Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!

[hagbard]

Bomb Iran (http://www.americanidealism.com/articles/bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran%5E.html)

[coolpc]

the US think they can do everything as long as they like it... :twisted:

[d_jedi]

I don't have any sympathy towards the Iranian government.. not after they raped, tortured, and murdered a Canadian citizen.

[asim99]

I don't have any sympathy towards the Iranian government.. not after they raped, tortured, and murdered a Canadian citizen.

me neither, i hope you also don't have sympathy towards american government as well, who sent canadian citizens to syria to be totured, and possibly murdered :|

[d_jedi]

me neither, i hope you also don't have sympathy towards american government as well, who sent canadian citizens to syria to be totured, and possibly murdered :|

there's a bit of a difference between being complacent to torture and actually torturing someone yourself... plus the rape, murder, outright lies make what Iran did MUCH, much worse than what the US did..

[Roninvancouver]

I don't have any sympathy towards the Iranian government.. not after they raped, tortured, and murdered a Canadian citizen.

what about all the non-canadians who have been raped and murdered and tortured for decades earlier?


do they count.

[guest10586]

Yeah, and invading and killing thousands of people makes it ok for America to do it. I forgot, maybe Iran has some weapons of mass destruction, or they are doing it to free them... Whatever, at this point I would enjoy WW3...less people = more leg room.

[asim99]

there's a bit of a difference between being complacent to torture and actually torturing someone yourself... plus the rape, murder, outright lies make what Iran did MUCH, much worse than what the US did..

hmmm...does abu ghraib ring a bell? and many other cases at guantanamo, and other 'facilities', where american government is involved in torture and murders...

now i wouldn't hold my breath for pictures of bush personally torturing an innocent person...he has indoctrinated(sp?) a whole generation to do his dirty work, not unlike the iranian mullahs

[d_jedi]

hmmm...does abu ghraib ring a bell? and many other cases at guantanamo, and other 'facilities', where american government is involved in torture and murders...

now i wouldn't hold my breath for pictures of bush personally torturing an innocent person...he has indoctrinated(sp?) a whole generation to do his dirty work, not unlike the iranian mullahs

I'm not going to defend what is indefensible.. and the Abu Ghraib scandal is exactly that. At least in the US, though, the perpetrators (at least some of them) have been brought to justice. The Iranian government still denies Ms. Kazemi was tortured, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[asim99]

At least in the US, though, the perpetrators (at least some of them) have been brought to justice. The Iranian government still denies Ms. Kazemi was tortured, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

not willingly though, i must be add....the US government tried its best to spin media into downplaying the news of torture....it was only after the pictures that the hell broke loose, and they had no way to saving face...i would not be surprised if there are several other cases like them waiting to be taken notice of

pressuring iran politically is the way to go....any military rhetoric would be plainly insane and futile...

[d_jedi]

not willingly though, i must be add....the US government tried its best to spin media into downplaying the news of torture....it was only after the pictures that the hell broke loose, and they had no way to saving face...i would not be surprised if there are several other cases like them waiting to be taken notice of

pressuring iran politically is the way to go....any military rhetoric would be plainly insane and futile...

I agree military intervention is absolutely not justified because of this.. it will only make the human rights situation there even worse. (note that no sympathy for the Iranian govt/wishing they'd be overthrown with a democratic govt != support for war)

If Iran is developing nukes, that would be justification.. but the US intelligence services would have to come up with some pretty damned strong proof of this after the way they bungled the Iraq intelligence.

[hagbard]

I'm not going to defend what is indefensible.. and the Abu Ghraib scandal is exactly that. At least in the US, though, the perpetrators (at least some of them) have been brought to justice. The Iranian government still denies Ms. Kazemi was tortured, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Boy, do you ever live in a fairy tale world, the US rewards those who do wrong. Just ask George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, or John Bolton (or even GWB).


If Iran is developing nukes, that would be justification.. but the US intelligence services would have to come up with some pretty damned strong proof of this after the way they bungled the Iraq intelligence.

Iran would be crazy not to develop nukes in the face of what the US did in Iraq.

Funny that no one seems to be commenting on the article itself??

[Boss_Scorpius]

Funny that no one seems to be commenting on the article itself??

Article itself is full of utter BS.



