McCain is right

Obama and Clinton are wrong


McCain is right
by Ben Madadi

Mr Patraeus, and Mr Crocker, top US men in Iraq, were complaining about Iranian troublemakers; special groups, as they were calling them. They separated Muqtada Al Sadr's men from those who are even more directly linked to Iran. Watching democracy's works in the US, where commander of the US army in Iraq and an ambassador, answer to the questions of the elected officials for 9 hours, makes you wonder when this kind of a scene may be possible in a country like Iran, where not only the people do not have access to the information (for instance why is Iranian money and man-power is engaged in creating chaos in a neighbouring country) but even many of the high-ranking officials are kept in the dark by those who are operating behind the scenes.

I listened to the senators’ speeches, Obama, Clinton and McCain. I agree with Mr McCain's assertions on Iraq; they seemed courageous and noble. I do not agree with bombing Iranian nuclear sites (McCain was once singing, serious or not, about this) because I think that would rather create more public support for the Iranian regime, but I do agree with dealing with the Iranian regime in an intelligent and productive, also serious, manner in order to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, which it does pursue, with the cost of poverty and isolation for the Iranians. Going back to the Iraq issue, I noticed that in the Senate hearing, both Hillary Clinton (who has voted for the war authorisation) and Barack Obama, wanted to retreat from Iraq as soon as possible.

I could not exactly grasp the point why! It all seemed to me as lack of leadership and definitely pure and poor populism, which I think will be the losing ticket for both (whoever gets the Democratic nomination, likely Obama) of them in the presidential elections. I do not believe that the American electorate is going to waste more than 4,000 American dead soldiers, and tens of thousands of American wounded, and about one trillion US dollars of tax-payers money to be forgotten just when the hardest part of the work was already behind. It is also very difficult for them, Clinton and Obama, to back away from their original campaign promises (ill-devised) when things were somehow different. I think they are both doomed.

How can America leave Iraq before things are done, and done well? Yes, that would save some extra American taxpayer dollars, but what about much greater sums that have already been spent? Do Muslim masses who hate America (instead of hating their own regimes) know that it is not the Iraqi oil money that is paying the US expenses in Iraq? The US is losing vast amounts of money in its operations in Iraq and it is actually paying for most of the Iraqi reconstruction, while Iraq is selling its oil in the free market and the money is not being spent properly because Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Iranian-backed groups, are disrupting the reconciliation and reconstruction efforts.

I know that it was the US who invaded Iraq in the first place and I know that it was the US whose huge mistakes in Iraq caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqis (far fewer than those killed because of Muslim extremists), but this is also another reason why the US has the moral obligation to stay in Iraq and create a stable democracy and a prosperous society. It can be done, but it may take time. It can be done because also Iraq has oil. It is as simple as that. But without the US keeping the thugs, terrorists, and foreign troublemakers at bay, it is very possible for all the losses that have occurred so far to be in vain. Without the US, Iraq will be the battleground of both Iraqi factions and also foreign meddlers, for years and years to come. And the Iranian regime, while calmly developing nuclear weapons, will use Iraq as the symbol of failure of democracy, and American moral standing, for the intimidation of its own population and other peoples of the Middle East who are struggling with their own ruthless regimes.

Iran will be no friend of a free Iraq if the Americans will retreat. The Iranian regime will not want a democratic, even a Shia-dominated one, to do well. They may have the same faith, but Iranian mullahs prefer power. A neighbouring Shia prosperous Iraq will become a rival for the Shia Iranian regime and that would be undesirable for a non-democratic leadership. Iran does not have Iraq's oil compared to the population (it has much less oil per capita), and the more Iran's neighbours prosper the more the Iranian regime fears for its survival, as it finds itself facing a population making comparisons, eventually losing appetite for defending the regime against possible threats, from inside or outside.

Many American politicians, mostly left-leaning, say that America must focus on Afghanistan, rather than Iraq. That would probably be a good option if there were already a stable Iraq in place, or at least Saddam was in power. But that is not the case now. Afghanistan is a primitive country, with extremely poor infrastructure and no easy access to any sort of communication with the outside world, a very difficult and hostile landscape and terribly scarce resources of any kind. Afghanistan will not become a seriously prosperous country for a very long time to come. It simple lacks the basic necessities of becoming a prosperous country. Afghanistan does not look good, and it never did ever since its creation. Afghanistan can do well, but it cannot become something like the UAE. But Iraq can. That is why America needs to focus on Iraq more. Will Al Qaeda continue to use Afghanistan as one of its land bases? Possibly! But as far as we know Al Qaeda is based in Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan.

