Fighting Words

Yeah "IRI"...right...

I see where Khamenei...and Khomeni's balls that you appear to be such a big fan of have gotten us for the past 31 years...isolation, poverty and being recognized as a pariah state.  So, keep it up for another three decades and see where your strategy of belligerence will get you.

And yeah, the "Iranian people" will fight them.  I guess that will exclude western residing "lengesh kon" chickens like you...or will you leave your latte at the Starbucks where you write this "charandyiat" on your laptop and go to Iran to fight the good fight against the "imperialists"?  

Iran will kick ass who anger it

I think that should replace the "great satan" motto. Much more diplomatic sounding:))

If you like to hear the joke of the day

I just read that :"U.S. finds Iran greatest danger to Iraq"...lol
says the occupiers. lol
you can't even answer these kinds of stupid news headlines. just laugh.

How about this headline after Germany WWII took France:" Germany sees US the greatest danger to Europe"...lol

i agree with rasool

it is always about oil.

Iran will not be attacked because

Iran will kick ass those who anger it. US forces are all over the borders and there is not way you can have a strategy to hit and run, when you are right in there. Where do you want to run?

If US can't understand how to deal with shoeless terrorists who are winning in Afghanistan, they will begin to cry when they think what IRAN can do.

Get real. Say what you like, it is what it is. Otherwise Iran would have been hit already. Does anyone honestly think that US would have not hit Iran if they could? Israel? Really. It is what it is, Iran is not the bite size that these countries can at the moment swallow.

Sorry OnlyIran, no go for your wish.

Plus, if you think a nation saying down with another is bad, go to countries that have over millions casualties from US, then tell me what's bad. Get a brain and some balls.

masoudA or should i say Massoud Rajavi

not everybody thinks like you. its not our fault that your sense of iranian-ness is eroded over the years by western culture. iranians as a whole are proud people and they wont tolerate any attack against their country. so how about you sit down and not embarrass yourself further. selling out your country to aggressor, thats what Massoud and Maryam did and they are absolutely loathed in iran. traitors are always loathed in iran.

Massoud

I like to add. If Iran is attacked it will be a short war. The forces of IRI will run. Those who don't run will die. It is that simple. Post victory the USA will not face serious opposition. Iranian people are not going to fight to restore IRI. Why should they? Yes there will be a small minority of hard core radicals. But most of them tend to be cowardly cyber warriors. They are in the West and have no plan to go fight.

The few who are in Iran and want to fight will get no support. Why should regular Iranian help them. So like Iraq they get to blow up Iranians? Whole regions like Kurdistan will be hostile to Basiji. The whole Tehran crowd will be hostile to them. Not to mention millions of returning diaspora. We want nothing to do with the IRI goons. Without the guns and Basiji the goons will run. They know staying means wrath of millions.

Thank you,

VPK

Well written OnlyIran

I agree with you.   I add: The worst of the Moszdoors are those who claim in case Iran is attacked all Iranians will take arms to defend IR!!!

Brian - There is no such conspiracy

if you look at where the U.S. gets its oil, you will note that only about 30% of it comes from the Middle East.  The U.S. has been doing just fine without Iran's oil for the past 31 years.  And with other sources of oil, both domestic and international becoming available in the next decade or so, I don't believe that the U.S. will risk trillions of dollars and thousands - even tens of thousands of lives--to invade Iran solely for that purpose.  

And as far as making Iran a market for American goods, that's a misconception as well. Look at Iraq.  After seven years of U.S. occupation, the largest exporter of goods to Iraq is Iran, followed by Turkey...and the U.S. has no control over Iraq's oil whatsoever.  The Iraq war has gained nothing financially for the U.S.  in fact, it has been a huge financial loss and burden.  

ISK - The bottom line in this whole thing is

that you can not run a country in the 21st century based on a militant ideology and at the same time protect the interests of your nation.  It's as simple at that.  Foreign policy, trade and international relations require compromise and the ability to overlook petty--or past--differences.  If you cannot do so, then you will become the inetrntaional pariah that the IRI has become, because the big boys will pile on you...just like they have piled on the IRI, and your nation will suffer...just the Iranian people have, and will, suffer. 

US attack or not is not a strategy rather it is hotly debated

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that neither US nor Israel would attack Iran.

In fact in the presidential elections, Mohsen Rezai took him to task on that and stated that AN even when the US was sending warships to the Persian Gulf was dismissing the idea of an attack. Mohsen Rezai was essentially saying that AN was adamant that the US won't attack despite mounting US presence in the Persian Gulf which had got some military leaders to think about a strategy in case a war broke about.

