Musings of a former chicken

tear jerking by AIPAC sycophants! (to AO)

AO, after all these blunders by IRI, I think it is not unrealistic to see some level of support for a U.S puppet government in Iran..... and if that government works a fraction as efficient as U.S government, and if that government is a fraction as corrupt as IRI .... then you are right.

However, as the reality proves in cases of Afghanistan, and Iraq ..., very likely the puppet government will become as corrupt as IRI or more corrupt than IRI .... ending up being worse for not only Iranians, but also for Americans. The almighty Americans have failed to even influence Mexico, ....., on the contrary the Mexican corruption is creeping into U.S.

Add to that the fact that U.S itself right now is in deep $hit internally, in much worse shape than it was when it wanted to build a new Afghanistan ~10 years ago!

.... and finally, the aggressive AIPAC controlled beast is bleeding externally (*), not only Russians, but Also Chinese and even friendly looking Indians don't want the beast to go back to its previous glory, power, and influence anywhere including in Iran.

(*) Causing all these tear jerking by AIPAC sycophants!

AO, Mehraban,

That's naive. Other democracies, if you mean the western democracies, don't look at us like that. We are just another giant gas station to them.

Mehrban

That was exactly my question, which he did not answer.

And for Bavafa and all our friends who are still stuck in the 1960's battle against enslavement by the "West"--and who are still fighting an imaginary "White Army" which is going to bring monarchy back to Iran in the person of Reza Pahlavi--this is for you:

 //www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UaFjKFDon8&feature=related

Bavafa

What if Democracy is won in Iran partially with the help of other Democracies?  A TRUE Democracy?  What then?  Is that Okay with you?

Bavafa - That Was Nonresponsive

and it's the same old stale argument designed to divert attention from IRI's atrocities by talking about the Shah (who has been dead and irrelevant for the past 30 years, and who I am no fan of) and the "glorious" revolution.  My question was something totally different, and, of course, you did not answer it. 

but that's OK...didn't expect anything else.  :-)

AO: If the there was

AO: If the there was "freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of this and that" then people would not have chanted in the 60s and 70s and finally kick his a$$ out, would have been. The part you are missing, perhaps you were playing with your toys then to know, that the whole thing was as a result of a "baache naneh" brought up to power by force and ruled in such ways we see in SA, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

Looks like you are OK with that system but 99% of Iranians were not in 1979 and still do not want a puppet regime whether from East or West.

Mehrdad

LOL KM jan

"that girly expression of disgust was like music in my ears."

That is so cute! :o)

IRANdokht

"What they do as the case

"What they do as the case has been in South Africa and others, it weakens the ruling tyranny giving the enslave population better chances at overthrowing it".

That's exactly it but for a different reason, they can not simplely invade Iran. They weaken her then they invade her or disintegerate her. The method is not of any dispute the intention is what we are arguing about.

What are the guarantees from the west that at very moment the regime is weak, they don't change the course and decide to divide Iran to pieces? As they have done to Iraq and Afghanistan where the secterian violence that never existed before is now born and will stay forever.

Time to act

The statement you make is not supported by history. For example you need to look at all the help the Islamists got before coming to power.

Also your simplified S. African scenario was forced on them due to sanctions being a part of pressuring the tyranny to realize time has come for it to go.  

Regarding your insult (to Kadivar)

Kadivar says: "Khak Too Saretoon !"

Kadivar, yAdesh be kheir, when I was young and went dokhtar bAzi with friends, many of those nectras (girls) told us "khak Too Saretoon" ......,  that girly expression of disgust was like music in my ears. 

Fred

I agree: the time for sloganeering is gone. That is a very good piece of advice for all concerned, including both of us. With respect to S Africa, I'll make 2 points:

A) The sanctions were not airtight (and not even remotely so).

B) In S Africa, the White minority voted in a referendum that led ultimately to the elimination of apartheid (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). I cannot foresee the IRI allowing a similar referendum in Iran. Can you?

You say: "There are those who advocate regime overthrow without any outside help, again these folks need to come up with a single case of such thing ever happening." Here's one: Iran in 1979. I know that many people view that as a case of the US, UK, France, the Palestinians, etc, etc (take your pick) overthrowing the Shah, but (if I'm not mistaken) I don't believe that you buy those arguments. That was a case of Iranians overthrowing a regime without the active assistance of any foreign government. (This is not meant either to defend or oppose the 1979 revolution. I am simply providing a case from Iran's own recent history). I think the result was disastrous for Iran, but I also think that Iranians will not again make the mistake of installing an Islamist dictatorship.

Bavafa - Let me ask you something

now before you go and edit your comment again, you ask Fred:

 "2- Is it acceptable to you if IRI was to be replaced by another regime that is not independent of the foreign powers (a puppet type government)".