Actually Al Qaeda does not necessarily need such a base. Al Qaeda is more like a state of mind, and it can stay alive and well in the minds of ordinary dissatisfied Sunni Muslims, especially young and naive ones, as long as there are serious reasons for their being so. Al Qaeda can do quite well in the cyber-space, as it already is doing. The best way to tackle Al Qaeda is to tackle its foundation where it attracts its followers, by proving it wrong, through the promotion of prosperity and democracy in Iraq, where the only serious chance of having some sort of a success story (as senator McCain was also saying) exists. A free and prosperous Iraq will do the greatest damage to Islamic extremism. And this will also be a huge blow for the Iranian fundamentalist regime, and definitely good for the Iranian people and their future.


Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi

Youre right.

by Secular IRAN (not verified) on

You are right Ben!

Is that simple



by Pesare Khoob (not verified) on

Ben, do you ever say 1 thing right?
You sound like a reformed redneck Southern hillbilly, someone who has never been to Middle-East and knows nothing about Bush and his buddies. And what is Ben? Aren't you Iranian? Make up your mind. To start giving political opinions about Iran and Iranians you should at least know which side you belong to.
No Ben, Bagher, whatever your name is, US is not taking democracy to Iraq, US went after Osama in Afghanistan then the smell of oil pulled them out of Afghanistan to Iraq where they had no business being, then they massacred nearly 1,000,000 Iraqis most of whom were young Iraqi civilian militias. The so called "extremists" become extremists when nothing beyond going to the extreme can make them defend themselves against these devils, the people you're advertising for.



by Dariush (not verified) on

Not any PhD is a PhD! I am sure most of these criminals have PhD.
What Ahmadinejad said is that, why the life of 50,000,000 other than Jews don't count and it is just about the Jews. Those 50,000,000 also killed in a horrific way and none of the families have been compensated. If you don't understand this simple question then your PhD doesn't worth nothing. What he said is out of anger to what he sees today being done by Israel and Zionists. There were a lot of people that sympathised with Jews for what happened to them, but what Israel has been doing has changed people's mind and their point of view toward the Jews. But you seem to see everything like the Zionists. It is all about you and your rights and wishes. Stop hiding behind Americans and Iranian-Americans names to sell your Zionist views. Many of them don't see it your way. Some people may be bad or make untrue statements, but still a bad person can ask a good question. Don't even try to take recent history as your witness, it is all against you! Can you use your PhD and figure this out or your Zionist views are on your way?


Dear Dr. Mammad…..

by Bijanam (not verified) on

I think I need to make a few clarifying comments and end our exchange because I believe we are drifting away from the subject of this thread.

Call me naïve, simple minded or even illiterate, but none of my previous statements had anything to do with history. All I am saying is that it is wrong, it is immoral, and it is offending to me to condone deliberate and intentional murder of innocent people (no matter for what cause), and condemn any action taken to prevent it from happening again.
Such actions could be as simple as building a wall around innocent people or eliminating those who pose an immediate threat, and at the same time studying the reasons of why and trying to address the cause.

How far back in the history do you want to go to find the truth? It is true that study of history will give you more information to form a more educated opinion but in the end your interpretation of historical events is tinted by your biases if you are a prejudiced person. A good example is your beloved IRI leader who says holocaust is a myth.
However, you don’t need history lessons to appreciate the loss of lives that prevented genocide. It is a reflection of your prejudice when you try to undermine the value of those lives for any reason.

Back to another philosophical issue which brings us to the subject of Mr. Madadi’s article. IN MY OPINION as an Iranian-American, we need, and I support, an administration who stands firm against any threat to our security or the security of our allies. We have earned the moral authority to defend our democracy and of any other democratic state who asks for our help. IN MY OPINION, trying to appease extremists will leave us vulnerable and un-secure. We need to (with anything in our power) prevent disaster from happening because if it happens it will be too late to un-do the damage.

And finally, Dr. Mammad, I am amazed how humble you are, and how much this nation is indebted to you for being such a model citizen….I respect you for all your services but respectfully disagree with your anti-american and prejudiced stance.

