Farhad Kashani

Kashani,

Kashani, politically you are and have been in the far right. Stating that is neither an insult nor a complement.

Anonym7, If you're trying

Anonym7,

If you're trying to insult me by calling me an "ultra-right-winger", well, I don't consider subscribing to any ideology an "insult". If you're trying to to describe my ideology, you're wrong! So, both ways, again, you have shown that you simply don't get it!!

Also, your "IRI ideologue" Islamist Socialist partner, is acknowledging that other factors and players were involved in some of the mistakes of the Bush era. Although, he is using propaganda, again, and falsifying realities, again, but at least acknowledging someone else's role is a good start as far as you IRI supporters are considered!

Did you have too much doogh again!!!??

Anonym7

Well put sir,
I always say, worse than an outsider who propagates booming of Iran are those MASALAN Iranians(not deserving the name) who lend their pathetic voice and call for DESTRUCTION of Iran and KILLING of their own brothers and sisters.

happy holidays sir
-YT

you sure lost your "valuable" time!

Kashani says: "..but we lost valuable time in the last 8 years.."

Yes Kashni, I am happy to tell you that you and other ultra-right Iranians who were enthusiastically waiting for Mr. Bush to wage a war against Iran lost your "valuable" time.
Kashani_jAn, I am going to have a drink, celebrating your disappointment!

I agree, the kind of anti-Bushism that was practiced was wrong,

misguided and ineffective.

The Democrats chickened out. Except for a very brave few, they did not question the manufactured BS known as "War on Terror." They toed the line with Afghanistan. When time came to invade Iraq, the democratic leadership cowered to the Bush line for fear of being called traitors. Many Americans did that as well, and they all should be ashamed for prolonging this regime.

The fault was definitly clear. People "accepted a picture" of Bush that was false. This picture said: "This guy is just doing his best and we should support him."

Only much later when it was inescapable that Bush was an absolutely incompetant and criminal nightmare for America did they step up to the plate, but even then having agreed with too many of his policies in the past out of fear, they could not mount an effective challenge.

So yes, that kind of anti-bushism was definitly misguided, and as a result Bush is walking away free having committed mass murder and destroyed 3 countries in the process, instead of being impeached and sitting in a jail cell where he belongs.

YT aziz, Point taken

YT aziz,

Point taken dear.  

Report: Gonzales and Rice lied to congress about Iraq intel

Master Farhad,

I must make a clarification so there is no misunderstanding between us. As a registered Democrat, I do respect your choice of political polarity. What I have posted and am about to post here, are by no means to question your political alliances, no matter how different they may be with mine. Allow me to bring the following report to your attention:

Report raps ex-White House pair on Iraq claims.

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer – Thu Dec 18, 10:25 PM

[..WASHINGTON – Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales misled Congress when he claimed the CIA in 2002 approved information that ended up in the 2003 State of the Union speech about Iraq's alleged effort to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program, a House Democrat said Thursday.

In a memo to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he chairs, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., also expressed skepticism about assertions by then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that she was unaware of the CIA's doubts about the claim before President George W. Bush's speech.....]

[..Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium was one of the justifications for the Bush administration's decision to go to war. The claim has since been repudiated...]

I have to mention that the above report states that Republican party does not endorse the report.

//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_go_co/ir...

I also have to make it clear that I do NOT condone atrocities that are committed by ANY extremist group, in any shape or form, and under any guise. Whether being political, religion or any other [justification]. However, one MUST look deep within a society, and their interdependence with the other nations, friend or foe alike, in order to truly understand the underlying geopolitical and social issues that lead to such acts of violence.

Have a wonderful day

-YT

Dear YT,   With all due

Dear YT,

With all due respect my dear friend, correct me if I’m wrong here, but your points are:

1-     Just because Islamic Fascists don’t call themselves “Fundamentalists”, we shouldn’t be calling them that either?

2-     Let’s ignore Islamic Fundamentalism, because the threat it poses equals to “Socialist Fundamentalism” or “Capitalism Fundamentalism”?