"Iran, some “patriots� may be shocked to find out, is actually something of a democracy - particularly by regional standards. A reformist cleric, Mohammad Khatami—a man more familiar with the Enlightenment than George W. Bush—was elected president overwhelmingly in 1997. And then he was reelected in 2001. Yes, the conservative mullahs thwarted him at every turn. The point is: there is something of an institutional structure there which allows for some public influence—which was decidedly not the case in Saddam’s Iraq."


Whoever wrote that article hasn't got the slightest clue. Khatami was a guy who was supposed to bring reforms to the country, he tricked everyone with his promises, so much that all the young university students voted for him. But what people didn't realize then was that he is a Mullah anyways, just like the rest of them, he didn't fullfill any of the promises he gave to people.

Also what article fails to explain is , althought Iran supposedly has a president which can be chosen by people (yeah right!), president has absolutely no say in main issues. Military, Media and just about everything else is under the direct command of Islamic Leader not the president. And guess what, the islamic leader doesn't get voted on, he stays there till he dies, kinda like pope.

I forgot to mention, president is a joke, but even that guy is not exactly a representative of people, a lot of politics goes on behind the scenes for the president to be someone the Islamic leader likes and not really who people want to vote. Not to mention , out of the people that are candidates for presidency , none of them are anything people would want.

So basically, Iran is a dictatorship hidden behind the face of a sweet little democracy.

[hagbard]

Article itself is full of utter BS.



Whoever wrote that article hasn't got the slightest clue. Khatami was a guy who was supposed to bring reforms to the country, he tricked everyone with his promises, so much that all the young university students voted for him. But what people didn't realize then was that he is a Mullah anyways, just like the rest of them, he didn't fullfill any of the promises he gave to people.

Also what article fails to explain is , althought Iran supposedly has a president which can be chosen by people (yeah right!), president has absolutely no say in main issues. Military, Media and just about everything else is under the direct command of Islamic Leader not the president. And guess what, the islamic leader doesn't get voted on, he stays there till he dies, kinda like pope.

I forgot to mention, president is a joke, but even that guy is not exactly a representative of people, a lot of politics goes on behind the scenes for the president to be someone the Islamic leader likes and not really who people want to vote. Not to mention , out of the people that are candidates for presidency , none of them are anything people would want.

So basically, Iran is a dictatorship hidden behind the face of a sweet little democracy.

I wasn't entirely convinced by that part of the article either. I frankly don't think democracy, as we think of democracy, has a chance in that part of the world, at least, not for the forseeable future. Bombing the country certainly won't help the situation either.

[mochachicka]

there's a bit of a difference between being complacent to torture and actually torturing someone yourself... plus the rape, murder, outright lies make what Iran did MUCH, much worse than what the US did..

what? no there isn't...complacent or not, they were still apart of it. Just because the US doesn't do their own dirty work doesn't mean that it makes them "better".

[Boss_Scorpius]

I wasn't entirely convinced by that part of the article either. I frankly don't think democracy, as we think of democracy, has a chance in that part of the world, at least, not for the forseeable future. Bombing the country certainly won't help the situation either.

Well, there's a big difference culturally between Iran and the rest of "that part of the world". I think Democracy does have a chance there but it can only be achieved when the current dictatorship is destroyed.

[Beradon]

what? no there isn't...complacent or not, they were still apart of it. Just because the US doesn't do their own dirty work doesn't mean that it makes them "better".The US military never set out to sweep abu gharib under the carpet. This is in comparison to the whole Iran gov't which had its WHOLE hand in covering up this murder. Last I checked, those US military personnel responsible for abu gharib aren't roaming free. for pete's sake why is this even up for debate?

[asim99]

when i think about it, i find myself more concerned about pakistani nuclear weapons than any irani nuclear weapons....former being a very unstable state in every sense of the word, while iran is definitely more stable....

only difference might be that its easier to buy loyalty of a pakistani government (however short term it might be), than that of an iranian one...ignoring, of course, the days of rule of iranian shah who brutally tortured and killed his opponents with the support of united states, until late 70s...

it will be extremely naive of iranians to trust any american intervention....and the only positive development would be one that is indigenous....

[d_jedi]

Boy, do you ever live in a fairy tale world, the US rewards those who do wrong. Just ask George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, or John Bolton (or even GWB).
I am convinced (as you probably are as well) that the Abu Gharib scandal goes beyond those who have already been charged.. probably up to Donald Rumsfeld, the defense minister. But those who were directly responsible, those who actually carried out the torture, have been brought to justice.

NOBODY has been brought to justice in the case of Zahra Kazemi.. or the (probably many) others who have been tortured by the Iranian regime.