By-the-way, I wish I had as many PhD’s as you have, I only got one 30 years ago.

May we all live in peace



by Dariush (not verified) on

I just want to know if you watched the clip Hamid attached? and what do you think?
About Ben? He not only is closed minded he also is a traitor. As I wrote about him, trying to make him see the truth is like prescribing eyeglasses to a blind.
Watch the clip!!!


Bijanam, read some history, please

by Mammad (not verified) on

If I had called Madadi close minded, you would have been right. But, I did not. I said, "if you are open minded, which some in this column say you are not...."

If I had dismissed Zion simply because of his name, you would have been right. Yes, I did say, "whose name says it all," which could give the impression that you had. I agree. But, in response to Zion's protest, I said that, "the problem is not that your name is Zion, but that your positions are always in support of the worst things that Zionists have brought to us" (or something to that effect).

Regarding invasion of Iraq, and help for Bosnia, to which you are referring to. I believe you need to read a bit of history.

If the US had consistently opposed Saddam Hussein, I would have agreed with you. If the sanctions imposed by the US and Britain on Iraq in the 1990s had not killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children, and Madeleine Albright had not stared into the camera of CBS 60 minutes program and had not said, in response to the question of whether getting rid of Saddam Hussein is worth killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, "we believe it is worth it," I would have agreed with you.

But, the reality is that in the early 1960s, the US, worried about the rise of leftist General Abdulkarim Ghasem in Iraq and the Pan Arabism that he and Nasser of Egypt were advocating, started a covert plan of propping up the Baathist Party. Documents indicate that the CIA was in contact with Saddam Hussein since then. Then, during the 1980s, the US, first encouraged and then helped Saddam Hussein to invade and fight with Iran. This is just too well-documented to deny. Only when Saddam Hussein developed an army of 5000 tanks, an air force of 400 fighters and bombers, invaded Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia, that US, all of a sudden, discovered the evil that Saddam was.

Even if we agree that invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian mission - which was not, it was and still is about oil, containing Iran, security for Israel, and preparing for future confrontation with China - I do not support such humanitarian invasions. The world has an international organization - the United Nations - and it has agreed that wars and peace have legitimacy only if they are backed by the UN and its Security Council. Iraq's invasion did not have the backing. Therefore, it was, and still is, totally illegitimate and, in my opinion, criminal.

Regarding Bosnia: I say that only when the murder of at least 200,000 Bosnian muslims by the Serbs started to really bother the conscience of the Europeans (and the US), they started doing something to prevent further bloodshed. Before that, many American officials, as well as analysts, always said that, "Bosnia-Herzegovina has no strategic importance to the US and, therefore, intervention is not necessary" (almost exact quote). It was, in fact, the IRI that armed the Bosnian muslims to fight the fascist Serbian forces. These are all well-documented.

Regarding being grateful to the US: Of course I am. But, it goes both ways. The US should also be grateful to have a citizen like me who has educated hundreds of its children at a major research university, has consistently carried out cutting-edge research, and has been a model citizen, whose worst crime has ben getting parking tickets - and only 2 of them over a 30 year period. Just like millions of other citizens of this nation, I am entitled to criticizing. Plus, I truly believe in the following:

A good citizen, a true patriot, is not someone who blindly follows his/her leaders, rather one who thinks about their actions and voices his/her disapproval, when necessary.

I'll be perfectly happy to change my mind, apologize, or whatever that is necessary, just to demonstrate that I accept my mistakes. But, with all due respect, your previous comment does not rise to that level, particularly when you labeled me as "pro Al Qaeda," simply because I am opposed to what the US is doing in the Middle East, and now in this comment by resorting to "shame on you" and finger pointing.

Finally, just because two people might have the same opinion about a particular subject does not put them in the same "camp." President Eisenhower fought with the Nazis and defeated them, but admired Hitler's work on building a network of freeways in Germany for Germany's national security, and started doing the same in the US. Does that put the two in the same "camp"?


With all due respects…..

by Bijanam (not verified) on

My reference to turbin (turban) had been a symbolic gesture towards “anti-american akhoond” mentality of mammad and his supporters. I had felt a religious undertone in mammad’s position and his comments and that’s what provoked that symbolic gesture. I apologize if un-intentionally I have offended anyone.

