FLASHBACK

read my comment again Kashani

Read my comment again Kashani, LOOK, the (*) is in front of Kazemzadeh's name. I don't know your position on sanctions. As I have told you before, I regard you as a warmonger.

the right wing Zealot (to Kashani)

Kashani, among my American friends, my American family (my wife's side), my American coworkers and neighbors, .... I have not yet found a single one who has your right wing zealously, even among the ones who are very religious (born again). So Kashani, I don't recognize your "pro Americanism" {using your terminology}, no matter how much noise you make!

Anomymous7, I know you're

Anomymous7,

I know you're a professional liar, but I thought you might have still an ounce of decency left not to put words in other people's mouths, but I guess I was wrong.

I said a million times that these sanctions are not smart and is only hurting the Iranian people, however, a smarter and more effective sanction against the regime and its members will definitely weaken the regime, embolden the Iranian people and make the regime change its behavior which will through decent amount of time result in its toppling. Same thing that happened with S Africa.

The world needs to treat all Apartheid regimes the same,including your beloved Fascist IRI regime.

The end-game

Niloufar --

The Chalabis of the world are part of the problem, not the solution. As I've stated many times, no one is advocating the invasion of Iranian territories by external forces. That would be a nightmare, not only because innocent Iranians would die, but because I'm afraid the mullahs would inflict irreparable harm on the nation in their "defense" of the country.

We all know that the mullahs don't give a damn about Iran, and even less about Iranians. The mullahs just don't care, and that includes the Rafsanjani types AND the Khatami types! They're all the same flea-infested vermin!

What Iran needs is a soft, velvet revolution, in the order of Ukraine. Yes, the Ukranians are having their trouble right now, but most of that is because of the thuggish Russian bear, who just like the IRI, is viscious and cunning enough to massacre millions in order to survive.

What we need in Iran is a central figure, leadership, someone or some group to rally around. Personally, I wish Reza Pahlavi would do more -- he's not perfect, but he seems very open to the ideas of liberal democracy with a separation of state and religion.

What I hate most is when people choose their ideology over their country. We need an end to that sort of bickering and petty infighting. But most of all, we need to get rid of the corrupt mullahs. And the good news is, they're afraid of us! They know that their end will come only when the Iranian peope UNITE! So, they spend billions of dollars every year to disseminate propaganda overseas, specially in Europe and America, in order to whitewash their crimes and divide the Iranian diaspora.

As such, unity is the key! We should all unite around a single goal: to overthrow the corrupt mullahs!

That's how the black revolution succeeded, when the traitors in the Tudeh and the wackjobs in the MEK and the liberals in the Jebhe-Meli and the akhunds joined forces in the furtherance of single goal. When that happened, the Shah was finished, specially with the BBC (England) orchestrating the whole circus!

For example, in this upcoming sham "election," people should stay at home. Iranians should send a loud and clear message to the White House that this regime is NOT legitimate! Iranians in western capitals should also abstain from voting!

And we should all try to discourage our friends and family members from voting in this joke of an "election." Unlike Obama's message, MEANINGFUL change is IMPOSSIBLE under the Iranian theocracy. It's like Sadaam's elections, where either man you vote for, you end up with the same sadistic regime with the same sadistic characters in charge. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still be a filthy pig!

      Mammad,  

Mammad,

Few quick points.

1-     That’s not the far right view, that’s the actual, factual and unbiased version of history. That has always been the accepted version, however the Left after the initial coma as result for their defeat in the cold war, has tried to regroup itself the last few years, and one of the things it has been doing with lot of help from Leftist media and college and University elite, is to re-write history to undermine that defeat and U.S’ role in it.

2-     The moderate wing of the Republican Party has never been so revitalized as now. The younger generation of Republicans has started a movement to reclaim the Republican Party. Offcourse the Republican Party was the victim of the Leftist media, and also the incompetence of Bush’s administration during Katrina and the economy, and as the 2008 elections showed, it’s the economy stupid!

3-     Mammad, it’s not an excuse, it’s a fact. And since it’s a fact, it will always be there. You just need to come to grip and accept the fact that the world between 1945 and 1990 was engaged in one and only one thing: the cold war. That was the dominant issue all around the world.

4-     If you put me in the same basket as “Shah” and other right wing dictators supported by “Republicans”, (although I’m not a Monarchist nor a Republican!), then using that same definition, you will be put in the same basket as all the blood sucking murdering left wing Fascist dictatorships like China, N Korea, USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and others. To take a realistic look at the levels of crimes committed by right wing and left wing dictators and do a comparison between them, one will come to an undeniable conclusion that left wing dictatorships such as USSR, China, Cambodia and others, have engaged in way more awful and horrific crimes against humanity than any right wing dictatorships. Lets compare a few: USSR vs Somoza, China vs Shah, Cuba vs S Arabia, N Korea vs Panama, Cambodia vs Jordan. You can re-arrange those however you like and think for a second which ones have done more crimes against their people? Be fair, for once!

Lastly, I didn’t say I’m a Ron Paul supporter, I said you’re wrong by putting all Republicans in one basket, the Republican party is as diverse as anyone, it has everyone from Hannity to Ron Paul in it.

it could get worse Niloufar!

Niloufar, it could even get worse! the Americans could install Kazemzadeh (*) as president and Farhad chAkhAn as his information minister in the yellowish zone of Tehran.