3-     So it’s the Western Media that got bored and had "a hidden agenda" (as everyone does in our mind!!) and invented Islamic Fundamentalism and not the following that actually happened:

The rise of a Fundamentalist regime in Iran that declared war on civilization as we know it, the rise of Taliban and the hundreds and thousands of different small and big Islamic groups that killed and are killing mass people with suicide bombing and car bombings and decapitation and execution and other “non-fundamentalist!! Means”  in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, S Arabia, India, Bali, Philippines, China, Turkey, Syria Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritanian, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Madrid, London, New York, DC, ….and taking world security and human rights values with them down the toilette? Western Media should shut up and not talk about that, because its “Islamo Phobia” and “Muslims feeling get hurt”, and instead they should talk about “Socialist fundamentalism” that is doing the same exact things in the same exact countries and elsewhere??

Interesting!

Mammad,   1-    

Mammad,

1-     Ok lets compare Pakistan to Iran even during Ziaul haq. Did Pakistan enforce Hijab on its women? No, IRI did. Did Pakistan ban music and t-shirt not sanctioned by the government? No. IRI did. Did Pakistani “basidj” jumped into marriage ceremonies arresting men and women for not “adhering to Islamic law”? No, IRI did. Did Pakistan government stated a goal of “exporting its Islamic revolution to the world”? No. IRI did. Did Pakistan started an irrational animosity between Pakistan and the rest of the world, and mainly U.S and Israel? No. IRI did. Did Pakistanis flee the country in millions after and because Ziaul Haq came to power? No. IRI did. And the list goes on. So see my friend, Pakistan was a different model. People, till today don’t talk about Ziaul Haq being the “godfather of Islamic fundamentalism”. Although it “declared” an Islamic Republic, it wasn’t really one. You know where else is an Islamic Republic? Mauritania. And in that country, there are night clubs which serve alcohol. You might recall the Islamic Fundamentalists attacking one of them killing people. So, again, let’s get real and let’s get objective.

2-     Not sure what your point is. Many countries helped the Mujahedeen, including Iran. So what’s your point? That its OK for them to come around and bite the hand the fed them? Also, didn’t you read my comment about different powers becoming allies in the face of a greater enemy? IRI and Taliban are not the same as all the Mujahedeen who fought the Soviets. Do you think Secular Afghans stayed home and it was only Mujahedeen who fought the Soviets? No! Again, what’s your point?

3-     How on earth could an alliance between Mujahedeen and the U.S inspire UBL to rise to form an Islamic state and follow the death culture that Khomeini introduced? What are you even talking about????!!!!

4-     Is U.S supposed to be the godfather of Afghanistan? Hold on here, aren’t you guys blame the U.S non-stop for interfering in other people’s affairs?? So, now that it did NOT interfere, it should get blamed too? What about Afghans taking responsibility for their own country? They’re not to blame? They’re not human capable of thinking for themselves? I mean what is this irrational hate you guys have towards the U.S!!!?? This is ridicules, really! Its not healthy at all.

5-     Mammad, I disagree with most of what you say, but, what you said in point 5 is really taking it to another level. How can you try to make such an outrageous claim that the West didn’t do anything about Bosnia? Mammad, when people re-write history, its usually for ancient times, or at least half a century ago. How could you make such an unbelievable claim when it hasn’t even been that many years since the Bosnian intervention by NATO and U.S? I mean do you sincerely think that people have forgotten? Simply outrageous Mammad, I am really shocked!! I’m speechless. You just have shown what your arguments are all about. I’m glad that you are making such claims, trust me.

Calling you a leftist is not an insult so long you remain civilized in your discussions and be objective. We can disagree on who the Mujahedden’s are and U.S role in different issue, that’s fine. I’m a liberal, and proud of it, and will always be one. So, please don’t think I’m insulting you. However, LEFT IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. Leftism takes many basic rights away from people, and undeniably, it has proven its ineffectiveness, and also it’s utopian, at best! Leftism showed almost all the time it leads to tyranny and it leads to poverty, intellectual backwardness, failure of societal institutions, failure of economy and the creation of many social illnesses.

Liberalism is progressive. Democracy, Free Market and Rule of Just Law.

What is FUNDAMENTALISIM??????

