© the eyeranian

The U.S. decision now to shelter the MKO seems at odds with the Administration's stated reasons for war with Iraq and with regard to the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 .... which, BTW, addresses Iraq and not "Saddam Hussein".:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.

...

* Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18078.pdf

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

H

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

my guess is Israel will bomb the nuclear facility in Iran within the next several years. And the US etc. will be well-aware of their bombing plans in advance.

John,

I doubt it (the bombing). There is not just one "facility". Everyone talks about Bushehr but that is just an electricity generating (when it goes operational) plant. The problem is that there is knowledge, capability and expertise to build uranium processing and enrichment facilities. These are things that are hard to hit by bombs. The facilities, maybe, but you have to know where they are and be able to know when new ones are being built.

It just isn't a solution that will have the intended outcome.

The Israelis have done many counterproductive things but I don't think that this will be another one of them.

About “W is for War” article…

Thank You Pedram for posting my article here and I hope you feel better.

I did receive a lot of email after Iranian.com posted it and I would like to address some of them here in this forum. I hope don’t create any problems for Eyranian.com.

First of all, the overwhelming majority of the emails I got were very positive. Many people, often professionals in the Iranian community wrote to me and thanked me for voicing concerns that they have had themselves. These concerns get little attention and almost no discussion in the Iranian circles (at least in SoCal) where being anti Khomeini, anti Islamic Republic and just plain anti Islamic seems to be the only acceptable angle you can have on things. Thank You, everyone who wrote back with positive things, for your encouragements.

With that said, I will move on to address the questions and responses in the other category.

About “W is for War” article…

Several people wrote, mostly nicely but some very angrily, disputing the fact that Bush wants war. They said “how do you know what he wants?” One person wrote:

----------------------
Would you please name one time President Bush has even remotely said he's going to "attack Iran". Those who are going around claiming this should be held accountable for their blatant lies and deception.
----------------------

Furthermore, this person suggested that Bush wants to “foment revolution,” not attack militarily. He suggests that voting for Bush for a second term means that he would help create a “revolution” which will presumably bring all of our problems to and end and bring democracy to Iran.

Respectfully, that’s bullshit, all of it, the assumptions and the conclusions. I have several responses to this:

1) Just because Bush has SAID he supports revolution, does not mean he doesn’t have war in mind. Consider the Iraq war. When did he SAY he was going to war? It was only the night before the actual attack, even than, it wasn’t clear. Up until that point, he pretended that a peaceful solution was possible. He SAID “War is the last resort.” He gave Iraq ultimatums and right up until the end, every time someone asked him about war, he said he wants Saddam to “disarm,” he said there’s no “war plans on his desk,” and that Saddam “must disarm,” etc. He never mentioned war. Even after he received congressional authorization to deploy troops, he pretended he wanted to “increase pressure,” not to start a war.

Similarly, with Afghanistan he pretended that turning over Osama Bin Laden would stop a war with the Taliban. We now know that in both cases, the decisions were made right after 9/11.

If you read Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack,” you’ll see that the Iraq decision was already made over a year before the invasion. This means the rest of the rhetoric and the games with the UN inspectors and “Saddam’s Palaces hiding WMD,” and Al Qaeda connections were ALL MADE UP. From this point, we can conclude that what Bush SAYS is no indication of what Bush DOES. And this really is not a big revelation. In a democracy, you CAN’T say you want war. If you do want war, you have to find other ways of making people demand it and gather support.

Is it a stretch, given what Bush has already accomplished in Iraq to conclude that Bush wants another invasion? We have the same conditions, the WMD, the “repressive regime,” the “threat of terrorists” with Iran.

2) What, than are the real indications of war? Well, many people have been writing about this. The Bush administration is very media-savvy. As I said, it’s necessary to “create” a demand for war before you can “pretend” you’re doing what the people want and go to war. How do you create demand? Karl Rove, the president’s advisor likened war to a product. He said that from a Marketing point of view, you don’t introduce a new product in the summer.

The first thing with a product is “the buzz.” Iraq buzz began after the 2002 “axis of evil” speech. But it didn’t really take off until after the midterm elections of November ’02. All of a sudden in November, all the media started portraying Saddam as “evil.”