Iran would be crazy not to develop nukes in the face of what the US did in Iraq.
Iran is lying through their teeth.

[Beradon]

than that of an iranian one...ignoring, of course, the days of rule of iranian shah who brutally tortured and killed his opponents with the support of united states, until late 70s...never taking responsibility and always blaming the big bad ol' USA. same song and dance we've all been hearing. can you come up with anything new?

it will be extremely naive of iranians to trust any american intervention....and the only positive development would be one that is indigenous....but they had the propensity to put a theocratic group in power and yet now the iranians are yearning for democratic rights. after the murder Zahra Kazemi, I'm sure many iranians wouldn't mind some American intervention. :lol:

[asim99]

as a matter of fact, iran has no expansionist ambitions, so i don't think it having nuclear power would really threaten anyone....other than, of course, the saudi arabia, and israel.....

i still am sure there is no bigger nuclear threat than the one ruled by an american-supported dictator musharraf

a little nuclear bomb never hurt anyone...other than the people of hiroshima and nagasaki, of course....it benefitted pakistan, as a matter of fact

[hagbard]

Well, there's a big difference culturally between Iran and the rest of "that part of the world". I think Democracy does have a chance there but it can only be achieved when the current dictatorship is destroyed.

It had a chance before the Americans interfered and brought in the Shah. They shouldn't repeat that mistake, I suspect the Iranians will do a better job than the Iraqis at showing their displeasure.

Iran is lying through their teeth.

Hope so.

[Beradon]

i still am sure there is no bigger nuclear threat than the one ruled by an american-supported dictator musharrafMusharraf is a good man! just because he's putting a stop on militant extremists doesn't make him a dictator. The middle east is changing for the better. wake up and smell the reality.
:lol:

[asim99]

an elected iranian president has more "will of the people" than a dictator musharraf

[luthair]

Iran had a democratic government, until they talked about nationalizing the oil supply and the CIA toppled the government in 1953. (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)

The US has a terrible record with interfering with other countries. Iran, Cuba, Al-Qaeida, Afghanistan, etc.

[Beradon]

an elected iranian president has more "will of the people" than a dictator musharrafpakistanis aren't ready to be left to their own devices. they need a leader like president Musharraf!
:lol:

[asim99]

food for thought: left to their own devices, american people will choose a dumb government, so for the benefit of the world, world community should install ralph nader as american president :lol:

[hagbard]

food for thought: left to their own devices, american people will choose a dumb government, so for the benefit of the world, world community should install ralph nader as american president :lol:

Yep, that will finish them off. :lol:

[Beradon]

food for thought: left to their own devices, american people will choose a dumb government, but that never happened as proven with the election of the great President George W. Bush.

so for the benefit of the world, world community should install ralph nader as american president :lol:if the world community wants to benefit from a bright future, they should look forward and start supporting President George W. Bush. :)

[asim99]

having a pro-death leader like bush sends a wrong message to the world...it tells them not to trust a megalomaniac (g w bush, for those not bright enough to take a hint) who wouldnt even hesitate putting a ******** person to death....

i think pope's funeral gave bush a chance to sit in the company he deserved, (again, if u missed the news, he was sitting close to mugabe) :cheesygri

bush and mugabe can start "megalomaniac anonymous"

[Ojam]

having a pro-death leader like bush sends a wrong message to the world...it tells them not to trust a megalomaniac (g w bush, for those not bright enough to take a hint) who wouldnt even hesitate putting a ******** person to death....

i think pope's funeral gave bush a chance to sit in the company he deserved, (again, if u missed the news, he was sitting close to mugabe) :cheesygri

bush and mugabe can start "megalomaniac anonymous"

It was disgusting how the Bush media machine was trying to spin the Pope's death to their benefit by saying how many things Bush and the Pope had in common, making suggestions that Bush is just like the Pope, and then when asked about the Death penalty brushed it off. It's just sick. What's even worse though is people actually believe that BS.

[Beradon]

having a pro-death leader like bush sends a wrong message to the world...if Bush was pro-death, he wouldn't fight to keep Terry Schiavo alive. he's also a republican which last I check was pro-life. The world knows they're better off with the Bush administration in power.

it tells them not to trust a megalomaniac (g w bush, for those not bright enough to take a hint) who wouldnt even hesitate putting a ******** person to death....foot in mouth disease eh?

bush and mugabe can start "megalomaniac anonymous"megalomanic? that has to be one of the dumbest comment you ever made. you do know that US Presidents can only serve two terms?