I keep seeing everyone, particularly gentleman of the author, use the term FUNDAMENTALISM so loosely and so applicably( so it seems). With all due respect though, I am not certain if the real meaning of the term is so clear for everyone. Allow me please:

Every ideology, whether economic, political, familial or religious, is based on certain characterizing features or the least common denominators so to speak. These features of a given ideology are its fundamental principles.Logically, then, fundamentalism would mean an attitude, an effort or a movement which adheres to or tries to promote these fundamentals.

For instance, when we speak of a free market economy and private ownership of property, we describe the fundamentals of modern capitalism; and those who conduct their economic affairs accordingly may aptly be called capitalists.

When we talk of the government of the people, for the people and by the people, we point out the fundamental principles of modern Western democracy; and those who practice and promote this form of polity may be called democratic people or nations.

Also, when some believe in the principle of Trinity and the Gospel as the inspired word of God, they are declaring the fundamental principles of Christianity and are known as Christians.

Described in these terms fundamentalism's means the core of all what the adherents of an ideology believe and are expected to practice. However, what appears to be surprising is that we never hear of democratic fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism, socialist fundamentalism or secularist fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism in America has a history and a character of its own. but, when secular media pundits and the power elites who are wary of fundamentalism in their own midst, speak of Islamic fundamentalism, it makes one wonder. A survey of the Muslim world, past and present, would show that among Muslims there is not and there has not been a group or a sect which called itself fundamentalist.

Question that comes to mind is, does ANYONE know of ANY Muslim group or sect which calls any other Muslin group by this name? Or Does anyone know of any Muslim sec or school of thought which even remotely resembles for instance Christian or American Fundamentalism???
Lastly, is anyone aware any Muslim party or a movement which is in cahoot with ANY fundamentalist movement.

Heightened concern in the West about the Muslim world coincides with the demise in the mid 1980's of the Soviet Union, the socialist giant which remained a bogy for the Western powers for almost fifty years in the 20th century. With the socialist specter out of the way, it seems that the Western elite must before too long find another demon to exorcise; and what could be a better target than the good old sick genie of Islam, which, far from refusing to die, shows disturbing signs of life every now and then.

It is in the light of this observation that one may understand what looked like utter hypocrisy on the part of the European powers who, while shedding crocodile tears nonetheless allowed the events of mass murder, "strategic rape" and Muslim ethnic cleansing to go on unabated in Bosnia through four tortuous winters of 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. This may also explain why when after their liberation from the socialist regime, people are redecorating and making new churches all over Eastern Europe as well as in Russia, such acts are hailed as being the signs of resilience of Orthodox religion; and yet when the newly independent Tadjiks, who after centuries long extremely oppressive rule of the Czars and the Soviets, now want to rebuild their old mosques, once famous centers of learning, they are labeled as Islamic fundamentalists and massacred in thousands by the heavily equipped Russian troops, who do not have any sovereignty over the region any more - an incident that not even the nosiest Western reporter cared to report.

I ask you......But, why all this Western paranoia about Islamic revival? Is it a danger to world stability and Western civilization? "And should one look under every bed for Muslim fundamentalists the way some people (sometimes the same people) used to look for communists in the good old bad days of the evil empire?"

//www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/myth.htm...

Hypocrisy at its ugliest form.

Respectfully
-YT

FK

I respond to your comment once and move on. Let's see:

1. In 1977, two full years before the Iranian Revolution, when there was no sign of the IRI, General Zia al-Hagh overthrew, with the US support, the democratically-elected government of Zolfaghar Ali Bhutto, hanged him, established the FIRST Islamic Republic of the world, changed Pakistan's Constitution to a reactionary interpretation of Sharia.

Then Saudi Arabia, the Wahabis who hate Shi'ites and do not even consider them as Muslims, and the close US ally, poured money into Pakistan to start all those Madrassa that became breeding grounds for Wahabi extremists.

Osama ben-Laden was, at that time, part of the Saudi establishment. All those events did not inspire him!!

2. Then, the Soviets invaded. US ally Saudi Arabia that hates Shi'ites, provided the funds. Pakistan's ISI, another US ally, trained the Afghan Mujahedin, including OBL, and the CIA provided the weapons. That did not inspire OBL!!