The administration’s people started visiting talks shows and newspaper columnists and talk about the “threat” of another 9/11. Condi Rice kept saying “We can’t wait for a Mushroom cloud.” All of a sudden, inspections which use to take years to complete were “late” and “obstructed.” Despite the fact that Saddam was in power for 30 years and an “enemy” of the US since 1990, it became “urgent” to disarm him right away. US started criticizing whatever the inspectors did. Every time it looked like they were getting something done, some member of the administration would say “Saddam is obstructing” this way or that way.

The Al-Samud missile episode was the most telling. US demanded that they destroy the missiles even though they went only a few hundred feet longer than they should have and it was proven that they had no chemical or biological component. As far as WMD goes they were not important at all. The inspectors’ times would’ve been better spent finding real WMD not destroying these missiles. Of course if you never really cared about the WMD but you wanted to attack anyway, they were most important because they represented some defense that Iraq could pose in a conventional war.

Simple minded Americans, who couldn’t pick Iraq on a map a few weeks before, were now ready to attack demanding US “do something before it’s too late.” FOX and CNN did much to “foment” the war: making up cool graphics with Iraq’s army versus our army, talking about “strategy” and “campaigns” on big geographical maps with little tanks and planes on them. The war was sold like a video game. People were so excited to take part in something real and defend their country against “certain terrorist attacks.” And of course the moral justification that “Iraq was responsible for 9/11” which over 70% of the people believed, helped move the public along. Howard Dean was crucified for suggesting capturing Saddam did not make us safer. Of course the 9/11 commission showed that to be true now.

EVEN with all this, polls showed the majority of Americans wouldn’t support the war until March of ’03. And only after that did US invade.

It all started with the buzz. The buzz was the indication for war for Iraq. We have the buzz now, about Iran.

But honestly, don’t take my word for it. Look at this article by Juan Cole, a respected Middle East expert from University of Michigan. There are countless other reports that point to the fact that Bush is trying to “build a case.” I’ll post some here. Please read them before you attack back. And you can easily find more in places like Google News and alternative media.

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040721Cole.shtml
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5933
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0728-14.htm
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39611
http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan12132003.html

3) To be fair, building a case for war, which I believe Bush wants, and actually going to war are not the same thing. I realize, as I mentioned in the article that physically going to war is probably not likely. This is because Iran is actually strong and can defend itself right now (no doubt in my mind that if this wasn’t true, Iran would already be invaded.) So in order to remedy this situation, Iran must be made to be weak. I’m not sure Bush has thought this out so far, but inevitably, if he wins, he will seek to make Iran weak. Since there is virtually no trade or diplomatic relations with Iran, the only way to do this is to fund violence or “dissident groups” inside of Iran, as well as pressure other countries to stop trade with Iran.

Some, like the person who wrote me the comment, will call this “fomenting revolution.” But it’s not. It’s just an attempt to weaken Iran, so military action and real pressure is possible. Just ask yourself this: How can the US “support” Iranian freedoms? USA with its record of Mosaddegh and supporting Saddam Hussein is not trusted by most people inside Iran. That means, if it tries to “help” one group or another covertly, than it would make the current rulers stronger. They’ve been saying all along that US wants to intervene in Iran and overthrow the Republic. Their words will literally come true and people would forget about “freedoms” and support the regime.

Don’t believe me? How many years was Iraq under sanctions? Didn’t Clinton “support” overthrow and pay oppositions in Iraq? How many years have the North Koreans suffered in near starvation while US and the west embargoed them? How many years has the US been trying to support democracy in Cuba? They didn’t “foment” any revolution in Iraq, Cuba or North Korea. The point wasn’t to do that, the point was to make them militarily and economically which they did accomplish. But in the mean time, the people suffered heavily, many died and the actual repressive regimes grew stronger.

People seem to think somehow US can support Iranians who want to overthrow the government. And this will still be seen as a “native” movement in Iran. They don’t understand how this works I guess. What does it mean to support? Send money? Send military equipment? “Train” them abroad? Pay people to go in the streets and demonstrate? Or break things? What? These are the things US has done in the past when it tried to overthrow governments. Iran itself was the recipient of this kind of “support” in the 50s.

