As much as I dislike the Iranian regime, I must admit that once in a while one of their officials comes up with something so brilliant to say, it is hard to disagree with. An example was Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to UN who has been so eloquent and reasonable in his various TV appearances prior and during the Iraqi invasion, he could have been the spokesperson for the entire anti-war movement worldwide.
Now Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has been added to my list of notable quotes. In response to accusations about Iran’s intrusion in Iraqi development, he said "It is interesting that the United States has occupied Iraq and is now accusing Iraq's neighbors of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs,".
O boy! ‘Nuff said.
Kharrazi's comment was not so clever. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for over 25 years.
The US and UK have intruded in Iraq the same way the UK and US intruded in Nazi Germany. And for similar reasons.
But what is Iran's goal in Iraq? It appears to be to set up another fascist "Islamic state."
If you are impressed with the Iranian FM's word games, too bad for you.
Posted by: ibrodsky at April 26, 2003 10:43 PM
we gotta acknowledge smart words no matter where they come from. this case is one of them.
Posted by: Hooman at April 27, 2003 06:35 AMPedram
your comments were closed on
"W" speaks so I'm commenting here.
Those Quotes are Dan Quayle's
Not Dubbya's
Do I smell agenda?
Fat Ck - I did a bit of investigating and the quote is attributed to both, depending on which site you get it from. For example here:
http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/history/george_w_bush_quotes.htm
It even gives a date as to when they were said. At the same time though, I know one quote there (about "impurities in the water") that is deffinetly Quayle's as well as the one about Laura, which is certainly W's.
Regardless, you can be certain there's an "agenda" in place and both the former governor and former vice president are part of it. You can read all about it at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Posted by: Pedram M. at April 27, 2003 08:55 AMibrodsky:
It's unfortunate that people such as yourself are so green to accept whatever they are told. Do you honestly believe that UK and US are there to establish democracy? come on! you can do better than that.
Posted by: me in the corner at April 27, 2003 12:27 PMibrodsky,
When I read your comment about US/British intention of occupaying Iraq, first I thought it was written by an Iranian: Hooman (His comment is after yours), to be honest I was preparing to attack him for being so naive as an Iranian to think so, infact, I couldn't beleive an Iranian could write such empty-minded, CNN/Fox type crap, then I felt better when I noticed it was written by (perhaps)an American. Then I wasn't surprized anymore.
What I think Ibrodsky may be eluding to is the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran wanting to help their Muslim brothers in Iraq start a new Isalamic state. I guess he could attribute this to help by the government of Iran, since there is no official seperation of church and state there as we have in the U.S. Still I would not jump to the conclusion that this is what all Iranians want for Iraq, any more than I would expect other's to think that all American's want the same things that our religious right wing wants.
Posted by: Dave at April 28, 2003 09:39 AMibrodsky,
This is politics. They do all these for their own sake. Democracy is a system to control power since all politicians are the same. US and UK are not freedom fighters and they did not it for humanistic reasons.
ibrodsky, you're not the first person who seem to be under the impression that the shiites around the world are looking towards iraq as another potential 'islamic state' (not that america would ever let it happen).so from a simple extrapolation of logic, which you have exhibited, you concluded that iran, which incidentally, has abandoned all calls for exporting the 'islamic revolution' abroad, would somehow benefit from supporting a similar theocracy in iraq.
shouldn't the iranian clerics be worried of the potential exodus once iraq has been 'liberated'? qom thrived when persecuted shi'ite clerics from iraq made their ways there to avoid the tyranny unleashed by saddam(made possible by Bush sr. who abandoned the very people he incited into insurrection, but that's a different story).
now that there is freedom of religious expression in iraq, there would, predictably be an exodus from qom in favour of karbala and najaf. not sure if this threatens the ideology of the theocratic state in iran or detracts from its legitimacy.
anyway, iran hasn't done anything to suggest any intentions of propping up an islamic state in iraq. actually looks like they have more to lose from it than anything else.
Tom Friedman's NYT column today says Iraqi Shia are skeptical of Mosque-State entanglement, and thereby pose a threat to the Mullahs. If Iraqi Shia can make a Democratic Iraq work (it's far too early to tell if they will or won't), then that could send a message to Iranian Shia that a better life is possible without the Mullahs.
Posted by: Milwauken at April 30, 2003 02:13 PMWe know that Milwauken.
We also know, better life is possible with no need to accept occupation and George Bush.