 Now, I don't agree with a lot of what Fred says, but let me ask you this: what do you exactly mean by:

 "another regime that is not independent of the foreign powers (a puppet type government)"?

What if a regime is brought to power in Iran by the help of the U.S. or some other power --without a war-- that is an ally of the U.S.  But that regime brings democracy to Iran, and allows people to vote, and have their votes counted, gives Iranians press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to from political parties, shuts down political prisons, allows women to wear what they want, improves the economy, and creates an independent and fair judiciary.  Are you still going to chant your 1960's Bolshevik slogans, talk about "enslavement" by the West, carry a pitchfork, put a red beret and a pair of black boots on and overthrow it just so that you want free Iran from capitalist, imperialist, colonial pigs?

Or do you prefer the atrocities and the dictatorship of the IRI because it gives you "independence" (never mind that it's false sense of independence that requires, among other things, to give away Iran's sovereignty over the Caspian Sea to Russia in exchange for the promise of a 1970's style nuclear reactor and a bunch of second hand useless weapons---or as our great leader Imam Khomeini called them, a bunch of "ahan ghorazeh")? 

Islamist leader du jour

 Sanctions by and itself do not bring about the changing of any regime. What they do as the case has been in South Africa and others, it weakens the ruling tyranny giving the enslave population better chances at overthrowing it.

What we have in the case of Islamist Rapist Republic is more complicated.

After all that this tyrannical regime has done there are still people who are after reformation of the Islamist system. Add to them The sycophants who will follow the Islamist leader du jour till the next one is plated up to them.

There are those too who accept the un-reformability of IRR, but discount any option on the basis of it requiring extra hardship. Have the cake, regime overthrow, and eating it too, no hardship.  who in his right mind wouldn’t love to have it this way. These folks need to come up with a single case of such case in the annals of history.

There are those who advocate regime overthrow without any outside help, again these folks need to come up with a single case of such thing ever happening.

There are those who have a beef with other issues and countries and use IRR as a springboard for that and when pressed say Iranians will take care of their own on their own, period.  

Is sanctions a panacea, of course not, is it painful, most definitely, would it weaken the Islamist Rapists who are not ideological anymore rather paid for murderers/rapists, most definitely.

Time for sloganeering is long gone, Islamist Rapists are hard at work on imposing a cataclysmic war on Iran and the region to save themselves, they need to be headed off.

Amir1973

Fred and his friends are looking for the "Iraqi" model: first airtight sanctions and then if it doesn't work (which we already know they won't), Halliburton contracts to rebuild Iranian cities that get destroyed... 

IRANdokht

Fred: You wonder you are not taken as sincere?

I hardly think there is much doubt about your agenda and intentions with constant commenting and blogs on IC. You have been repeating the same message over and over, every day without any regards to the responses or questions asked from you, that is what makes it an "agenda" and that is why it is hard to accept your intentions (best for Iranians) at its faced value. You cry foul when you are attacked, well personal attack invites personal attack. If you can't take it, then stop the personal attacks.

With all that in mind, lets see if I (we) can get your position a bit more clear here. I am asking these questions with the hopes I can understand your positions but I hardly expect an answer since similar type questions in the past have gone stray

1- Do you support the current movement/uprising, what has become known as the "green movement"

2- Is it acceptable to you if IRI was to be replaced by another regime that is not independent of the foreign powers (a puppet type government)

2- If there was a free and democratic election in Iran, will you support/accept the outcome regardless of what exact form it has, as long as it inspires to keep Iran free and democratic?

3- You say, you are against war with Iran, will you condemn any war posturing and/or an Israeli attack on Iran.

4 - What do you envision the "airtight sanction" will bring to Iran and Iranians? Will you be steadfastly against war, if "airtight sanction" still failed to accomplish a free and democratic Iran?

5- Will you condemn "Nazi" type behavior/treatment no matter what regime/country or region?

Mehrdad

Re: sanctions

Where have sanctions brought about regime change? South Africa?

How would sanctions bring about regime change in Iran?

I want the IRI to fall, but I have serious doubts that sanctions would achieve it (not to mention the increased hardship that they could potentially cause for Iranians).

the crux of it all for the AIPAC sycophant (to Midwesty)

Midwesty says: "Nuke has nothing to do with IRI human rights violation. That's why I think you have a hidden agenda and this is what you really worried about not the human rights violation."

Midwesty, you are right on this one (bA kamAle ta'job!), and not just you:

//www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL11Ak01....

Fred, even Midwesty got it! ..... keep going with your tear jerking for "Iranians", ..... khodeti!

Item 8 and 9,

More drama!

Conclusion:

Your main agenda is to stop Iran from acquiring the Nuke or making them admit they've got the Nukes which has nothing to do with the dramatic act you were performing about human rights violations.

The leader of reform in Iran is the middle class and any extra pressure or threat will uproot them.