[Ojam]

megalomanic? that has to be one of the dumbest comment you ever made. you do know that US Presidents can only serve two terms?

or 10 years. (under certain circumstances)

[asim99]

It was disgusting how the Bush media machine was trying to spin the Pope's death to their benefit by saying how many things Bush and the Pope had in common, making suggestions that Bush is just like the Pope, and then when asked about the Death penalty brushed it off. It's just sick. What's even worse though is people actually believe that BS.

bs is the modus operandi in this administration....embedded reporters with forces, planted reporters in white house with dubious credentials, sanitized questions at bush's community hall meetings....

whats even more pathetic is to see bush-lites in our country, who would rather get dictation from 1600 pennsylvania avenue, than have a creative thought of their own....


p.s. meg·a·lo·ma·nia - a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
(bush and bush-heads believe he has the divine responsibility to rid the world of 'evil' - mugabe's mania doesn't go that far)

[Boss_Scorpius]

Iran had a democratic government, until they talked about nationalizing the oil supply and the CIA toppled the government in 1953. (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)

The US has a terrible record with interfering with other countries. Iran, Cuba, Al-Qaeida, Afghanistan, etc.

Lol, that picture can't be real! The dude went undercover as a persian architectural expert by wearing a turban and arabic clothing? :confused: I would imagine a CIA spy be a bit smarter than wearing the wrong clothes.....

[7jai]

I agree, i dont really have much sympathy either.

[asim99]

an interesting read on how the united states initiated, organized and financed the overthrow of mossadeq government in iran in 1953...(page numbered 50-53)...and it only cost a million dollars and six months

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1385/MR1385.ch3.pdf

[Boss_Scorpius]

an interesting read on how the united states initiated, organized and financed the overthrow of mossadeq government in iran in 1953...(page numbered 50-53)...and it only cost a million dollars and six months

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1385/MR1385.ch3.pdf

Very interesting article. Note that hezbe Toudeh (communist party) was a very strong party and very active in opposing Shah and monarchy. Tudeh party which consisted of mainly university sudents (educated class) played a major role in overthrowing the Shah regime. That's one of the major differences between Iran and other countries in the middle east. Communism as a major party is almost unheard of in other middleeastern countries (except kurds in Iraq).

Now at the time of Shah both the Tudeh party and the islamists lead by Mullahs(the islamic clerics) were working against one common enemey: Shah and his Americans masters.

After the revolution however, Khomeini pretty much tricked the whole population. He claimed that after revolution he will not be involved in the politics, he will take residence in city of Ghom, and basically be like Pope is in vatican. So when people were asked whether they want an Islamic republic after the revolution, majority said yes.

Guess what happened next though, Ayatollah Khomeini declared an Islamic republic with a new Constitution reflecting his ideals of Islamic government. Islamists also started systematically killing the Tudeh party's leaders. It didn't take long for people to realize what kinda crap they've gotten stuck in.

Iranians who under the rule of Shah had become very modern and very western, were now forced to cover their head under the new Islamic constitution made by Khomeini. There were many large protests to this new women's dress code regulation and many other Islamic rules but it was already too late. And then in the middle of all this Iraq vs Iran war started.......


Anyways, to sum it up, Iran enjoyed being one of the most (if not the most) modern country in the region at the time of the Shah due to western involvement and also due to people getting well educated. It had it's own share of superstitious commoners and intellectual communists. Unfortunately for us the Islamists took control and they're now the ones stealing and raping the country instead of Americans at the time of Shah and we've lost all the freedoms we enjoyed at the time of before the revolution.

[Boss_Scorpius]

This article gives you a new perspective of what the "islamic revolution" was all about.

"The 1979 revolution was a manifestation of the genuine protests of the deprived people of Iran but the 'Islamic revolution' and the Islamic regime were the result of the Cold War, the result of the most modern political dealings of the world at the time. The architects of this regime were the strategists and policy makers of Western powers, the very same ones who today, from within the swamps of cultural relativism, once again legitimise the very monster they created as the natural product of 'Islamic and eastern society' and worthy of the people of the 'Islamic World'. The entire West's economic, political and propaganda resources were pulled together for months before and after February 1979 in order to establish and maintain this regime."


Read more here
http://www.wpiran.org/History%20of%20the%20undefeated.htm