Let’s say you are right, and Bush actually cares about Iranian democracy and wants to help. Who would he turn to? Wouldn’t it in fact be the MKO or the Monarchists who have next to no support inside Iran? These groups have already poised themselves for such a role in Congress.

How, I ask, will doing any of these things give legitimacy to a popular revolution inside Iran? The very idea that a revolution can be “sponsored” by a superpower is ridiculous and self-deligitimizing. I’m not saying it may not succeed in doing something but don’t fool yourself by calling it a democratic movement. A real democratic movement needs no sponsors.

In fact any kind of US “support” will destroy the legitimate popular movements in Iran. As I mentioned in the article, and many promptly ignored, the greatest movements toward democracy in the IRI have happened when the US has LEFT IT ALONE. If you want to do it using a war, like they did in the 80s, or do it with threat of military action and bullying, like they are doing now, the democratic movements die. It’s simple, leaders of movements have harder time finding support in ordinary Iranians when Iran is under threat.

Am I saying there’s nothing anyone can do to help? No, I’m not. State action has helped in the past in certain circumstances. For example the brutal Turkish repression of the Kurds has been greatly remedied thanks to Europe’s dedication to the issue. But this was done with actual discussions, economic incentives and civilized dialogue, not threat of military action or embargo. US, not being interested in diplomatic relations with Iran, has none of these tools available. So the only other way to do things is with non-diplomatic, i.e. violent intervention.

Non-state actors can help. UN, Human Rights Commissions, Amnesty International, many other NGOs can be empowered and supported. But the American people and Diaspora like you and me have to make this happen not the government of the US. The US has no credibility. Perhaps if we were talking about Canada, Germany or France, the government may be able to accomplish some good in Iran, but not the US with its history and reputation in Iran.

I totally agree with those opposed to Bush, for one unique reason. This reason is that idiots can not display true leadership and , by nature, would end up to be self-destructive.

"Khomeini was an old man with many flaws. But from day one he stressed separation of religion and government "

Aha! I see.

That 'dome xorus' is enough to know where this Qumars actually comes from. The is corresponding absolute BULLSHIT!

Qumars, bums like you are the reason people suffer so muych in Iran. You and yoour kind are CRIMINALS as far as Iran is concerned.

Dear AIS,

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please provide more evidence or sources if you want to make a point. There may be a part of Iranian History that you may wish to forget, that doesn't make it so.

Khomeini did not have the current form of Islamic Republic in mind. He SAID many times early in the revolution that the role of a spiritual leader should be to advise the government not to run it. There were many non-religious revolutionaries who participated in the Iranian revolution. Like it or not, there were more factions than just the religious extreme in 1979.

My thesis is that the War and hostility with the USA and Iraq allowed one of the more extreme faction of religious fanatics to completely control the government. How else do you explain non-Mullah's like Rajaii and Bani-Sadr as ELECTED presidents? How do you explain the Ayatollah Montazeri being stripped of his successor status and kept under house arrest to this day?

You may want to "chill out" as they say here in the US and examine what has happened with a cool head. War and foreign hostility has allowed this revolution to be fallen into the extreme elements. That's why after the war, and after CIA and Reagan stopped trying to influence Iran, and support Saddam, THAN you had a democracy movement.

If it wasn't for the USA, the movement that swept Khatami into office and resulted in student protests would've happened at least 10 years earlier. By now, the regime would've been forced to surrender many more freedoms.

But thanks to Bush, they can still justify their repression.

Q, we have seen similar 'contributions' from An Iranian Student before. He's just an angry individual who believes only his own frame of mind is the proper and correct way and all else are enemies of his beloved land. Not that different from the way a Toudei, Mojahed, Ansari/Basiji or Pahlavi Monarchist thinks. To them, democracy means their way and all else should be put against the wall or just stay out of the country.