Having said that, I still continue to disagree with the Anti-American position that is touted by some people on this thread. I know where I have come from and nothing can change my love for the memory of that land. At the same time I am grateful for the freedom, respect for life, and opportunity to prosper that American constitution offers to every human being. It would be dishonest to rip the benefits of the system without at least acknowledging it.

I am also a realist and appreciate the fact that nothing is perfect but you should always try to reach perfection. Here in this land you have a chance (and the right) to voice your opinion and to vote. It is the real (not ideal) land of Democracy. So, I get offended when some people make unfair comments about United States and criminalize every action she takes. I would say to them:
Shame on you to justify the intentional and deliberate murder of innocent people as “for the just cause”, but anything done to stop these murders as criminal act.
Shame on you to ignore those lives lost to stop genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, but denounce any action taken to protect American interests.

I have never suggested we should not criticize. Criticism is part of trying to reach perfection, but to just dismiss any action as criminal is not constructive. You don’t throw the baby with the bath water.

And, mammad, when you call Ben Madadi close minded, that’s bad mouthing. When you dismiss Zion because of his name, that’s prejudice. From your writing skill I can tell you are educated but in my opinion you still have a long ways to go to get rid of your prejudices. Whether you like it or not, it tells a lot about your sentiments when Dariush (The anti-Semite) is in your camp.

May we all live in peace



by Dariush (not verified) on

I hope you all were patient and watch the video clip posted by Hamid. Please be patient and watch to the end!!! You will get the answers to your questions. Thanks Hamid.


Watch this pls Mr. Ben

by Hamid (not verified) on


Agha Sadegh

by Dariush (not verified) on

Good job agha Sadegh.


McCain is a Dangerous Evangelical Fantasist

by sadegh on

McCain is totally blind to the entire situation and the dynamics which underpin the present crises in the Middle East. He is dangerously ignorant and little more than a cheer leader for the quagmire the Bush administration has plunged the US and Britain into. His recent gaffe and then retraction in Jordan alleging the Iranian government was arming and training al-Qaeda is merely one instance of the man’s preference for messianic ideology over fact. The US is less safe then when it entered the war; the war sparked national disintegration and ethnic cleansing which was then overtly reinforced by the US’s support of Shiite militias such as the Badr Brigades which went on the systematically murder Sunni Iraqis, the US is in recession as a result and suffering from a hitherto unheard deficit which Americans great great great grand-children will be paying off (not that this affects me directly, Iranian-Americans are the ones who should be worried), control over the vast majority of Iraq is tenuous except for the fortified Green zone and even that has come under attack of late, they failed to subdue Sadr because he has a genuine constituency of impoverished Iraqis who vehemently oppose the occupation and that isn’t going to go away, 60% of Iraqi’s believe armed resistance to the occupation legitimate, basic services and infrastructure remain blighted by US incompetence and the efforts to privatize every formerly government owned industry for the purpose of making huge profits for the likes of Halliburton and Betchel, Kurdish forces are killing Assyrian Christians in a bid to take over their land but since they’re US allies no one mentions a thing, the so-called Awakening councils united with the US have a limited shelf-life and will sooner or later restart their conflict with the US (btw many now temporarily allied with the US via a temporary 'hudna' were also former members of al-Qaida affliated groups and of the extreme Salafist and Wahabi persuasion), scores of Iraqi civilians continue to be killed on a daily basis, Abu Ghraib (and US torture of detainees more generally), Iraqi state torture, endemic Iraqi state corruption with tacit approval of the US government, the abuse of due process and the practice of mass arbitrary arrest of innocents, the huge Blackwater mercenary army which fires on virtually anything that moves regularly murdering civilians without provocation, etc..etc…The list could really go on forever and ever. A man who cannot acknowledge mistakes of this magnitude has little sense of reality and close to no integrity – I would throw Clinton in this camp also – she’s a back peddling flip-flopper but at least she didn’t support the war with the same messianic vigor of McCain A slew of respected commentators have warned of the man’s messianic and fantasist mindset. The respected academic and advocate of an ‘ethical realist’ perspective in international relations, Anatol Lievan, wrote in the Financial Times a few weeks back:

Driven in part by his intense commitment to the Iraq war, Mr McCain has relied more on neo-conservatives such as his close friend William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor. His chief foreign policy advisor is Randy Scheunemann, another leading neo-conservative and a founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Mr McCain shares their belief in what Mr Kristol has called “national greatness conservatism”. In 1999, Mr McCain declared: “The US is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history . . . We have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

"Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of “appeasement” of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support."

