Musings of a former chicken

Dear Bijan

by AMIR1973 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 07:54 AM PST

I agree with many of your observations. Yes, the Mousavi-Khatami axis (while somewhat less awful than the Ahmadinejad clique) are not a true opposition, because they don't challenge the essential tenets of a theocratic dictatorship. And yes, I think that a velvet revolution appears unlikely at this juncture. The IRI has insulated itself against fundamental reform (Khatami's presidency demonstrated that). If the Iranian people want to take up arms against this dictatorial regime (as well as continuing to use and augment all the resources of civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, labor strikes, national strikes, etc) that is their basic right. I support it 110%.

No, I've never been one of the Obamaniacs. The problem with the US government goes way beyond who the personality at the top is. However, I never expected Obama to be so awful so early in his term. The headlines state that in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, he will defend war. The word "Orwellian" doesn't quite do justice here.

You ask: "...what do you expect American should do to protect her national interest?" I "expect" the US to withdraw her military forces from other peoples' nations and bring them back to the US. If the US government does that and establishes a very robust system of homeland defense and retaliation (in case of attack), that is, in my view, legitimate. However, what government is involved in attacking and occupying other countries as much as the US? What other country reserves itself the right to invade other countries halfway around the globe as much as the US does? More than anything else, it is these actions that have made the US a potential target. To paraphrase one conservative commentator, they (the terrorists) are here, because we the US government are there. Bottom line: get your military out of other peoples' countries and bring them back here to defend the homeland (the same way that the vast majority of the world's other countries do). 

  

 

Gargling slogans

by Fred on Thu Dec 10, 2009 05:57 AM PST

The Islamist Rapist Republic is demonstrably Anti-Iran and Iranians; it has to be done away with to have a chance at having a democracy.

 To avoid war, to give democracy a chance, to help out the beleaguered much abused Iran and Iranians,  time for imposition of airtight sanctions which includes oil, gas, line of credit, banking,... and openly helping enslaved Iranians is at hand, the rest are gargling slogans.

Amir & Mehrdad

by Bijan A M on Thu Dec 10, 2009 05:45 AM PST

Sorry if I cannot stay continuously in this exchange. My circumstances are such that I can’t and it is not out of being rude.

 

Amir khan: Many of your points well taken with regards to alternatives. I had actually suggested some of those long time ago in my comments (I don’t have time to search for it and repost here, just trust me). Wouldn’t combination of your sanctions with many others translate into “smart” sanction?

I have always been proponent of our contributing materially (financially) to facilitate civil disobedience. But, that require presence of an organized group in Iran. Has the true opposition declared formation of such organization?

You stated your opinion and please allow me to state mine. There will be no “Velvet” revolution. Even without any foreign intervention the only way to rid of IRR from Iran is through blood and violence (this is my humble opinion). What I’m worried about is formation of unity in opposition (or at least a sound majority). The movement is desperately in need of real leader(s). Again, in my opinion, reformists are not the true opposition.

Amir, your sarcasm towards Obama was a little surprising because I thought you were one of his strong supporters (I may be wrong in my recollection). However, what do you expect American should do to protect her national interest? The debate is not about Iraq or Afghan War. How would you protect homeland after being attacked? Just be reasonable and fair. How would you do it?

 

Mehrdad Khan: Having read many of your post I never question your love for Iran but you need to place this love ahead of your hate for America and Israel in your set of priorities. Your hate is so much stronger that if fogs up your love. If you live somewhere in the western world, there is a good reason for it. You have chosen to live there.

There is always a distinction between hate and criticism.

Ramin,

by Midwesty on Thu Dec 10, 2009 05:17 AM PST

Thanks for correcting me. But my intention wasn't to find the name of the person rather his action. So was I correct about his action?

Didn't he persistantly push until he got the results.

Fred's action is much like that. 90% of what he says, we already know but completely irrelevant to what he suggests as a solution at the end of his essay.

Regards, 

Midwesty, Bavafa and Fred

by ramin parsa on Thu Dec 10, 2009 03:35 AM PST

Midwesty -- it was ROOSEVELT'S grandson vis-a-vis the 1953 coup, not Eisenhower! -- Jesus, get your facts straight when you eagerly hop aboard your soap box!

Bavafa -- you're a craven propagandist, nothing more. You have the onions to lampoon endlessly about "fascist behavior towards Palestinians" by the "zionist" at this critical time in our tortured history (do you get paid extra for every time you use the word "zionist" in your posts -- because you manage to squeeze it into seemingly every one of your posts) -- and guess what, we Iranians who care more about Iran than the IRI or Islam, DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOUR GODFORSAKEN PALESTINIANS, specially at this time when OUR OWN HOUSE IS BURNING AND OUR OWN PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING!!!

