the eyeranian

This makes me very sad Pedram. If there is any reliable information about what is actualy going on in Iran regarding nukes, I would like to write all my representatives in Washington and voice my opinion. This is crap.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the US government has encouraged the Iranian government to crack down so the US government can then have an excuse to try to overthrow the Iranian government? And that the Iranian government has fallen for this cunning plan?

Say what you will of our "corrupt and illegitimate" administrations, at least none of them publicly executed their political adversaries.

Gary,

Do you think we are proud of what our government does in executing people? No, we (at least many of us) are not and consider it criminal.

But, please don't try to make your government look good either. Iran and the US are in close race in number of executions.

Beside, killing is killing. Although they are not completely the same, publicly executed is as dead as privately executed.

Pedram,
May be I understood it wrong but I think things like what you say here, practically provide more excuses to the Bush gang to attack Iran. Would you please clarify your position in this:

"...although they lack the necessary weaponry to threaten us directly, there's always the ever-present possibility of those little "dirty bombs" hidden in a suitcase".

pedram,am i not catching on fast enough to what you're trying to say or are there a few discrepancies here? some blogs ago, you mentioned US's policy of containment and rehabilitation of the MKO as being another example of their duplicitous foreign policy. Now you mention the US getting rid of the MKO as part of the deal with Iran. The deal also supposedly involves iran convincing the hezbollah to abandon its military stance. however, according to the robert fisk article, iran has exhibited an independence of thought with regards to this 'deal' had it been struck.Re: not interfering in iraq, another article you provided the link to mentioned the presence of another the presence of 'A rival armed group backed by the Iranian regime... active in the area'.
So technically, the Iranians are not keeping their end of the deal.therefore, how can the crackdowns by the iranian government on civil rights and liberties be attributed to the complacency from having negotiated an agreement with the US government?

I'd say that the rant above makes about, oh, zero sense.

If our government wanted to invade Iran, it would already have a list of "pretexts" the length of my arm.

But who cares, anyway? The mullahs are on the wrong end of history, and have got to go, one way or another. It was the mullahcracy of Iran that practically invented the type of mass suicide bombing that was visited upon us on 9/11. That regime has contributed nothing positive to the world, and their continued presence on the global stage is beginning to reek like yesterday's garbage.

Brant,
I agree with you, Iran regime has contributed nothing positive to the world, niether has your government, exept occupation and destruction of another country as well as attempt to destroy UN relevance buy its 19th century attitude of war.

So, please don't be so proud of so-called accomplishments of your government.

Pedram,

Looks like I might have mis-understood what you meant in your piece where he say:

"we are told that Tehran is very close to developing their first nuke and god forbid if they do because although they lack the necessary weaponry to threaten us directly, there's always the ever-present possibility of those little "dirty bombs" hidden in a suitcase."

If "We are told" applies to whole paragraph which seems to be the case, the issue of "dirty bombs hidden in a suitcase" is not what you claim but it is just part of the accusation from the US.

In that case, I apologize Padram.

Well said Pedram.
Now that Iraq has been liberated, Iran seems like a good candidate to become the next "present and immediate danger to the world", and in urgent need to be liberated!!! After all, Bush Administration has used the Fear Factor to gain political advantages before, and they are going to use it again since Bush's second round in the office depend on it.

Pedram,

You'd better be a little more clear. Those people that are hanged in public as your photos show were serial murderers of women and girls. Not that I support public hangings but you'd better make your point more clear and do not mix different issues.

Also, the islamic republic has a long history of making dirty deals with the US when republicans are in power. The word has been around for several decades that the oil reach regimes spend money to back republicans in the US presidential elections because they always welcome backstage, dirty deals. These talks with Khalil zad can be one of those deals.
Don't wory about the pro-israeli lubbies in the US. In the 80s when the Mullahs used to make the strongest anti-israeli propaganda, they were buying second hand armaments from israel at the same time.

instead of complaining why don't all you smart people suggest constructive avenues. if we are all to get along in the world with our varied interests and alliances, a common ground must be forged.

at least the us is moving toward that common ground, which is economic in scope. i do not believe it is the most ideal, but economics is what all our cultures have in common, no matter how divergent on religious issues.

robert:

I don't see what "common ground" we have with the mullahcrats of Iran. Their philosophy is one of absolutism; they are implacable, and it would be a grave error to attempt the road of appeasement.

What "common ground" do we have with a man like Rafsanjani, who said that Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel as soon as it had one.