"For all his bellicosity, President George W. Bush has known how to deal cautiously and diplomatically with China and even Russia. Could we rely on Mr McCain to do the same?"


In a nutshell, McCain is a more dangerous and ideologically driven version of Bush - McCain is no maverick, he is merely Bush-plus as another commentator put it. He was on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq along with Richard Perle, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Cohen, William Kristol etc... He is committed in typical evangelical fashion to the neocon conception of America’s ‘manifest destiny’ to maintain is unquestioned hegemony and empire across the globe. The fact that McCain embraces the the presidential endorsement of warped fanatics like John C. Hagee is worrying to say the least. I've pasted below a sample of the words of McCain's 'spiritual advisor'.

Hagee on 'the Jews':

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.

Hagee on Hurrican Katrina:

Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God." He referred to a "homosexual parade" held on the date the hurricane struck and this was proof "of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Hagee on Catholicism:

"A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate."

This is a tiny sample btw, do a search on the net and you'll find far more hair-raising stuff.  Is a man who would take advice from a fanatical lunatic and religious nut job whose opinions might even make many of Iran's hardline mullahs blush really somebody we want at the helm of the world’s most powerful military machine, with over 1000 military bases in over 150 countries, and whose increase in military spending last year alone exceeded the entire military budget of China? I know if I was an American citizen what my answer would be.


Get off your knees

by Balouchi (not verified) on

I agree with you Ben M.
Democraps prefer to live on their knees for obvious reasons and now we have to contend with the next round of of appeasers.
1. Obama is a socialist and not ready to take the helm in time of WAR, he would give the whole store away first to Middle East then the rest of the world.
2. Clinton couldn't control her husband, how can she control the country?, I would rather vote for Monica, at least she knew how to control Billy boy.
Hopefully McCain will come out on top after all is said and done even though he was not my first choice in the Republican party. One thing for sure, I enjoy the democraps in-fighting.
I call it as I see it and this is a free country. Call me whatever you want but as long as we all live here we can say what we want.


Bijanam/Farhad Kashani

by Dariush (not verified) on

Land of free? You forgot to mention Oxygen. Oxygen is free too. Breath as much as you can now because once the Zionists take over they will connect an oxygen meter to your nose.

Fardad kashani'
Do you want me to repeat myself?



by Mammad (not verified) on

I suppose you are referring to me.

First, you baseless accusations:

What did I say that you interpreted as me bad-mouthing Madadi's article? I only pointed out many well-documented facts, with utmost respect. I suppose you - should I call you Madadi's nowcheh? nah - think that the only way to respect someone is to support that person.

No, in fact, when I criticize an article, or support it for that matter, that means I care enough about it to comment. That is a sign of respect. Otherwise, who cares what this or that person says?

Regarding my rights:

I did not know that just because I live in the US I should agree with everything that this or any past US administration does, or has done! That is a revelation.

I did not know also that just because I live in this country, I need to agree with everything that people post here. That is also a revelation.

I did not know that just because I live in the US, I must also applause all the crimes that successive US administrations have committed.

In fact, precisely because I live in the land of free and law that I have the fundamental rights to criticize or support. Otherwise, what is the point of living here? I am not grateful or ungrateful for the rights that I have. They are just my rights. But, again, you seem to equate living in the land of free with not criticizing anything that this Administration does, or anything that its supporters say.

I am fully entitled to criticize anybody's article or opinion, or support anyone's. I give my reasons, the accuracy of which can easily be checked.

But, what did you do? Just throwing a diatribe at me, devoid of any substance, but full of labels and baseless accusations. When people like you do not have much to offer, they immediately start labeling people like me, as you did. That is the "depth" of your comments.

I believe that it is you who needs to chill out and try to refute my well-documented statements. Just work a little and check their accuracy. Then, if they turned out to be accurate, and you still oppose my opinion and want to have a civilized debate, tell me why in a rational and well-reasoned manner, and I'll be happy to respond. If my statements turned out to be inaccurate, point them out.

