Attacking Iran " ...................

..........is prooved by what the Iranians have allready said what they would do and what would happens if.......please acknowledge the following:
IRGC: Iran will confront aggressors
Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:15:47
Head of IRGC being interviewed by Aljazeera.
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Commander Brigadier General Jafari has emphasized Iran will target any aggressor in the Persian Gulf.

"If the Americans decide to make the mistake of attacking us, it's quite natural that we will defend ourselves with whatever arms and strength we have," he said in an interview with Aljazeera.

Brigadier General Mohammad-Ali Jafari also maintained that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian nation demonstrated it will not tolerate any foreign force within the country.

Jafari said the US presence in the Persian Gulf and neighboring countries works to the United States disadvantage.

"We believe we have the might to defeat the Americans in any conflict; we advise them not to make such a terrible mistake."

"The Bush administration is fully aware of this, that they are within range of our artillery and long-range missiles," he said.

He assured the countries of the region that any counter-offensive would only target US forces.
After all one can hope that no more articles about war on Iran are expected any more. Niether those articls which invite the strangers to attack iran nor those which propagate fear, anxiety, dread and terror out of the imagination the not any more so greate satan woul could may and perhaps and actually why not attack iran. That, once playing the role of a greate satan lays in his death bed, is snapping its last air drops and the story is over. Greeting