Therefore, I think the this issue is not one where officials would be talking about to scare the people. Rather, they are simply expressing their personal take on the possible coming events.

I agree with most of what is in your post. Until a country and nation understands their limits, it cannot set proper foreign policy and advance. A nation like Switzerland had to reveal to the IRS the names of US tax evaders even though Swiss has for decades maintained the strict privacy of account holders. Swiss simply know their limits. So does a mediocare country like Russia and a great one like China and India. They all went along with the US in the 4th Round of sanctions knowing full well it was against their OWN interests.

To imagine and bank on a super power to foil your adversaries plots is very naive.
Because, if the superpower does not interfere in your favor, generations later the ulama and rouhaniyoon would be talking about how the IRI was defeated because it steered from the right path because of (enter the excuse). So to all those "Ya Ali Madad" and "Mahdi will appear" types, don't bank on it.
Had someone asked you 20 years ago, what would happen if the tombs of Shiite Saints # 10 & 11 are bombed, all ye "Ya MAhdi" types would have surely predicted that Mahdi would appear. Well, Zarqawi did the bombing and Mahdi was nowhere to be found...life went on.

Hoever, I continue to ask one question, "Why is it that what is good for Lebanon "the land of resistance" is forbidden for Iranians?"

I also want Iran to be a "land of resistance" if it means better foreign policy, more press freedom, greater party representation in government and more personal freedoms. Heck, I would even be ok if they create a Hezbollah type militia and stay on the borders.

Whatever the IRI does or

Whatever the IRI does or says has little to do with the attack. The attack will be to regain control of Iran's petroleum #1 and # 2 to open up another market for American consumer goods...the so called "global economy"...the civil rights of the Iranian people and the preservation of the Iranian culture and sovereignty are not even on the radar screen... in fact if it takes dismembering Iran to attain their goals that will happen too

Brian H. Appleton

aka

Rasool Aryadust

When u get older u'll be stronger they call u a dull green flag

United States will attack Iran just like, in 60s, invaded Cuba!!Castro said so in his recent interview.As matter of fact,US is waiting for you to get older and stronger so you will wave the 'freedoom flag'.US, as per senators Mccain and Liberman who were in Israel few days ago, would not even count on israel to do the job, Israel got jut way too old, 6000 year old, and lost her teeth. 

Personally, if an military invasion-or a regime change- were the only option left for Iran, I would pick you to wave that flag-at least u are Iranian and less embarrasment for me.

But the question is when? when u get older? so u will be stronger! then I call u a waving flag, just tell me when? 

For now, I can only wait for that faithful day.

ram jams

Irandudee3

Whoa! Whoa! calm down there Big guy. We can not go about this in an Ay nafas kesh way.

 I think there is just too much taroffing going on between the people and USA in doing something in your little scenario there. That can not lead to anything constructive.

There are some among the first line of Defenders that deserve to live and typically us iranians do not adopt the pissing option. We are not Bedouins.

If attacked

The marines and basijis will be the one's dying, so we don't have much to lose, but alot to gain.

If the people don't get rid of this regime, America will, if America
doesn't then the people will, either way this leach of a regime is
taking it's last breathe, and we'll have a holiday just for
khomanie and khamenei, where every Iranian will gather around and take
turns pissing on their graves with the graves of every other shameless
basiji and islamist sons of jendes included.

Sargord

You remind me of Adam Gaddan.

Most likely, you had an abusive childhood, or was bullied in school, or couldn't find a girl friend. Then, you find Islam and your daddy is From Iran. Now, you can bad mouth the country that gave you everthing and lets you express your anger freely.

Otherwise, why else someone that lives in the West and can express his openion, sounds educated,and like to drink beer occasionally ever support such a backward regime that is so inhumane?

you have a point onlyiran

though one could argue that western pragmatism could also have helped alleviate tensions over the years.

but the point im trying to get across here is that western interference gave rise to the people who now hold iran hostage and it can be the major contributing factor that will keep them there. and this is the entire basis for my argument on current policy options, that antagonistic policies like sanctions and threat of military strike help the regime and not the other way around. instead of isolating iran and helping it to move further away towards east and away from west, it should engage it pragmatically.

As i said before, Iran needs to fix itself. it requires patience and pragmatism from western side and sadly these days i dont see either.