Not to mention that your beloved Palestianians hate us, they hate the "real" Iranians -- that is, the people of Iran. They do business with the bastard mullahs, because the mullahs transfer Iran's resources over to the Palestianians, who by the way, don't even really like the mullahs!

Case in point, the Iran-Iraq war: despite the millions of dollars given to the Palestinians by Khomeini, when the war broke out, your beloved Palestinians HELPED SADDAM HUSSEIN!!! As Arafat famously said, "Iranians are our friends, but the Iraqis are our brothers."

So, kindly take your Palestinian sob story and take a very long hike, pal. No real Iranian gives a damn!

Fred, keep up the good work!

vildemose

by KouroshS on Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:08 PM PST

So... According to Mr. good hair, hip-looking sajjadpour, There is a way to start dialouge with them, without selling out the people, At the same time, No major diplomatic milestones can be acheived so long as we have Noon Khamenei and Akhmadinejad in Power!!!

Talk about cheshm baste zeer abi raftan!! I wish he would elaborate a bit on this rather than making a totally invalid and irrelevant referrence towhat happend in The 80's between US and The soviets. What is THE WAY? Why does he even bother mentioning this knowing full well of the obstacles that are in the way?

Time to use a different hair spray perhaps?

Amir Jan, excellent points

by Bavafa on Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:08 PM PST

Amir Jan, excellent points and suggestions. I read your response in the pervious blog but didn't see a rebuttal/suggestion of any kind that is constructive. I think there are many of us here that deep down have the same goal and want the same thing for Iran and Iranians, that is that Iranians in Iran who are putting their lives on the line should decide about their own feature and the exact form of government. We are here to support them morally and any other way possible.

There are a few on the other hand that seem to be wanting a change in Iran but only a change that would ensure the American/Israel interest first and foremost.

Mehrdad

To Bijan: possible alternatives...

by AMIR1973 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 09:15 PM PST

Bijan,

You wonder about alternatives to Fred's familiar formula (airtight sanctions, moral and material support). Allow me to cut and paste from a reply of mine to a previous post by Fred advocating (surprisingly enough) airtight sanctions, moral and material support from the sane world (sane world = the government occupying Iran's immediate neighbors to the east and west--and with an escalation of the war by way of tens of thousands of more troops being sent by the Nobel Peace Prize winner):

"Most of the momentum against the regime will come from Iranians on the ground there, as they have been demonstrating for the past several months--that is the key to regime change NOT sanctions and other actions by the U.S. and other foreign states. However, there may be things that people outside Iran can do to help. Here are a few possibilities (I don't claim that these are full-proof measures or guarantee efficacy, but they strike me as a constructive and humane way forward):

1) Sanctions on sales of anti-riot gear and electronic surveillance equipment

2) Funds to help striking workers

3) Crimes against humanity charges filed in international courts against regime actors responsible for such crimes

4) Anti-filter software and other such technology to allow people to use the Internet and cell phones without being blocked or tracked down by authorities

5) Increased demonstrations against IRI organs and broadcasts from Iranians living abroad--that will show Iranians that they have the moral support of their compatriots living outside the country as well as others, and that they are not alone

6) Increased assistance from human rights, civil society, and NGOs to similar organizations and individuals inside the country to augment and expand their civil disobedience and resistance against the regime

What I would NOT support: military action; support for Mojahedin, Jundollah and other such groups. It seems that the premise of Iranians who support sanctions and who actually care about Iranians (as opposed to right-wing Americans, Europeans, and Israelis who care about Iranians as much as they care about other non-Israeli Middle Easterners) is that airtight sanctions represent a way of exchanging a short-term pain (i.e. sanctions) for a long-term pain (i.e. the IRI). But, my main worry is that sanctions could add a pain to an already existing pain and not get rid of that pain anyway (surely, the experience of Iran's neighbors should give us some pause)." 

Dear Bijan: What should be

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 09:06 PM PST

Dear Bijan: What should be reality based discussions always devolve into the massive , self-defeatism, hysteria and self-destructive waste of tiem. Ominously, almost always a circular  firing squad assembles on both sides. There is just too much mistrust, animosity, and pure malice all around for any serious discussion to take place.

Calling people "ghaltah" or "Islamist (I have been guilt of that myself) surely does not help matters either. I think we all need to see a shrink collectively or take some conflict resolution course at some university. I know one thing though, we're all tired and frustrated and feel powerless. At least that's how I feel. I hope I'm making sense Bijan jan.