I'm sorry Qumars to burst your propaganda buble, but what khomeini said PRIOR to this damned revolution was what he used to say to gather support from the masses.
Not 2 months after the revolution, he stated on public TV that he accepts nothing but an ISLAMIC republic. Got it? Nothing but that! He canceled the 'majlis moassesan', ge ordered and stood by executrions, first of former government officials and then of all his 'non-religious' compadres!
many years before the revolution, he wrote his 'velayate faqih' in which he stated in detail what political system he always had in mind.All of this happened before BEFORE there was any war.

These are obvious FACTS, not this or that opinion.
When you deny this, either you are ignorant about something so important and pivotal (both in our history and on what you base your superficial arguments), or else (which I'm quite sure is the case ) YOU LIE! simple as that.

Irooni,
do I smell something burning?

Oh that's good...

I'm not sure if you mean to do this on purpose or simply don't understand. "Islamic Republic" could mean anything. Since the idea itself had never been tried before, it was open to interpretation.

THIS is not the Islamic Republic Khomeini had in mind at the beginning. I'm not just talking about before he came to Iran, but even after, like two years after.

If you're interested in a serious discussion, please answer the following questions. If you can't or won't, than don't waste people's times and don't call me names, please.

1) Keep in mind that the elections for President and Prime Minister happened AFTER Khomeini arrived in Iran, AND after the referendum had already indicated that over 95% of the people WANTED an Islamic Republic. If what you say is true, WHY did Khomeini insist on candidates who are NON-RELIGIOUS for President and Prime Minister?

Isn't it possible, that what Khomeini wanted was a regular REPUBLIC with Religious advising and some power reserved for religious hierarchy for social issues? In anycase, something less repressive than what we ended up with after the war?

2) How do you explain that AFTER the WAR started, all the candidates became Mullahs, Bani-Sadr and Rajaii were run out of Iran AND the office of the Prime Minister was scrapped alltogether? Why would Khomeini do this, if he already implemented his final vision for an "Islamic Republic" right after his taking power, as you suggest?

What's an Islamic Republic? Mullhas running for office in Majlis and the President controling the government? Or a non-Mullah civilian president, a non-Mullah prime minister and "supreme leader" as an advisory role? Both happened AFTER Khomeini took power. The more repressive one happened AFTER the WAR started.

3) There are many things about IRI that are not Islamic. Why didn't Khomeini change the Calender system to coincide with the Arabic lunar calender?

If Khomeini wanted a 100% Islamic state and if he was an absolute ruler, like you suggest, Why didn't he change the names of the months to their Arabic equivilant? Why is there permenant representation of OTHER RELIGIONS in the council of experts? (There is a permenant Jewish seat, a Zoroastrian Seat, and a Christian Seath)? Why can women in Iran divorce, or drive cars or own businesses or vote or run for office or retain custory of children and any number of things that women in other "Islamic" countries can't? If Khomeini wanted a repressive Islamic regime, shouldn't he have done these things?

4) What are you trying to say anyway? Yes, we get it, you hate Khomeini, you hate IRI and you probably even hate Islam itself. But can you really claim that War is good for Iran? Is that what you're claiming?

-Q

As Iranians, we are all extremely lucky to have people like AIS out of Iran. If one good thing came out of the revolution it was to get rid of worthless sycophants that would just line up to kiss the shah and his families behind. These were the same people that sold-out Mossadegh and they won't hesitate to do it again for another bag of cash.

The best AIS and characters like him can do now, is to kiss right wing republican bottoms, ingratiate themselves to conservatives that look down at them like their lap dogs, get an MBA, become an insurance salesman to their "allahazrat" and finally get invited to his "private" disco for a party.

"AIS jan I spent 10 million US dollars on this private disco. Do you like it?"

"Oh yes. It is beautiful your highness. Money well spent. And the 60 million Iranian traitors say you haven't done one day of positive work in your life. Those CRIMINALS should all be put against the wall. mooch mooch."

"Yes thank you. Kiss the other one too. This one khab rafteh as I have been sitting sideways for the past 45 years now. Advantages of having a goshad one, heh heh."

George Walkin Talkin Bullshit...

Qumars Bolourchian is another Hezbollahi who works under the $158 million dollars the Iranian government invests in foreign based covert journalists and groups.

I wouldn't trust the guy with my back turned.. i can't believe some of you fools falling for his tricks.