Moosir - the key word is paragmatism

regardless of what had happened in the past between Iran and the U.S., at the end of the revolution, in the winter of 1979, there was a great opportunity for the two nations to start a new relationship based on mutual respect.  Countries who look out for the interests of their nations do so with old adversaries all the time.  The U.S. had come to that realization.  And given the events in Afghanistan and the threat of Soviet expansion in the region at the time, there was a great opportunity for the IRI to take advantage of the situation and negotiate a new era of relationship with the U.S. on its terms.  But the IRI was too ideological and belligerent, and it sacrificed the interests of the Iranian people (and has done ever since) for the sake of its ideology.  It squandered that golden opportunity and made an enemy of the most powerful nation on the planet, when it could have made it a friend on ITS terms.

cause and effect...

First off, the revolution was a process that took many decades to complete. To think that revolution started just six months before shah fell is naivete at best.

This renders the rest of your arguments (about Iraq war and he rest) moot. As it was western support for dictatorship many decades that gave rise to a generation of radicals who were brought up to admire Islamism as a tool for distrusting and actively resisting western interference in the region.

As for your response to my response on Israel , again you are not seeing the whole picture here and you only see the orientalist side of the story. Support for Palestinian cause was and used as a tool to resist western interference in Iran and to propagate their "resistance" ideology to the countries in the region. Who is to blame for that? Well, again as a civilized country US should be actively supporting a two state solution (which is really not, thanks to the pro-Israel interest groups in washington). the US also bears responsibility because, as I said before, it encouraged the rise of islamism by its interference in the region going back to many decades ago.

As a superpower, US should act responsibly, which has not been doing for many decades now.

Look at Afghanistan as a case study of what continuous western interference brings about to a nation state. and you can bet that todays actions have repercussions. decades to come we will be paying for the consequences of the current wars in the region. and there will still be people who ignore history and context.

cause and effect...

IMF - Stop clowning around my blog

and take your stupid and meaningless comments and your even stupider smiley face and go post something from PressTv in the news section.  No one takes you seriously anyway.

PS- Ammat (your aunt) is a "Christian convert".   

Let the twisting of the words begin

No one is "justifying the Iraq war".  Quit the hysterics and over the top manipulation.  The simple fact us if you declare a country your enemy number 1--as the IRI did for a whole year before the Iran / Iraq war, and take that country's diplomats hostage for a year --as the IRI did--it is no surprise that the U.S. sided with Iraq.  It was payback to the IRI.  Trust me, you would have done the same had you been in their position.

And your statement here:

 because the forces of moderation were sidelined when shah refused to bend over for people's demands. and you know who kept supporting him (via SAVAK etc) instead of siding with iranian people? the US

is completely false.  As declassified documents show (google it), almost six months before the victory of the revolution, the U.S. had decided that Shah was on his way out, and made every effort to establish relations with the revolutionaries.  It even sent high level delegations who met with Khomeini's representatives.  Had it not been for IRI's belligerence (and given Carter's propensity for compromise in foreign policy matters), relations would have been established based on mutual respect, and I would even go as far as saying that the U.S. would even have sided with Iran in the war against Iraq to counter Soviet expansion.  On that front, the fault squarely lies with the IRI. 

And I'm sorry, but this paragraph:

As for the Israeli hating phenomenon, well when islamists came to power, that came with it didnt it? it was used as a tool to propagate their message to the arab world. and who is to blame for that? again, as west is supposed to be the civilized one, they should take the hit for supporting 60 years of oppression in the region. had the west forced israel to make peace and create a Palestinian state, irans islamists would have no excuse to keep using it as a propaganda tool. 

is completely incoherent and is a classic example of relating gooz to shaghigheh.  The IRI picked a fight with Israel from day one because of its ideology, which is being the standard bearer for the greater Islamic cause of liberation of Palestine.  It's at simple as that. 

What do you expect MOOSIRvaPIAZ

She is as as hypocrite as the US stands for! What do you expect from a convert really? She is on a evangelical mission to convert the whole Muslim population to Christianity out of hatred, bigotry and racism.

She is right to say "What walks like a duck, is a duck", but she forgot to look herself into the mirror to see what a true traitor is really like!

;-)

onlyiran

are you really iranian? I have never seen an iranian try to justify the iraq war and how much "payback is a bitch". you would be my first.

As for your entire argument that US deserved to side with Saddam because Iran took hostage. putting aside the fact that Saddam was a mass murderer and US, as a civilized country should not have supporter him, you would be both right and wrong. there werwe certainly people who milked the whole disaster to radicalise iran and you know why that happened? actions have consequences... because the forces of moderation were sidelined when shah refused to bend over for people's demands. and you know who kept supporting him (via SAVAK etc) instead of siding with iranian people? the US!