The mullahs can go the easy way (a-la Czechoslovakia), or the hard way (a-la Nikolai Ceaucesceu), but go they must.

Brant, not to defend Rafsanjani, but could you provide a link or source -other than an Israeli one- for what he said?

brant
implacable? have we given up? marriage counseling maybe?

perhaps the 'easy way' would be to exchange theocracy for secular representation...

patience...

what do others have to say about an inversion of governmental values? that is, demoting theocrats to just another voice among the many. is it possible?

Jerry:

The story was widely reported. Rafsanjani stated that Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel as soon as it had one. He further stated that it wouldn't matter if Israel retaliated, because it would be worth martyring one Muslim country for the sake of destroying Israel.

He made the statement on December 14, 2001.

Btw, what do you have against links to Israeli news sources? Do you find them to be untruthful?

robert:

Thou art an equivocator.

"economics is what all our cultures have in common, no matter how divergent on religious issues"

You make it sound like a polite debate over tea and crumpets in your grandmum's parlor.

I suppose that by "divergent" on "religious issues," you mean the difference between mass murder, sanctioned by the state, and the rest of us?

Perhaps it was just "religious divergence" that caused all those casualties on 9/11? Was it "divergence" on "religious issues" that killed over 200 Marines in Lebanon in 1983? Is it "divergence" on "religious issues" that causes that continued slaughter of innocent Israelis, as well as many others, these days?

Mr. Moallemian,

The first sentence of this posting pretty much sums up this posting -- but you're the one throwing crap on the wall.

First you allege without evidence that Mr. Khalizad made a deal with the Iranian authorities in which the U.S. agreed to act against the MKO while Iran agreed to curb violence by Hezbollah. The deal postulated in the article you link to is completely different. In the article you link to, it is postulated that Mr. Khalizad may have agreed to disarm MKO in return for Iran's promise to avoid interference in Iraq. There is no mention of Hezbollah in the article.

Then you allege without evidence that President Khatami's visit to Lebanon -- in which he was greeted by adoring crowds who chanted "Death to Israel" in an anti-American rally organized by Hezbollah -- was part of an American and Israeli scheme.

Then you allege without evidence that the U.S. gave the Iranian authorities assurance that the U.S. would "look the other way" from Iran's "broad campaign of terror and fear", including the arrest of Sina Motallebi. I resent this allegation very much since so many Americans (myself included) signed the petition which you authored calling for Mr. Motallebi's release.

You are trying to have it both ways. You think the U.S. is colluding with the Iranian authorities, AND you think the U.S. is conspiring with Israel to overthrow the Iranian authorities.

You offer implausible allegations, one after another, offering no evidence, which compels the conclusion that these allegations arise from nowhere but your own sordid imagination.

Arjun Bamzai
www.arjunbamzai.blogspot.com

I apologize to readers for my harsh tone and my poor choice of words in the posting above.

Arjun Bamzai

www.arjunbamzai.blogspot.com

Faramin writes:

"niether has your government, exept occupation and destruction of another country"

Which country is that? Would that be Iraq? Saddam Hussein already destroyed that country before we set foot in it. We have merely removed him, thus allowing the Iraqi people an opportunity to build something better.

Nothing positive, you say.

What about the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germany? The destruction of Imperial Japan? The defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War?

How about the building of two of the most successful democracies since WWII -- Germany and Japan?

How about ending the brutal civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Muslims were being slaughtered wholesale? How about the ending of genocide in Kosovo?

And the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban?

And how about the technology that you enjoy on this website? It comes from America.

America produced about 22% of the world's wealth, and export a fair portion of it abroad, thus raising living standards in poorer countries.

No country in the world commits more resources to food aid and economic assistance for third-world countries than America.

Nothing positive, you say.

"as well as attempt to destroy UN relevance buy its 19th century attitude of war."

The UN destroyed itself by debating itself into irrelevance. Besides, what sort of positive working relationship can we really possibly have with an institution that promotes Libya to the Human Rights Commission, that promotes Saddam Hussein and Iran to the Disarmament Commission, that wallows in a sea of corruption and mendacity, and which so often functions as little more than a club of petty dictators using their votes to stymie the objectives of the democratic world?

Frankly, we Americans consider it an honor to be condemned by the likes of Castro, Ghaddafi, Rafsanjani, Kim Jong Il, and company. We wouldn't have it any other way.