Qumars,

I'm loving this conversation with you becuase the more it goes on the more your mentality is exposed. :)
But my answers first:

Khomeini and his bussies were succesful in preserving their power because they played everything gradually. After all the freedom talk immidiately before the revolution, any harsh 100% religious policies AT THE BEGINNING would have backlashed, buddy. They knew it very well. But gradually thay did what they had intended to do from the very beginning.
Iran however had about 70 years of modfernization, starting from before the constitutional revolution. So despite all their brutality they didn'ty succeed in turni9ng the wheels all the way back. This non-islamic parts happened IN SPITE of their efforts not because of it. I still remember how they said
"happy spring" insteadf of "Happy Nowruz" for many years to come, as just on example of thst, or take Khalkhali, one of the new wave of reformists in your illusionary world! trying to demolish Persepolise and Pasragadae very eraly on after the revolution.
But these are all evident. Instead let's see some new 'dome xorus' on your part:
"If what you say is true, WHY did Khomeini insist on candidates who are NON-RELIGIOUS for President and Prime Minister?"

NON RELIGIOUS?!! Are you joking? Bazargan was NON-RELIGIOUS? BANI-women's-hairs-propagats-radiomagnetic-attractive-waves-SADR was non-religious?! Rajayi was non-religious?!

Veeeery interesting.

"How do you explain that AFTER the WAR started, all the candidates became Mullahs, Bani-Sadr and Rajaii were run out of Iran AND the office of the Prime Minister was scrapped alltogether?"

Prime minister's office was not scrapped alltogether until rafsanjani's p[residency AFTER the war. Who do you think Jerry Lewis look a like Mir Hossein Musavi was?

The question is , why are you saying these things?.... Why really?

"What are you trying to say anyway? Yes, we get it, you hate Khomeini, you hate IRI and you probably even hate Islam itself..."

Oh...is there sokmething wrong with hating Khomeini in your view? After all why shouyld we hate him, such a nice old man-I know I know with some flaws-but still not a bad man really? He just destroyed our country, killed thousnad and thousand s of Iranians in executions, killed half a million , including childern with plastic keys to heaven- in a war HE insisted should continue for 7 extra years. ("jang barakat a"- war is a blessing, remember?) destroyed our economy, brought a midelavian religious blood sucking theocracy over us in the end of the 20 Century...why, really WHY should we infidels hate him or this magnificent IRI? how biased and ungrateful are we? bad people! bad people! you won't get candy tonight if you continue like this...bad people!

And what is it with Islam? I do not LIKE Islam, I personally find it inhuman. But what was the relation to this discussion? And Mr. Democratic, what is wrong with people like me not liking Islam? WHY do YOU have a problem with that?

Are you going to expose yourself and where you come from more?...good.

It is nice to know how people advertising for Kerry this round think about Khomeini, the IRI and the like. And it is also good to see Non-reliugious leftist poeple like Pedram the Eyeranian endorsing people like you Q who are fond of IRI and Khomeini, the good old man.
VERY EVRY ILLUMINATING.

"...But can you really claim that War is good for Iran? Is that what you're claiming?"

What I am CLAIMINg, what I stand for here is to take benefiit of the situation in the world now and support that fraction of the Amrrican government that now, for what ever reason, is earnest in getting rid of this regim ein Iran. They have my support.

In the mean time you nd your pals can continue to lobby for the glorious democratic Islamic republic of Iran and its Mullah masters.

I goota go do other stuff now, but it was very enlightening exposing the likes of you here, buddy.

Mr. Arya,

You are wrong, I'm not paid by anyone. I'm only moved by the prospect of stopping a war that will surely kill many innocent Iranians. But obviously nothing I say will change your mind about me. So if you have any substantive comments about what I said, I'll be happy to debate you.

-Q

AIS,

If you actually read your own answers you'll see that your theory makes no sense.

>gradually thay did what they had intended to do >from the very beginning.

So, did they "INTEND" to relax Islamic rules, allow women to run for office and open up to the west EIGHT YEARS after the revolution?

Suppose I accept you half-baked theory of "gradual take-over." How do you expain the Islamic Oppression declining in power later?