As for the Israeli hating phenomenon, well when islamists came to power, that came with it didnt it? it was used as a tool to propagate their message to the arab world. and who is to blame for that? again, as west is supposed to be the civilized one, they should take the hit for supporting 60 years of oppression in the region. had the west forced israel to make peace and create a Palestinian state, irans islamists would have no excuse to keep using it as a propaganda tool.

Enter the red herring :-))

 USA and Israel deserve to be attacked for provoking, interfering and many a times illegally propping up dictators in the region for many decades, starting with iran!!!

That's right...start talking about other countries.  look, Mr. bullshit detector, if any other country in the world is arrogant, belligerent or a jerk like the IRI is, that country deserves the same treatment.

Yes, indeed the U.S. sided with Saddam during the war.  You know why? Because your beloved IRI (which you pretend to hate but defend at every turn) held its diplomats hostage for 446 days before the start of the war.  Oh, it also declared it Iran's enemy No. 1, burnt its flags and said that it will "slap it in the mouth".  Payback is a bitch.  You hold their diplomats hostage, and it will support your enemies.  That's how it works in the real world.  

And PUHLEEEZ...get over it already with "staging coup and bringing back the shah".  Even if that's true (plenty of evidence to the contrary.  You're actually perpetuating a myth that was spread by the U.S. intelligence apparatus itself...how ironic) , so what?  That was almost thirty years before the revolution.  Iran could have moved forward from that.  

PS-What about Israel?  What had Israel done to Iranians before the IRI started to burn its flags, declared it an enemy, trained, funded and armed hezbollah and hamas?  Is it the whole "Ghods" liberation fantasy that justifies it? 

listen to yourself VPK

You sound just like the regime. This bit really got me:

"I already explained why IRI looks black. Because it is so far out to the side of evil. "

You watch / read too much fantasy dude! Snap back into reality! Go to iran, take a walk in the most religious/hard core IRI town. see for yourself how wrong you are.

black and white world view, once you have one, it will be easy to justify pretty much everything. you can go to war with (wage jihad against), kill as many people as you want because they are evil and you are pure unadulterated good! this is a neocon/islamic extremist mentality! two sides of the same coin!

MOOSIRvaPIAZ

There is an American saying: if it walks like a duck; and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

I already explained why IRI looks black. Because it is so far out to the side of evil. 

You ahead and call me names. Yes, I am uneducated; ignorant and all what you say. I am not educated enough to see the wonders of IRI. To see the evil of America and good of your side. Go ahead now and hit me with your worst insults. You forgot Zionist AIPAC.

VPK

"It may appears that you blame the west because you sympathize with Islamists. I am not saying you do but it sure appears like it. "

Well then I cant help you there if you want to keep making wrong assumptions about people you disagree with. And world is almost never black and white. Go to iran, ask a revolutionary guard member what they think of America, chances are many of them actually like America and want to do business with it!

To the uneducated and arrogant world always appears as black and white. And I'm not calling you uneducated mind you.

MOOSIRvaPIAZ

Why do I lay blame mainly on the western world and not the
islamists? Because the western world is supposed to be the civilized
one.

It may appears that you blame the west because you sympathize with Islamists. I am  not saying you do but it sure appears like it.

MOOSIRvaPIAZ

World is not black and white. But somethings are way to one side. IRI is very far to the rotten evil murdering insane side. In fact so far its supporters don't live there. That's why people see it a "black" and "white".  There is nothing good in it. So we only see the bad.

USA on the other hand is a mix of good and bad. But to IRI supporters it is all evil. Because they are irrational. They see the world in terms of "Islam" vs "world". They refuse to see the good USA does. Just the bad; while they live in the West! The hypocracy is all on the IRI supporters side.  

Next is their obsession with Israel. The simplest way to tell one is to listen. You are guaranteed to hear Israel / Zionist within a first few minutes. Then Palestine and so on. Predictable; stupid.

Iran and the middleeast must be left alone to fix itself

like the west, it takes time for the forces of moderation to take over but if western antagonism and interference keep what they're doing, it will never, and i mean NEVER happen. As I said, Islamism was a reaction to western interference, despite what neocons want you to believe.

It was western arrogance that rise to Iranian Islamists. And it will be their arrogance and their addiction to middle-east's riches that shall keep Islamists in power.

Why do I lay blame mainly on the western world and not the islamists? Because the western world is supposed to be the civilized one.