3. Reagan strongly supported the Mujahedin. Some of them were invited to the White House. He called them the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." That did not inspire OBL!!

4. The Soviets were defeated and retreated. But, the US and the West also left Afghanistan, and did not care. Then, they imposed the harshest sanctions on Iraq, after Iraq fought Iran on the West's behalf. At least 500,000 Iraqi Children died of mulnutrition. Madeleine Albright stared into TV camera, and said that it is worth killing all those children to get rid of Saddam. Those events did not inspire OBL.

5. Muslims in Bosnia were left to themselves. Hundreds of thousands of them were murdered in ethnic and religious cleansing, while the West did not move a finger. And why? Because Bosnia does not have any OIL. But, of course, the WEst invades Iraq, and defends Kuwait. Hey, they do have OIL. Only when the killing fields got really bad, the West finally intervened. These events did not inspire OBL!!

But, hey, he was inspired by the people whom he hates, has attacked, and will attack!!

I have done my research. You need to stop revising the history. But, I suppose since it is only YOUR history, and not anyone else's, it is harmless!!

You also do not need to call me a leftist. Long ago, I volunteered to say so. I was a leftist, I am a leftist, and I'll die a leftist.

Left stands for social justice. Left stands for universal health care. Left is for affordable education and housing. Left is against exploitation of the poor. Left is against imperial wars, such as Iraq war. Left is against colonization of Palestine. Left considers human rights as universal values, hence defending human rights EVERYWHERE, not just Iran.

THEREFORE, LEFT IS PROGRESSIVE.

Mammad

Farhad

I too am having a hard time understanding why anyone would call you a Bush supporter.  Apparently one must hate him with every fiber of their being and deny anything decent about the man to be able to be considered a human being.  You've stated plain and simple your distrust and distaste for him as man and president.  But that's apparently not enough.  I despise him.  I despise him for the weak human being he is and for the evils he's brought to the US and the world.  But god almighty... he's hardly a demon straight from hell.  Why everything has to be "compared" is beyond me.  You're either a Bush supporter or an IRI supporter... nothing inbetween.  And that is just plain wrong.  Nothing and nobody is 100% evil or wrong.  This blind anti-Bushism is not constructive OR productive for America.  Time to get past it. 

I wonder what it's like day in and day out to wish for war

Seriously, especially during this god awful time in America. What's it like to be biting your lips and yanking at your pants for a war over a fake nuclear issue? Stressful? jeezuz. Who cares about a friggin grand bargain? I'd rather end this stupid cold war and establish peace and let iranians travel and trade and start a real movement for change than wait for some neocon israeli to promise change. they don't exactly have a good track record of delivering on anything they promise. 

Freaky Fred, Bush is going to open a policy institute at that all important genius factory Southern Methodist University. You should totally send your resume!! Maybe you can start the Iran war there? 

Mammad,   Doing a

Mammad,

Doing a simple research never hurted anybody. I sincerely encourage you to do that next time when you are citing historical events so you don’t look “unaware” of what really happened.

1-     Not being able to see a direct correlation between what happened in Iran and what Khomeini introduced and how it got spread throughout the Islamic world after 30 years of the Islamic regime, on your part, is mind boggling to me. I’m still not sure why none of you few Iranians who discharge the fact that IRI inspired and initiated the culture of Islamic fundamentalism, never wanna talk about it. Look, its simple. Khomeini introduced this idea that you can rise in the name of Islam and gain power and apply Islamic laws. That was what he called “exporting the revolution”, a policy that is still very alive. Many people in the Islamic world accepted this idea, and followed in Khomeini’s footsteps. Here’s what you need to understand Mammad: they didn’t have to “love” Iran or love “shites”. Also, whats really important to understand is that Khomeini introduced himself to the Islamic audience as a non-partisan (if you will) figure, meaning, he didn’t believe in shite and sunni, he believed in one Islam. Off course he didn’t say that to his domestic audience, as matter of fact, Sunnins in Kurdistan and Balouchistan and elsewhere are deeply oppressed by this regime. In Tehran, they’re not even allowed to have a mosque. And that’s where IRI propaganda machine, which for some odd reason you guys intentionally or unintentionally tend not to take seriously, was so successful, and it is till today. Please go visit any Arab country and talk to the people on the streets and asked them about Khomeini. Most of them, not all, consider him an “Islamic” figure, not a “shite” figure.