Brent,

Thanks for writing.

You say, the US created apportunity for Iraqis to build something better.
Well, I guess 12 years of devastating sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the death of over half a million Iraqi children was part of preparation to give Iraqis opportunity to build something better. There is no need to say that sanction only hurt people of Iraq and not Saddam's regime. I guess dropping 3 times bombs (compare to the 1991 war) only on city of Baghdad was part of that creation also.

Please do not credit the defeat of Germany to the US. US entered that war about two years after it started and it was only after the US was attacked by the Japanis. I am not surprised that in the west, the determining factor in defeating the Germans which was in fact Soviet Union 9 and not the US) is ignored and all it is credited to the US (In fact smal army of Canada had more contribution to that war than the US). If it wasn't because of the Soviet Union and over 20 million soviets who died in that war, we were all speaking German today.

As far as Soviet Union itself is concerned, it defeated itself and was not defeated by the US. BTW, even if US did it, who says it has been good for the world? Since collpase of the SU, United States has been riding its horse every where it wants withough being challenged at all. The US wouldn't dare to do what it did to Iraq if SU still existed.

It is nothing but kidding when you say, America produced 22% of world wealth and exports fair chunk of that wealth abroad, and helps raising living standards in poor countries.
Infact, America is the biggest consumer of the world's wealth and is the worst pollutter of world environment that belongs not just to the Americans but to the world.

What you call economic assistance to third world countries, I call assisting the poppet regimes to stay in power longer, no matter how undemocratic they are but if they serve the American interest, they receive US ASSISTANCE. Good example is Egypt. Beside, most of these so-called assistance are in the form of military aids. US is even more generous in providing that aid to countries such as Israel, Yes, $5 billion worth of military assitance to Israel every year.

Regarding UN, why do you think US has the right to interpret and act based on its interpretation of what is good and what is bad for the world? Of course, one answer is that because it is the only superpower of the world. I will have no response to that answer, otherwise, the US with huwks such as rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and their likes on its commanding positions, have no moral qualification to judge what is good and what is not good for the world(even for the American people).

Regarding Human Rights Commition: I guess you wouldn't have any problem if for example Egypt was promoted to the Human Rights commition or any other country like Egypt as long as that country was a US-friendly country. After all, US has one of the worst records of Human Rights abuse, either in its foreign relations or internally. The gulitiest human rights abusers in the world have always been close US allies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kwait, Chilie after US-backed coup d'etat are only a few. There are many more to note: what US did to the Vietnamies (Oh, may be it was ok to kill them, to torture them, after all they were Comunists), The treatment of prisoners in camp Xray, torturing Iraqi prisoners in Iraq (www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_782986.html)
And internally, compiting with Iran's regime for second place in the world in number of executions of own people, especially execution of minors.

Brant, with the powerful media in the US, soon you will be told that "American is GOD", and quite frankly, I won't be surprised if Americans believe it. You can be as honored as would like to be. The reality doesn't change and that is people such as Rafsanjani and Bush have one thing in common and that is they are both criminals but Bush looks better and Rafsanjani is just smarter.

Brant,

I just came across this. This is perhaps another "exportation" of wealth by the US to the third world countries, so they can improve their standard of living:

G8 Arms Exports and Human Rights Violations
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3443.htm

Even if you don't trsut sources like "Information Clearing House", you can subscribe to their daily news email list and receive a different version of the news and articles. Obviously, you don't have to trust with them to be right. however, if they qoate from a particular third party, it can easily be verified by checking with that party.

Brant

Nations do not condmen Americans. They condemen the arrogance, the holier than thou attitude that come from the Bush administration.

Frankly I believe you need to pick up some basic political science literature to better educate yourself on American foreign policy since WWII. Or if you only need some fast facts to make you think a little harder I'd recommend Micahel Moore's books. I'd vote for him if he ran for the presidency -- at least he is literate enough compated to the former governor of the Texas.

Okay. The level of these exchanges is at a dangerous point where not much will be gained and we'd all go down the road of name-calling, hurt feelings and bruised egos. We've already seen an entire culture be called animals and nations referred to as criminials, not to mention personal attacks on myself or others. Before we go any further, I'm asking all sides to stop and basically agree to disagree on these points. If you'd like to continue, I'd gladly set up an e-mail discussion list for all interested parties and you can go on forever. However as far as the discussion here goes, I'm closing it and hope we can all move on to other topics. Thank you all for understanding.