Regarding Obama, I did not say even one word about him. But, since you bring him up, let me say that while better than the other two, he is also not what I would look for a candidate. He

1. says that he wants to withdraw the US forces from Iraq, but leave a "residual" force of 60,000 - 80,000 soldiers there Some "withdrawal" and "residual!"

2. riles against US interventions around the world, but wants to expand the US army by 92,000 soldiers! To do what? (Did you not that he also riles against US interventions?)

3. wants to leave Iraq, but wants to preserve the Green zone in Baghdad, which is against Iraq independence, if it has any!


Telling other people to

by Hajeer (not verified) on

Telling other people to "Please take off that turbin" is contradictory to your argument. As long as there is this disrespect towards people with turbans (Sikh, Akhund, or Rasta) how is this going to be a free country. Do you think that people with turbans aren't going to look at things in a more realistic term. That mentality is more harmful to the human race and your argument contradicts itself. You should be more specific about you turban-wearing target.

Nuclear Iran doesn't worry me. I'm not going to state the obvious about presidential puppetry, but after McCain sang about bombing Iran, he was immediately deleted from my list as an option. A revolutionary mentality is what created America.

You should never forget where you come from.


To Mammali and his nowcheh cheerleaders…

by Bijanam (not verified) on

Please chill-out and remember that you are in the land of free. You are entitled to your anti-american and pro Akhoond and pro Al qaeda opinion but, that doesn’t make your opinion law of the land and the true state of nature. It is shameful for you to sit here and take advantage of all that this nation has so generously offered you and bad mouth an intelligent and solidly presented opinion by Mr. Madadi just because it does not align with your perception of morality.

Again, remember that you are living in the land of law and order. This is not your beloved IRI land who eliminates opposition opinions and candidates. The laws of this land have led to choosing between 3 candidates as the commander-in-chief (McCain, Obama, Clinton).
I bet you think Obama is the best candidate. Just because he belongs to the same anti American church that is in line with your sentiment. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that McCain is a better candidate to defend my national security and well being.

There is no question that Obama is a better speaker, and can excite people, but, that doesn’t make him (in my opinion) the better qualified candidate. Criticizing and ridiculing one candidate will not automatically elevate the opposing candidate.

I respect your opinion and demand that you respect mine.
Please take off that turbin and look at things in a more realistic terms.
Respect the power that treats you with respect. We don’t need any more revolutionary mentality of 30 years ago. There shall be no nuclear Iran under IRI. It is harmful to human race.

Nuff said….

May we all live in peace


Mamad, you wrote” Invasion

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Mamad, you wrote” Invasion of Iraq was illegal, because it had no United Nations Security Council backing.”. When did U.S add Iraq as its 51st state? Isnt that what invasion means? Why are you twisting definitions? I agree that the war was illegal, but now U.N gives authority to coalition forces to stay in Iraq since its based on the request of the democratically-elected (1st time in Iraq’s history by the way) regime in Iraq. Yes the government is pro Iran, yes U.S has made catastrophic mistakes in Iraq, yes it shou;d’ve gone in without a U.N approval, but regardless, it is fascist Islamic forces who are in work to destroy Iraq as they did In Iran. They claim it, you see on TV and Internet, the world knows, but yet you blame on the U.S. Did you know Iraqis in large numbers infact greeted U.S soldiers as liberators, but now since U.S done so many mistakes want them out? Did you know Iraqis rather be in U.S controlled prisons in Iraq (Yes including Abu Ghareib) rather than being held by their own government? And yet you blame the U.S!!! This blind hatred had made you guys absolutely “blind” to the truth. You wrote” Those extremists (and they are extremists, not muslim, although they call themselves that) were not there before the invasion.”. Again inability to understand the truth. Yes they were there before the invasion; they just weren’t organized since Saddam was crushing them brutally. You wrote” 1. The Blind support of Israel by the US, and the plight of the Palestinians;” since Bush took office, he has been the first president to call for a Palestinian state. The U.S supports democratically elected president of Palestine with billions of dollar. The U.S has called repeatedly for halt of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. What blind support my friend? You wrote” 2. the support of the West for dictatorial and corrupt regimes in the Middle East, from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate, and”. People are responsible for the government they have. If the UAE people want democracy, they should go to the streets and ask for it. The U.S does not control the fortune of all human beings! The U.S does not have a policy of “supporting dictators”. How about the supports U. S provides for Japan, Australia, Singapore, S Korea, India, and tens of other countries? Are those dictatorships also? You wrote” illegal invasions, such as Iraq's, and the threats against countries such as Iran” What should the U.S do with the 24/7 bashing, 24/7 provoking, 24/7 animosity by the regime in Tehran? Why are you surprised that the U.S is threatening the regime? A regime hated by the vast majority of Iranians? A regime which is one of the worst and most repressive regimes in the world since Hitler.