Going back to what I said about research, you know who else besides “Farhad Kashani” said UBL is inspired by IRI and Khomeini? Guess? UBL himself!! In his early days. So, please get real. Just because a few leftists like yourself wanna blame things instantly on America, doesn’t mean the whole world are not starting to wake up to what really happened

Islamist's contradictory oddities

The Islamist who as of late is billing himself a “progressive” in an amateurish defense of the Islamist republic says:

“Thus, Saudi Arabia paid for it, the CIA supplied the weapons, and Pakistan's ISI, under dictatorship of US-supported General Mohammad Zia al-Hagh (Haq), trained the Mujahedin to fight the Soviets. There was no Taliban at that time. Osama ben-Laden belonged to the Mujahedin. President Reagan called him and the Mujahedin "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

He further states:
 “The Taliban and Osama's had a lot in common: They both hated Iran, the US, etc. Unlike what Farhad Kashani says (he is practically the only one who says this), neither Taliban nor ben-Laden's group was inspired by Iran or the Iranian Revolution. They got their training and inspiration from Afghanistan's war, and then were angry that the US had "occupied" the Arab land.”

Islamist nuke defender needs to elaborate on this revelation of his. He needs to explain away the fact that the biggest of  the “mujahedin” leader who got the bulk of the CIA supplied, Saudi financed and Pakistani delivered arms and funding, one Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a rabidly anti Shiite Pashto,  was the guest of the  Islamist republic all the years that the Taliban were in power. As the Islamist says Osama “belonged “to Mujahedin, wouldn’t it be logical to connect him to the Islamist republic too? What about the Fort Mead communication intercept of the Osama gang, his sonny boy and number of commanders, originating from the Islamist republic? Isn’t the same Brzezinski the academic and otherwise mentor of a certain lobby head who has such connection to the Islamist republic that they chose him to deliver the unsigned “grand bargain” fax that the Islamist is talking about?

For now these contradictory oddities sampler should suffice.

Jamshid

You asked IranDokht an excellent question. Allow me to express my thoughts.

The leftist regime in Afghanistan that overthrew Mohammad Zaher Shah in 1973 was, in my opinion, progressive (before the Soviets invaded), in the sense that it tried to change the fuedal society of Afghanistan. When the Soviets foolishly invaded Afghanistan, Cold War warrior Zbigniew Brezezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, decided to pay the Soviets back for their support of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

Thus, Saudi Arabia paid for it, the CIA supplied the weapons, and Pakistan's ISI, under dictatorship of US-supported General Mohammad Zia al-Hagh (Haq), trained the Mujahedin to fight the Soviets. There was no Taliban at that time. Osama ben-Laden belonged to the Mujahedin. President Reagan called him and the Mujahedin "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

When the Soviets were defeated in 1989 and forced to leave, Afghanistan went in a huge chaos, and wars among various fuedal warlords. The West's, and particularly the US', fault was that as soon as the Soviets left, they also lost interest in Afghanistan.

Pakistan considers control of Afghanistan as part of its national security. Thus, the ISI took advantage of the chaos and the political vacuum, and created Taliban to control Afghanistan. Some of the Taliban were former Mujahedin. The rest either went back to their countries (they were called Afghan Arabs), or joined Osama ben-Laden who was forming his terrotist group and turning his attention to the US. 

The Taliban and Osama's had a lot in common: They both hated Iran, the US, etc. Unlike what Farhad Kashani says (he is practically the only one who says this), neither Taliban nor ben-Laden's group was inspired by Iran or the Iranian Revolution. They got their training and inspiration from Afghanistan's war, and then were angry that the US had "occupied" the Arab land.

Now, while arming the Mujahedin might have been the legitimate thing to do, particularly in the context of the Cold War (I do not believe it was legitimate, but I can see how other people might think so), leaving Afghanistan to the fuedal warlords after the Soviets had left (and in fact the Soviet Union collapsed 2 years later partly as a result of the internal stress caused by the Afghan war) was one of the worst mistakes of the West, and particularly the US. 