 

Dear Vildemose

by Bijan A M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 08:22 PM PST

I have tremendous respect for Mrs Ebadi and have never been proponent of war or foreign intervention. I have had my doubts about sanctions and their effectiveness. Is there such thing as “smart” sanctions? I don’t know. Some say there is. What Mrs. Ebadi is suggesting is some kind of sanction in itself and its effectiveness is questionable.

 

My point is not to advocate for “airtight” sanction (whatever that is). But, many on this thread continued with their attack even when Fred suggested six non-violent actions that would hurt IRR and its supporters (in his blog a few days ago). They just condemn without offering alternatives. Everyone brushes off Fred’s call for moral and material support and continue to attack his conviction that sanction will be effective.

 Would smuggling DVD’s to educate the masses about the secular democracy and how it will in-fact be the protector of their religious beliefs, their human right, and everything else that a true democracy offers, be effective?. Would promoting civil disobedience as a means of resistance be a bad idea?Why doesn’t the debate focus on ways to rid of IRR rather than attacking those who offer a solution.

Bijan

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 08:17 PM PST

It's hard to tell what everyone wants but I think what almost everyone can agree on is the basic human rights,
the right to democratically elect their leaders/system of governance, the right to free
speech, the right to protest etc).

And if you really care and want to be close to the pulse of this movement then I suggest you go read what the tireless, brave and dedicated Iranian activists inside Iran have to say about "airtight" sanctions. 

An excellent conversation

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 08:14 PM PST

An excellent conversation with Mr. Sadjadpour.  Well worth reading the whole thing.

Sadjadpour: I think the United States should be more outspoken about Iran’s inability to adhere to international standards of justice—a word that Iran’s leadership frequently uses—and human rights and President Obama should be more outspoken in expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. I know that young people in Iran would like to see President Obama make it more clear that he’s not indifferent to their cause, that he’s rooting for them. .
I think there is a way to dialogue with the Iranian government on urgent national security issues—like nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan, and Iraq—without betraying the millions of Iranians who view their government as illegitimate and continue to strive for political change. U.S. dialogue with the Soviet Union during the 1980s is perhaps a useful template.  This is an incredibly important time in Iran’s history and we want to be able to look back years from now and say we were on the right side of history. I sometimes fear that we may look back years from now and see that there was a tremendous opportunity to help champion and facilitate the cause of political change in Iran, but rather than taking it seriously we focused all of our attention on the nuclear issue. .
Sadjadpour: I’m very skeptical about the prospect of a major diplomatic breakthrough with this Iranian government. I believe the underlying problem we have with Iran has more to do with the character of its regime than its nuclear ambitions. In other words, as long as Khamenei is leader and Ahmadinejad is president, Tehran will not be able or willing to meet us half-way, or even a third Of the way, on our various issues of contention. Go to Carnegie.

//www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24279

They simply REJECT

by Bijan A M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:54 PM PST

MOOSIR, who are “THEY”?. I have brought this up with you in another blog. If you are so close to the pulse of this movement to know what they REJECT, why don’t you come out and say what the WANT? They told you they reject sanction, they reject armed resistance, they reject any foreign (specially American) support. Why don’t you ask them what “THEY” want?

What we see from a distance is that they don’t want Velayate Vaghih, they are fed up with IRR. Of course, this “THEY” that we see is probably different from the “THEY” you are referring to.

For what it's wroth, here

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:53 PM PST

For what it's wroth, here is what Shirin Ebadi said about sanctions:

Asked about the international community’s renewed push for economic sanctions against the regime, Ebadi said sanctions will “harm the people and will not bring about the collapse of the regime”, explaining that the regime will use sanctions as a pretext crack down further. (She also opposes a military attack for the same reasons.) Her preferred remedy: that the US and the West express “verbal support only” for the opposition and seek to stop weapons sales to the government.

//blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/abcs-jim-sciutto-nobel-prize-winner-says-irans-regime-wont-last.html

since you have gotten too impatient! (to BIjan A M)

by kharmagas on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:55 PM PST

Bijan says: " It is time for action.."

Bijan, since you and the other AIPAC sycophant have gotten impatient, I recommend you visit fox news to satisfy some of you thirst for action:

//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579793,00.html

 

Don't get all worked up, as your friend said, AIPAC is cooking up the same thing for Iran ... 

 

 

  The self restraint has

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:34 PM PST

  The self restraint has been exercised for 30
years.

I guess you have overlooked history. Go through it and you'll see that it has been anything but self restraint. Many sides are to blame of course. 