Now you go fly your kite!

Item 7,

It's the other way around, you are protecting the IRI by killing the middle class in Iran.

Read item 4 again!

Item 6,

Nuke has nothing to do with IRI human rights violation. That's why I think you have a hidden agenda and this is what you really worried about not the human rights violation.

If IRI has nukes, and I think they do and the west also knows they do, but the pressure is to make them admit they do, it won't protect the IRI from mass Iranians on the jam-packed Iranian cities, period.

What they want to do nuke Qum, or Mashhad, or Tabriz, or Isfahan?

Item 5,

Non-sense drama! Read my answer to item 4.

New, since when? (to Midwesty)

Midwesty says: "They killing of innocents on the streets are new and it was the red line thay have passed and no one can justify it."

what do you mean by new?

Item 4,

Students and upper class Tehranis are not the bulk of Iranians. Despite of IRI's neglect towards the intellect in IRI, which they have a good reason to neglect them, they've been extra kind to the BULK of Iranian society which are poor and under privilaged across the country.

Some think why Ahmadi won the election, because he was campaigning for 4 years nonstop. He sneaked into any remote village in Iran gave them candies for their vote.

As long as IRI have that BULK they won't need your BULK. Any extra pressure won't make the poors in Iran any poorer but it will kill for sure the middle class!

Item 3,

For your information, the type of brutality that you mentioned is a routine interogation techniques thay have been uisng in law enforcement in Iran. It is a ongoing problem and been dealt with through internal affairs department behind the scene but with no transparency that's why it will be never cured until they become trasnparent. Khatami was the only one who bright them to surface. That again contradicts your point to portray the IRI as a unified body.

They killing of innocents on the streets are new and it was the red line thay have passed and no one can justify it. As we see at the beginning a lot of right wing nut heads came out and publicly criticized it. That again tells us they are some extends that a few in IRI will be able to push the limits of their brutality.

External pressure will push these divided sections back togehter again.

If you want them gone

If you want them gone, then why are you advocating airtight sanctions? What positive can come out of the people (the same ones you worry about) being weakened and the Sepah getting even stronger?

You're just saying you're against IRI, but acting in their best interest. Some of the people who agree with you the most are just as impatient as you are. They want IRI gone so they can go back to Iran and claim their 'rightful' inheritance. (I am not just talking about RP2 here)

As for giving you an alternative to sanctions and a subsequent attack if IRI is still in charge when you loose your patience again, I won't. I am in no position to make a decision for the fate of Iranians inside or outside Iran. I am going to wait and see what the human rights activists in Iran say and I will support their decision.

You will probably come back with yet another juvenile comment and throw a nickname at me again. Go ahead, you won't shut me up.

IRANdokht

rowzeh khooni

Oh goody: can't wait for your usual paamambari to come in and cry at your rowzeh  :)  I was going to say delam kabob shod, but you may like joojeh kabob. (oh nooo!)

Item 2,

As you said that's your opinion, because you are convinced that doesn't mean that the rest of us are convinced too.

Still what is happening in Iran is no weher close to what IRI did during the 80s but no revolution errupted as a result since 70-80% of people at the time were approving it. 

Interstingly, most of the leader of green movement now were the main perpetuators of the crimes back then.

Is IRI any worst than the 80s? NO! Is the people in charge of crimes back then are still in power? NO! So how on earth you think it's a unfied body? The whole thing is shifted.

At this point anyone gets to power will do the exact same thing that IRI is doing, because the external pressure and threats are still there. IRI had to suppress the internal pressure to get ready for the external threat. This is completely normal but it is NOT humane!

That's why we have to be very subjective to who is doing the crimes and bring them to justice not the bundeling the whole system as a unified body!

Fred,

You brought up a host of different issues that none are related to each other. If that's your technique then I am going to answer all items in detail.

For now, item 1:

Ball parking all the IRI as a unified body is wrong and illogical and a non-sense.

It is wrong becuase we see Mousavi who was one of them is now against them. I have hundreds of more examples to bring.

It is illogical, because in any given system there are people with different motivation and beliefe system that at one point based on necessity stick together even though they don't approve of each other's action.

It is non-sense because you have been away from Iran for long time and never seen the Dovvom Khordad revolution at the ballot boxes and based on your remote information trying to speculate IRI as a unified body.

If IRI was a unified body they never needed to have a IRGC to protect the I part from the RI part. IRGC is an acronym for Islamic Revolutionary Gaurd Corp. Their main mission, as it is reitterated frequently by their latest commander in Chief Mr. Jafari, to protect the Islamic Revolution from within and without. The republic of Iran to him is just a host to give rise to the Islamic Revolutionary movement throughtout the world. Very much so similar to what military in Turkey is in charge of. In Turkey case, the military is in charge of protecting the secular establishment from any deviation.

Stay tune! More to come.