Had the West not abandoned Afghanistan, and helped reconstruction of the country, and had the West prevented the ISI and Pakistan's military to form the Taliban, the situation would have been completely different today. It would have been very likely that we would not have had the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Mammad

Bijan A M jaan, Thanks

Bijan A M jaan,

Thanks for your support and please, continue standing with the people of Iran against Islamic fundamentalism.  

Dang...

Who let all these Neocon-Ommatists out today!!!

Mr. Nourai & Mr. Parthian

Thank you both so very much for your eloquent and to the point initial posts. I appreciate Mr. Kashani's blog and agree with his analysis. Many posters here are filled with so much hate that they ignore the fact that a war has been declared against the United States and those who declared the war continue to fight it. For any administration to underestimate this enemy or be complacent is an act of treason that would risk many innocent American (or other freedom loving nations) lives.

Gentlemen, you made  your points so clearly, please do not dignify (out of courtesy) the prejudiced ,nonsensical and many times irrelevant comments of some posters with a response. Clearly the usual suspects are looking for excuses to churn the propagande machine.

Kaveh one more thing my Republican Rex

9-11 did not happen because the United States was not fighting fundamentalism. It happened because were were INVOLVED with it directly, first supporting then abandoning. This is one reason I really hate Saudi Arabia. If anyone deserves (stink) bombs, it is the saudis. I can't believe they get away with murder(s). Afghanistan and Pakistan is a waste of time. Doncha think? This is why I hate the Conservatives hating on electric cars and hybrid. I wish I could stop using oil and fossil fuels. It has less to do with global warming and more to do with starving the Saudis.

Re: Irandokht

In your last comment, you implied that Americans supplied weapons to Osama. I think you meant the Taleban, going as far back as to even the 80s. Of course this is a well known fact.

Was that a bad thing the US did in Afhagnistan or was it a good thing?

Kaveh is dangerous

Sometimes I read what you write and I wonder why we vote differently. You're right that Saddam had a big role in his own downfall. I agree. Listen I have a secret, I am very happy that Saddam was found in a hole in the ground. Did you know that the intelligence officer who got him, did not have to torture informants to get his whereabouts? That's my problem with Bush. It's not so much this "war on terror" but the way he is conducting it. No one is disputing that Taleban and IRI is bad. Can we move past that? That's my problem with Farhad et alia. THAT is why Bush deserves an anti-bush movement. We could have gotten flowers and candy. 

Second, I dont know about Double You revering his father. If my best buddy Maureen Dowd is right, they have lots of conflict and Oedipal issues. 

One more question for you, while you're posting here, do you support legalizing the opium industry in Afghanistan? I think it's a great idea since it is funding the armies against America. 

Pro-Israelis will never admit

That Israel is the largest manufacturer of human killing weapons and that it need customers. They never admit that collossal intentional disasters were created by them and their allies only and only due to their insanity and their lopsided view of the world. Their statement is that we wear suit and tie and they don't, therefore, they are terrorist and we are civilized, ignoring the fact that by far the biggest, most devastating weapons of mass destruction is in their hands and they have used it purely for a psychotic form of fun (nobody has proved that the Japan nuclear attack was even vaguely necessary). Those supporting Israel's official stance (such as the writer here) only want one thing today - demonize something called IRI and use that as an excuse to destroy Iran. They flatly refuse to give a clear definition of what IRI is. Or "Saddam." What was this "Saddam" thing you guys talk about? Was it not someone CIA and Mosad brought to power?

......

......poof . oops.. uhmmm ..never mind

Of Cyber wars and delusions of grandeur

Yes there were folks 30 years ago who thought they were the militants for truth and justice and branded any detractor as the vocabulary of those days went "Taghooti", "Monfael", "Khaen", "bourgeois", "doshman-e khalgh", "Kaakhneshin", "Raahat talab" and so on.

They were fully confident of their righetous stance and their glorious struggle. And always believed the light at the end of the tunnel being just around the corner to keep struggling.