 

Besides that is not my prefered option anyway. I along with many others have argued for consructive and truly effective help from the outside (both governments and civil society) in my earlier posts, all of which has been ignored so far. 

And the whole point of me argueing with you is that I do not consider your ideas creative. I find them dangerous, misguided and based on an emotional desire to do something.  And time and time again you people are ignoring the views of the majority of Iranians who live under this regime as if they do not exist. They simply REJECT your ideas ("airtight sanctions").

 

 

MOOSIR khan

by Bijan A M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:21 PM PST

You say:  “Sometimes inaction and self restraint in itself is a solution…..”

I think you intentionally overlooked my statement:   

“….., EITHER offer any other action or solution (other than going along with status quo, or Islamic republic with lipstick), OR shut up. Let those who are creative enough to put a dent on this monster, do their work.”

  The self restraint has been exercised for 30 years. Quit this nonsense please. It is time for action whether you like it or not. Read Gary Sick’s article that Vildemose has posted.

you find it sickening! (to Bijan A M)

by kharmagas on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:25 PM PST

Bijan, you are taking it for granted that one should assume yours and Fred's tear jerking is for Iran. No, I have known both of you for long enough to know that you are here for AIPAC and Israel ...

I consider AIPAC a criminal entity that is directly behind the misery and mercenary wars that are taking place around Iran and .... as bad as IRI is and as severe as Iran's problems are your tear jerking is not going to fool me ..... now go sicken yourself some more because you are running out of patience to see Iran turned into another Iraq!

AS BAD AS IRAN IS, DURING PAST SEVERAL MONTHS VERY LIKELY LESS PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES THAN ONE RECENT BOMBING IN IRAQ.

Anytime I read his essays...

by Midwesty on Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:05 PM PST

I can't make any sense of his non-sense. This strongly suggests two thing of which non look good. Either he has an agenda and just rumbling what they put in front of him or he is lost. I see no ground no reference, no reasoning, no facts, no statistics, no nothing only pure speculation and opinion. That's why I think either he is a loud speaker or a confused soul.

But I have to admit he has given a new face to sange paye ghazvin and this reminds me of 1953 coup.

Eisenhower's grandson was in charge, they told him that the coup's plan won't work so Americans and CIA agents got ready to leave empty-handedly but Eisenhower's grandson didn't give up. He gave it the last try and now the course of history is changed.

Fred is purely following the same footsteps.

Thank you Bijan A M

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 06:46 PM PST

"Yes, MOOSIR, I’m letting my emotions get the better of me"

 

That's all I needed to know.  You have every right to be emotional over what is happening in Iran. We all are.  What I and many other people suggest is not to let that get in the way of making the right decisions for Iran. Decisions that you might later regret. And I sincerely believe that you are not helping the cause by pushing for airtight sanctions (and - now it seems - encouraging for armed resistance?). And I feel that they are proposed more out of sheer desperation to do something and to satisfy ones emotional needs. 

Sometimes inaction and self restraint in itself is a solution and is better than acting and causing unintended blow back. 

dear fred....

by shushtari on Wed Dec 09, 2009 06:41 PM PST

please don't  pay any attention to the bache akhoonds who are attacking you here.....

these characters just come and bash anyone who wants to cripple and topple their idols in tehran- the dirty mullahs

 

it's getting pretty old to see anyone who disagree with these characters as being labeled zionists, neocons, etc!!!!! 

You know what’s sickening?

by Bijan A M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 06:27 PM PST

This nonsensical attack on someone (anyone) who advocates something (anything) other than status quo.  You guys come out and find an angle to attack Fred or anyone who supports ACTION(S) to stop annihilation of our nation in the hands of IRR. All you losers want or dream about is peaceful transformation of a rapist into a saint. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. History has proven this.

 If you don’t like support from other nations, why don’t you as a patriot Iranian in Diaspora, smuggle arms to Iran and at least give a fighting chance to those who are willing to fight with bare hands against a group armed to their teeth?

If you don’t like that option, EITHER offer any other action or solution (other than going along with status quo, or Islamic republic with lipstick), OR shut up. Let those who are creative enough to put a dent on this monster, do their work.

Enough is enough, people in Iran are screaming, world is watching. When are you going to come to your senses? Yes, MOOSIR, I’m letting my emotions get the better of me and yes I’ll be proud to be Fred’s friend as well as everyone of those other souls who are crying for a secular democracy in Iran.

 For the nth time, thank you Fred for your persistence and untiring efforts. Every democracy lover owes you a debt of gratitude.

