© the eyeranian

AI: THE PAIN MERCHANTS
Iran among 20 countries in the world manufacturing chemical irritants such as tear gas during the years 1999-2003

Iranian government still actively pursues such weapons, for most part importing it, or the technology to make it from North Korea and China. The dictatorship feels the need to be prepared for the day its end comes. Was there a point "hra" I missed?

I don't know what hra's point is here. Iran regime is a bad regime? It can be discussed again, but let's not change the subjest here.
This is a stablished fact. But the biggest producer of torture in the world is "the great center of democracy called America" that is developing more and more efficient torturing divices every day. This is how Many tallented Americans who are serving their masters in White House are usiing their tallent: against humanity.

Yes, many of US's allies are the worst offenders of the Human rights in the world. And they are fed all the time by their "god of human rights abuse": the US.

You are right Pedram, right at this moment many human beings are being tortured in the world and many of them by the tools made by the Americans. I am sick to my histomach to hear George Bush talking about freedom and humanity. As he and his type do not belong to humanity. They are nothing but bunch of criminals.

Thanks again Pedram to bringing this matter up. Please right more about this as it is the reality of today world.

I hope other bloggers do the same.

Sorry in the above comment,
"This is a stablished fact", relates to the paragraph about Iran regime.

I don't understand people like "hra" or "Naser." What are you trying to say? All of us know about Iran's violations the Human rights, but what it has to do with the subject here?
Here Pedram is talking about the US and its hypocrisy about the exporting of torture equipment to some repressive regimes and "defending" democracy and freedom of speech. What are you trying to say? Do you think that because Iran has a repressive regime the United States has the right to export torture equipment?
I don't understand how your brain makes a connection here between these two.

"Gooz baa shaghighe che kaar daare?"

Control Arms

http://www.controlarms.org/

What equipment? Did they organize a beating by text messaging eachother on thier BlackBerries? Did they hand cuff someone with plastic cuffs made in Mexico? What equipment was used and how was it used? Was the electro shock weapon a non lethal taser for crowd control? In which case I agree, just shoot them, its more conventional and thier guns are probably made in China or Russia.

The truth is it is still Yemenis beating Yemenis, Saudis beheading Saudis, and Turks Torturing Turks, or in thier case, Kurds. Yet somehow you manage to blame the Great Satan. Typical.

Exporting the materiel for civil rights violations is hardly something that A.H. can defend, except as a racist or an anti-democrat. It's vile and disgusting.

Nor can s/he defend the use of torture by the US and US military. He can't defend it because that use of torture violated treaties the US has signed, and is in fact directly contrary to American ideals.

The genocides in Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, East Timor, Cambodia, and elsewhere were not cases of 'x killing x,' they were cases of 'x killing y.' They were predations, every single one, of one group on another group racially identified as inferior. And the world has decided not to tolerate such racism in the future, which is why we have a UN and a genocide convention, signed by the US. It is why we have human rights resolutions and treaties.

The historical revisionism A.H. suggests in his comment is probably racist, but it is at least ignorant.

Kristen,

Sorry to burst your utopian bubble, but the control of arms is both essentially impossible and counter-productive if you wish to prevent human suffering.

1. It's practically impossible: one of the better machine guns from WWII was literally made using plubming pipe and a bed spring. Firearms are VERY VERY easy to make with anything approaching modern tools. It has already been shown (in Britain and Australia) that criminals will make their own guns (and there will be a thriving black market for them).

2. It's counter productive. The first step towards genocide is a disarmed population. The Nazis did it. The UN did it (which has led to genocide twice, by the way).

Even without going all the way to genocide, the removal of guns leads to crime with other weapons, with a disparate impact on women and children. One of the great advantages of the firearm is that a small woman can kill a large man just as easily as the large man can kill the small woman. Remove the firearm, and you are, in many cases, making women second-class citizens, unable to defend themselves.

The firearm is the great equalizer. I can kill you, and you can kill me. Nothing else achieves this. The "control" of firearms infringes the right of self-defense... unless you are advocating one policeman to accompany every person, so that the police can actually protect us. That seems a little... counterproductive, to be polite.

"the removal of guns leads to crime with other weapons", huh?

I strongly advise a trip to the country that historically and culturally most resembles our nation and yet does not have the gun problem (or its replacement by other weapons) that we have; Canada.