And they are, if still alive, mostly living very different lives now. Perhaps still reticent to admit their folly and delusions of glory, but the awovedly sincere younger diaspora generation folks talking here on this thread may do well to keep those failures in mind. Otherwise they fall into the same trap of divorce from reality and living in a fantasy world of angels and demons and easy cyber-militancy.

Oh My Indigo Coiffed Drawing With Signs of Jaundice

First of all, I thank you for the compliment. I'm sure it made a few people cringe to read it, just as much as you had to possibly force your lunch to stay down typing it. :-)

You said this time I'm wrong. Funny, I don't remember you ever saying I was right!  LOL

I'm with you in thinking there was an element to this that was personal. Junior reveres his father and I'm sure that played into it.

But, Saddam was an enemy. Yes, Rumsfeld visited him, shook his hand, and probably brought him a chalupa from Taco Bell, too. They used him like a Kleenex, got what they wanted from him and that was that. Except, Saddam wasn't happy when he learned the boys at CIA dropped him like 3rd period French then wrote on  the men's room wall, "For a good time, call Saddam for a moustache ride at 1-800-FELAFEL".

He goes into Kuwait and starts his crap, knowing the U.S. would get angry. He brought about the upheaval in his own country thinking that he could get the U.S. to pay him to be a good boy. His greatest vice was U.S. currency.

Anyway, Saddam played a huge role in his own downfall. He could have very easily prevented a U.S. invasion based on the WMD pretext if he had come clean. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that absolves Bush for going in.

If I wasn't clear about the cells, then, "oops, my bad." I was referring to either possible cells in the U.S. or their contacts or financial support. 9/11 blindsided the U.S. These 19 animals were all living here for a while, blending in (sort of). The Feds did whatever they had to do to learn as much as they can about something that until now the've really been oblivious to.

I'd like America to worry about America too. But at the same time, make sure nothing like 9/11 ever happens again, anywhere.

Republicans failed because they moved far away from the conservative platform that they were built on. As for fighting for Israel, that's been a Democratic Party staple for God knows how long. The U.S. Jewish lobby owns the Dems. The number of Jews who are Republicans are really low.

IRANdokht jaan,   No

IRANdokht jaan,

No dear, you didn’t frustrate me at all! Maybe I needed to explain it better!

As far as your first reply, when it comes to Afghanistan, please understand aziz, did the U.S give arms to UBL and other Mujahedeen to come back and use them against itself? obviously not. As you know, in world politics, there are always alliances formed between different ideologies to fight a greater enemy. Examples are communism – capitalism alliance against the Nazis in WWII, US- Afghans (not just the fundamentalists, but all Afghans, like Ahmad Shah Masoud) against USSR, and Leftist – Islamists alliance right now against, well, pretty much everyone else, but mainly U.S, like Chavez  and IRI.  So just because the U.S gave them arms to fight the Soviets doesn’t mean its U.S fault. If anything, it makes the Islamists ungrateful (as they are) in biting the hand that fed them, don’t you agree? And also, how hard is it really to get arms these days? There is a huge arms black market out there, they don’t have to rely on U.S arms. Another thing, what did the 9/11 hijackers or Khobar bombing or Tanzania/Kenya bombing or first WTC bombings or current Afghan suicide attackers use to carry out their mission? Obviously not U.S made arms provided to the Afghans in the 80s, rather, they use home made bombs and box cutters.

As far as your second reply, dear, aziz, maybe I should’ve excluded your name from that other posting. As you know, I don’t’ care whether you are anti or pro Bush, as long as you are anti IRI, that’s good enough for me! So I consider you to be on the Iranian people side, and on my side, but if you feel otherwise, I am sorry. We need all the people who care about Iran and fighting the IRI regime in order to liberate Iran, to unite. I distinguish between you and other guys like Annym7, and Q, and Baba, and smhb and all the other blunt IRI supporters. Like this guy Q, and this is to show what we’re dealing with here, he calls a system in Iran which 1- Has an unelected ruler, which is for god’s sake not even called “president”, who he says is elected “indirectly”, which begs the question if he’s elected indirectly, why is he A – in power, unchallenged for 20 years now B – What “indirect” mechanism are in place to remove him C- What direct or indirect mechanism are in place to elect his successor, 2- a system that speaking out against that unelected medieval religious leader is banned by law and practice, 3- a system that doesn’t allow private media, satellite, 4- A system that speaking out against religion, faith, god, leader, armed forces, the 12 imams, the profit, and the list goes on, punishable by prison, in many cases death 5- a system that is proud of applying medieval religious law just, in many cases worst, than the dark ages in Europe, ……and again, the list goes on….he calls that system “ democratic”!! I mean let’s stop and think here for a second and see what type of propaganda machine we’re dealing with here!! So , again, we need to unite. Please join us. I don’t put you in the same basket as the other ones aziz.  