Take Iran of 1983 versus Iran of 1998. In 1998, EVERYTHING was better than 1983. Whereas they closed papers in 1998, they used to simply shoot journalists and imprison them outright in 1983. More women were in office and other high positions, and everyone agrees there was more freedom. Yes, it wasn't a western style democracy in 1998, but it was MUCH BETTER than 1983. Even your example of Perspolis and Iranian historical places don't support your own argument. Today they are protected and treasured. No one is trying to "destroy" them.

Even today, ask anyone in the streets of Tehran if they like Iran better now, or they like it better 15 years ago. The FACT is as soon as the war ended, life got better for everyone, including a genuine democratic movement.

So you are wrong. When you say they "started" easy and gradually took over intending to turn Iran into a fully theocracy, than things shouldn't have been easier AFTER they became harsher. Please think about this before you reply. If you haven't been back in Iran yourself, ask someone who has.

>NON RELIGIOUS?!! Are you joking?

Yes. I'm not saying they weren't Muslims or even advocates. I'm saying they did not belong to the religious establishment. They were not "Mullahs" like Khomeini, Khatami or Montazeri. You can try to distort this distinction, perhaps because you don't approve of anyone believing in Islam, but the fact is there is a difference. Again, if Khomeini wanted the whole country to be run by Islamic radicals, these positions should've been Mullahs, they were not.

Even if you want to say that Khomeini purposefully "masterminded" the non-clergy members to be President just so he can take them down later, you are still wrong. Khomeini, in fact, supported Bani-Sadr for many years against the more hardline elements of the Islamic Republican Party.

As I suspected, your answer to my last question is Yes.

Yes, I do think there's something wrong with hating. Hating is the problem, not the solution. You have so much hatred that perhaps you're unwilling to embrace true opportunities for democracy. You have so much hatred that you'd rather support the destruction Iran under US "mini-nukes" than to consider a more peaceful change.

If you truely cared about democracy you would also denounce the Pahlavi Regime which was world-renouned for its repression. There was no democracy whatsoever in 1978 in Iran. Yet, somehow you criticize the revolution for trying to change that situation. Persumably, repression under Shah is OK with you, but not under the IRI. I, for example, have no hatred of Islam or any other religion. I have no problem accepting a truely democratic IRI. But you would never stand for it, no matter how democratic it became. (I admit it's not even close now.)

If you want to oversimplify things and "blame" everything on Islam, you're welcome to do it, but don't expect it to solve any problems. If you blame Islam, you'd have to blame every religion because they are all about the same.

That is perhaps the ultimate anti-democracy statement. What someone or group of people choose to worship is their own business. And if you think you can get any support for any new "government" in Iran by insulting the national religion, you're living in a dream world.

>what I stand for here is to take benefiit of >the situation in the world now and support that >fraction of the Amrrican government that now, >for what ever reason, is earnest in getting rid >of this regime in Iran. They have my support.

So you want them to do the dirty work for you? Even if you had to "For whatever reason" indeed. If you really think America wants to "liberate" Iran just to turn it over to the forces of "democracy," than you're either extremely naive or too young. Perhaps you should take a look at Iraq or Afghanistan and ask yourself "Where's the Democracy?" What did the tens of thousands who perished die for? Would you prefer to live in Iran now or in Iraq?

-Q

Keep talking. You're exposing the side you come from very efficiently. No neem for me to say anything about your IRI-type "Logic". We all recognize it when we see it. So Q, PLEASE just keep talking, OK.....;)

oh, Q, you're not talking...what's up?
Maybe you need a little extra push every once in a while. Ok:
How about you talk about your dear Khomeini's (who you don't hate since you are sooo nice...tell me do you also not hate Hitler, the Nazis and the third Reich? after all you don't hate anybody, right!) anyway, about dear khomeini's book on 'velayate faghih' were he explicitly explained his ideas of the ocrrect ilsmiac political system, way before the revolution and war with Iraq.
Why don't you enlighten us, the hateful ignoramus bunch that we are, about how humane and democratic and lovely the thesis of that book really was!
C'mon Q, I miss your logic here, let us see who is supporting Kerry in this round among Iranians.
Go for it man! You can do it!