Mr. Madadi, great article as

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi, great article as always. Keep up the good job.



by Zion on

So basicaly I do not share your beliefs and that makes me prejudiced. I wonder what that makes you?


Get a grip

by Mehdi on

Ben, read this and learn something. Learn what the real reason is for war (any war):


Get your ears away from Israel loudspeakers. In fact get your ears away from ANY government loudspeakers. Don't write for governments. They have enough paid slaves to do that for them. Try writing for people sometimes. It is far more rewarding.


Ben Agha...

by Setiz (not verified) on

Are you the same person who wanted separation, autonomy, or whatever for a precious piece of iranian historical land, our beloved azarbaijan? Are you the same person who did not like some iranians calling themselves "persians"? And now this. Do you wanna muddy waters, hoping that you can fish in it more comfortably? Are you willing to be on the receiving end of what you subscribe or its consequences?

Iran belongs to iranians only. They are the only ones who have the exclusive right to decide on their destiny and run their own affairs, even when they are totally wrong as they have been in the past 30 years.

Iran has survived 7000 years of written history, invasions by Macedonians, arabs, Mongols, Tatars, and various other Turkic tribes; and we have not forgotten any of them.

As hard as the event of the past 30 years have been, we will survive this bump in history. It was us who brought mullas' rule upon ourselves and is us who should learn, wise up, and change it. When the time comes, even mullas cannot stand the height and strength of the incoming tide.

Kaveh Nouraee

Ben is right...

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Of the three candidates, John McCain represents the best chance there is for this country to get out of the mess it is in.

Barack Obama is without question, a likable and charismatic guy. It's obvious that a majority of his appeal stems from his personality. If that were the sole criteria to vote for him, then you might as well cancel the election, because the guy has already won that contest. But he lacks the experience to handle issues on either a national or global scale. Even his own party recognizes that. Unfortunately, the true powers of the Democratic Party wish to expolit that same inexperience for their own benefit. They clearly see that if elected, Obama will turn to the seasoned veterans in public service for advice and counsel in matters of both foreign and domestic policy. There will be no bipartisanship, and there will be no forward progress of any kind. It's a shame, because I think the guy is being used by his own party. But, hey, that's what Democrats do. They use everyone.

That's also why you hear about all of these calls for Hillary to drop out. Hillary has made way too many enemies, even in her own party. She has antagonized and alienated so many people that she would be a lame duck president before she was even inaugurated.

Dariush: McCain has had skin cancer surgery, which explains the scars on the left side of his face. In 1967 his fighter jet was shot down by the North Vietnamese. He broke both arms, a leg, and was a POW for close to 6 years. The North Vietnamese never provided medical treatment and beat him repeatedly. He cannot raise his arms over his head, That's why his arms look the way they do.

K Nassery

I don't think McCain and Bush doctrines are identicle.

by K Nassery on

That said, I think McCain will be more likely to confront Iran and Russia in the early days of his administration.  I know McCain has twenty plus years in the Senate, but he is prone to making comments that he later has to retrack.  I wonder why Senator McCain  confuses al Qaeda and Iran.    Senator McCain can't get Sunni groups and Shia groups straight either.  That's a 101 level course at most universities.

Senator Lieberman's support of Senator McCain also makes me think that the Isrealis will not be pushed to make a settlement with the Palestinians during any McCain administration.

If one is looking for conservative ideals, Senator McCain is not the man that you want either.  His finger is in many pies and the idea of less government is not in Senator McCain's doctrine as far as I can see.

There's a possiblility that Senator McCain will win the general election if more negative information comes out about the friends of Senator Obama.  People do judge someone by the company they keep. 