Kaveh

I love debating with you, even though we disagree. Iranian.com ought to have a "friendslist" because I would add you and track your comments. They're interesting, but this time, you're wrong. Bush DID want the war. I think that the locations of the "cells" in Iraq (Afghanistan isn't the topic here anyway, but I can see where you're coming from) were interesting to say the least - they were in Kurdish regions. You know why? They were exploiting the angry Kurds who were being oppressed by Saddam. So actually those Talebani freaks were anti-Saddam, so to say that Saddam was our enemy was mistake 1. I can't think of any reason Bush did this, and I don't think he is kind hearted enough to protect the Kurds and simply not mention this. He wanted to get Saddam and I think it was somewhat personal. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, it is outrageous that Bin Laden is alive and well, especially since he used to be on the CIA payroll! I don't understand how a place as powerful as America can breed nuts then lose track of them. These policies..... this is what I mean by i'm pro-USA. I want America to worry about America and I think that's where the Republicans failed in winning. Their pro-Americanism contradicts the spending and waste of resources in foreign countries. That era is over. The only reason I can think of to support this policy is the Israel Lobby which is definitely powerful and comfortable in Washington. It's sad only because our politicians aren't fighting for us anymore, but for Israel. It's like being Iranian and the government is concerned with Palestinians. Ekh.

Marge

"Whatever" I'm saying is wrong?

My blue haired specimen of Korean animation, that's exactly the kind of mindset I'm speaking out against. In those five words, you are saying that you have an issue with the messenger, regardless of the message.

It's very easy for any of us to play Monday-morning quarterback and criticize what Bush has done, especially since he's so widely unpopular. But no one who put their head on a pillow the night of Monday September 10, 2001 thought that the next morning all hell would break loose.

Me, I would have probably focused all of the military attention upon the Afghanistan-Pakistan border first, bombing the area into oblivion until bin Laden was either dead or captured, then go after these little satellite cells and insurgents wherever they are, including Iraq. And if I was provided with intel that Saddam had WMDs in violation of the UN, I'd take him out too.

But it's all irrelevant, anyway. Bush did what he did. If guaranteeing the safety and security of this country and the 300 million people in it (including you, me, Homer, Bart, Lisa and Maggie and O.J.) means tapping into the phone calls of some Arabs who may be in the U.S. under false pretenses and with dubious intentions, then so be it. The government was looking for terrorist cells, not Colonel Sanders' secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Nobody wanted this war. Not you, not me, not even GWB. FDR was a wartime president and it killed him. Truman was a wartime president and he was considered quite unpopular when he left. LBJ gave up from the stress, and Nixon turned into a paranoid.

Sometimes it's easier to say something is wrong, rather than facing the fact that it's really the ugly truth.

"fine and dandy"

It depends on your definition of fine and dandy. For someone like me, no it's not "fine and dandy". Some of you really need things spelled out for you, dont you? If you are disputing whether there are people who are financially comfortable (unrelated to the leadership) and do not want Iran de-stabliized by a war or revolution, you're in denial. This is ESPECIALLY true thanks to George Bush who made the Iraq disaster plainly visible. Perhaps if idiot Bush had a plan and organized a way to win and didn't lie, we should have won in Iraq and Iran could have miraculously gotten rid of mullahs. For example, Iraqi doctors have been under attack and many have left the country. Lots of other professionals have left. How's that for encouraging Iranians? Again, that is not anti-Bush people's fault. Bush failed in his responsibility.