Vildemose: Of course we

by Bavafa on Wed Dec 09, 2009 04:23 PM PST

Vildemose: Of course we all well know that sanction is a pretext to war. First they impose sanction which most of us agree it actually hurts the uprising and the people. The monsters in charge will not be affected, if any at all, they will get richer and more powerful. Secondly, after sanction proves to be ineffective and most likely in more dire situation in Iran as a result, they will have the perfect excuse for war.

To reject the idea that Iranians can defeat this monster on their own is simply a stab in their back and withdrawing any moral or otherwise support that they need.

Mehrdad

Moosir jan: Fred wants

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 04:07 PM PST

Moosir jan: Fred wants sanction out of pure desparation and frustration. I don't really think he has anything malicious in mind. But on the other hand, I have known to be too trusting too. At any rate, I really don't think sanctions will get rid of this regime. The regime or IRGC is trying to put a sanction of its own on the middle class to paralyze them even further...I really haven't heard any good arguments for sanctions from Fred or anyone else.

I also don't know what kind of sanctions we're talking about here?? Sanctions to produce what end or result?

masoudA

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 04:02 PM PST

The problem is that none of those who lobby for or financialy benefit
from IRR will tell you they support them.   And they all express their
sincere concerns about a war and bombings of innocent Iranians.  I have
yet to see a single post by M&P expressing his dislike of IRR or
something that would shed any light on what we must do to see the end of
IRR.   All I see is him and a couple of others appearing in every post
Fred makes - in trying to discredit him.  

first off the same can be said for proponents of sanctions and war. They will come and tell you how much they love them Iranian freedom fighters, hiding their affiliations, ideology and all. Simply saying that they want instant regime toppling by any means necessary regardless of the consequences is simply not popular enough. (Although some people have more or less admitted as much when their response is to the effect of  "are they not suffering under the regime anyway?") Secondly I dont have to explain myself because of the fact that I dont support hurting our people with sanctions. but since you asked you should go look through my posts and then come back and retract that statement.  I reply to Fred because he makes a new post (religiously) every day arguing for "airtight" sanctions. Something which most experts agree will HURT Iranians (majority of whom reject) and could possibly get us closer to a real conflict with Iran. To you it might seem repetitive but his points have the tendency to fool those who are mere observers who do not follow trends as religiously as some of us here do. 

MassoudA: You would not

by Bavafa on Wed Dec 09, 2009 03:42 PM PST

MassoudA: You would not recognize/accept their expression of hate towards IRI if it hit you on the head.

For you, one hates IRI and wants the regime gone only if they advocate war against Iran, airtight sanctions against Iran, have their heads buried in the Zionist a$$ and think of Americans God's gift to the man kind. Any thing else falls short and therefore they are IRI supporters.

Pull you head out and see for yourself

Mehrdad

Moosir, good to know. I

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 03:40 PM PST

Moosir, good to know. I thought you wanted an Islamic republic. I
specifically asked your opinion not others. The rest is up to the
Iranian people not to you and I. Whatever they decide, don't you think?

 

That has been my point from the start.  But it is not for fred to decide whether Iranians want sanctions. From what I have read, Iranians overwhelmingly reject gasoline sanctions that will hurt them. Fred and people like him are supporters of said sanctions. What I dont understand is how you, Bijan and other Fred supporters could attack me and ignore Fred's position on this matter. 

oh Pallease Fred! When do you stop spinning?

by Q on Wed Dec 09, 2009 02:58 PM PST

So you're telling Amir, you meant to use the English word "mien" next to the German word (complete with umlaut) "Führer"! All because you can't admit to a stupid mistake?

I don't know what's more tragic. The clear hypocrisy that Amir pointed out, or your cover-your-ass spin BS even on the most trivial of issues.

By the way, do you know the difference between "old" and "aged" now?

LOL!

This is a MUST READ article

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 02:42 PM PST

This is a MUST READ article if you have already not read it.

 

//www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-26/irans-dangerous-power-vacuum/?cid=bs:featured4

Thank you mA However, I

by vildemose on Wed Dec 09, 2009 02:29 PM PST

Thank you md. However, I think there are many factions,including the business faction, that can be brought into the fold. We need to coordinate all of our factions and efforts. These factions are not going to go away once we have a change in the regime. We need to learn to respect diverse agendas and views.

Weren't there hundreds of different factions and groups before the 1979 revolution trying to overthrow the Shah? Once they overthrew the Shah, they couldn't compromize, tolerate, and work with each other to build the country up instead they tore each other apart. Must we repeat history over and over again??