Senator Clinton is a convenient liar.  I love the idea of a woman being president, but Hilliary's got baggage that just won't go away.

 I think Senator Obama might be able to get us back on track  in the world.  He was very careful at the interview of General Petraeous two days ago.  I think Senator Obama isn't a recklass man like George the Second....  (GW Bush)  a man that I wouldn't give the time of day to.



by Anonymous347 (not verified) on

Thank goodness Iranian community in the US is such a small minority (smaller than small)with almost no political power and have almost no say in what is going on in the U.S. regardless of the fact that majority of Iranian-Americans are APOLITICAL.


One more issue Mr. Medadi got wrong

by Abarmard on

they are a lot of people out there who would still vote for President Bush and find his ideas logical. What can I say, we have doctors, scienties, priests, and cooks...That's life and people on earth. No one can change that. The individual that chooses to drop off school and work at Buger King, does not know about the tricks and option therefore opportunities that he could create for himself. In politics you find the same group of people!

Mr. Medadi, good luck with your candidate and hope that you really know what you'e doing and have been happy for the past eight years.


Numbers say it all

by Realist (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi can you answer the following 2 questions:

How many people around the world have been killed by the Iran (directly or indirectly) in the past 100 years? And I mean documented and proven not unsubstanciated main stream media crap.

How many people around the world have been killed by the US (directly or indirectly) in the past 100 years?

It is (and has been) very easy for the US regime to fully fuck up a nation or a whole region and come back some 20-30 years later to say they made a mistake. In a just world, everyone and every country should pay for its mistakes. Has anyone in the US been held accountable for the Iraq tragedy? No. Why?


Zion and McWar

by Mammad (not verified) on

The problem is not that you have your opinion. You should; you are entitled to it.

The problem is that your opinion and positions are so one-sided, which is why I call you prejudiced.

The problem is not that you call yourself Zion. After all, Zion is an ancient name in an ancient area.

The problem is that your positions identify you with the worst of whatever Zionism has brought to the Middle East. You have never read anything about Zionism that you have not liked. That is why you calling youself Zion becomes problematic.

The problem is not that you should not support Ben Madadi's main points. You can; you are entitled to it.

The problem is that, by doing so, you would be supporting McCain - also known as McWar - a man whose only reaction to any crisis is war.

In this case, it would be a war that benefits only Israel, although I am not sure even about that one. If Israel wants to survive in the long run, it has to address Palestinians aspirations, and evacuate the West Bank, the East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and lift the siege on the largest prison on the face of the Earth - the Gaza Strip.

So, that is why!

Bahram the Iranian

only one group would be capable of that!!!

by Bahram the Iranian on

did somebody say here, I quote'a nuclear terrorist attack is waged against a US city, all gloves will come off' oh only one group of criminal gangs and terrorist states would be able to design and impliment it.after 60 years they do it well they do it right.they also have the largest network of individual and organzitions in US


Why ?

by Zion on

Mammad, how does the name I`ve chosen `says it all`?
Zion is the name of a hill in Jerusalem, a symbol for Jerusalem and all it stands for, and an exquisitely beautiful word rich with poetry and history, used many times in some of the most beautiful masterpieces like the psalms.
Why am I prejudiced? I have opinions and I take sides, but I give reasons for my positions. How about you?

Gold-dust, How do you know my comments have not been deleted? Just because I don`t whine about it like you doesn`t mean anything. This is a website, it has its rules and policies. As long as I decide to write here I am naturally bound by them. Nobody is forcing me to be here so once I feel I don`t like it anymore I will just leave. Same with you. You can just leave.
Or you can simply stop reading my comments that you despise so much.

It is very simple.


Mammad; you are so correct!!

by Falsafi (not verified) on

Dear Mammad – You are so correct on each and every one of the issues about McCain. This war is good for businesses that help George and Dick get into white house. Let’s hope that the great American people will block McCain’s way to the presidency as he is heavily being supported by those same money making corporate machine. In my opinion, its all about making money and lots of it. In the past the driver for the money making arms industries were communism and after collapse and diminishment of the communism, they find their bread and butter in fighting Islamism. So, after George and Dick departure, the action item for McCain is to keep the engine of the Iraq war lubricated so America’s black water, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and many others could pocket money the old fashion way by bombing and destroying those who are not with them, and all of that lash out is in the name of democracy, newcons style.