(*) the guy who advocates sanctions against Iran (Jebheye zede melli)

BTW, good to see you back Niloufar

Q

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to stroke your ego, I was just asking you questions because since you've made such a reputation of yourself on this site as the "closet islamist", and I don't really have time to go through all your debates, I was feeling like making an idea of what you are about for myself.
With the replies you gave me and the way you did, I now have a better idea.
But as you wish, we'll leave this conversation to another time.

BBC's Mullah

You sound like you want a better Iran like we do, but your hate and frustration has blinded you.

There is a wise way to get there like we want, and there is a stupid way to get there like you want.

We want to do through education, you want to do through bloodshed.

You are sitting on you ass and sending others to die, so you can be free. We would rather them be free without dying.

You use your big mouth, we use our brain.

You think you can mobilize millions over night by chaos and disturbance and hang all the mullahs. we think you will be hanged by the mullahs and we do not want that to happen, no matter how useless your head is.

You want people to lose their head to have freedom of speech, we think freedom of speech doesn't do any good to a man without a head.

It is that simple.

Talk is cheap. Do you think your way is better? Get in the ring! Even if you ever,ever,succeed, who is going to govern the country, MEK? Reza topol? Who?Still your best option will be one of the reformists.

I must add, I do not consider these candidates reformist. The candidate must come from people, maybe Shirin Ebadi or someone else. People should choose and advertise on their shirts and other means without the candidates approval so she or he doesn't get labeled. When the time comes he/she will become president.

Iran is not America, The criminals will pay for their crimes sooner or later, just tell your beloved America not to sell them a sanctuary when the time comes.

BBC's Mullah

are you saying that you do Not support the IRI?

just teasing you...
:)

that's a very impassioned plea there. if I may interject, my guess is that Very few people here want the IRI to survive. The question is how it should be done, and many of us are very worried about it being tried by an outside agent because that would probably backfire and cause war. would you really go as far as what some iraqis like Chalabi did with the obvious consequences?

Parham,

Yes, we should leave this for another occasion. These questions are side tracking the main point.

So from what I understand, you're telling me people WANTED to be betrayed (or did most of the betraying themselves?),

No, you have this wrong. I didn't say people WANTED to be betrayed (how does that even work?), it's just that there was popular support for those policies. As I explained earlier, this was pre-ordained as there was only one direction the country could go and either way some set of groups would be disappointed.

Coincidentally, this is a normal fact of politics in general. Consider the prepetual "disappointments" with American or British politicians for going back on their words and promises, even in the best of times. This is almost inevitable as the name of the game for any politician is to be as broadly appealing as possible for the longest amount of time, until circumstances force one policy over another wherein inevitably some part of the original constituency is screwed. Examples are too numerous from contemporary politics.

You can call this "betrayal", if you want, which makes all politics about lies and backstabbing (some truth to that). To me it's not the most appropriate word, but close enough not to argue it.

As far as how I felt, well, I and some others had certain expectations and were disappointed when they did not materialize. For many of these expectations there was a GOOD REASON for the "betrayal" as I saw it. For example, I sincerely believe that a unified, strong ideology was absolutely necessary to survive Saddam's onslaught, which I consider only one of the many ways the West tried to destroy the revolution. The most unifying person was Khomeini and the most unifying language he had mastery over was that of Islam. This came at the expense of some of my original revoutionary ideals, but the trade was worth it because so much was at stake.

So in some circumstances, I did not feel "betrayed" as much as understood the trade-off. Some other trade-offs, I felt were not justified and did actually feel betrayed. But then again, I'm "betrayed" almost every election cycle here in the US.

What I frequently experience though is that many people with a lot of expectations feel "betrayed" and demand that their issues and priorities be supreme, ignoring all other people who may have just as strong beliefs, and ignoring the costs. This is not realistic. But talk is usually cheap if it's not you who has to keep the country together in gravest of all circumstances.

That's enough for now. I'll be glad to have more of a discussion with you at some point in the future, if you are interested. Thank You.

Q

Since I don't want to get side-tracked from the point that first got us here, I won't get into the details of what you're discussing, at least not for now.

Originally though, I asked you how YOU felt about the betrayal after the revolution. So from what I understand, you're telling me people WANTED to be betrayed (or did most of the betraying themselves?), so you probably don't feel anything about that? That's where I'm lost.

Majority Support?

Dariush writes:

"You are also forgetting that the majority in Iran does not think like you and they support IRI."

Again, if you truly believe this, I have this bridge for you in Brooklyn...

The VAST majority in Iran hate -- and I mean HATE -- the akhunds and their corrupt system of favoritism and nepotism. If you think the Shah's system was corrupt, well then, the mullahs have PERFECTED corruption on an obscene scale! That mongol Rafsanjani is the richest man in Iran! How did that mongol get to be so wealthy???

But it's not just him, it's all the "aghazadehs" and their offsprings and their bastard children -- now it's their turn to steal and rape Iran's resources!!! The Rafsanjanis of the world have stolen so much, they don't need much more. Now, a new generation of IRI thugs are stealing from the nation's coffers!

And you think the "majority" of Iranians support the IRI??? Are you that diluted or are the paychecks that sweet that you have lost any and every shred of objectivity? There is no hope in this system? Do you get that??? This system is bankrupt morally, financially, socially, internationally, etc. etc.

It bares repeating, the VAST majority of Iranians DESPISE the akhunds and their deceptive ways and their obscene corruption! The VAST majority of Iranians would vote for a new system altogether (in a referendum) if they were given the chance!

Who are you trying to fool???

How can any Iraninan of good conscience "support" a regime that has Arabs and Palestinains throwing students off 3rd floor balconies??? How can anyone support a regime that routinely executes children in public squares????

People like Dariush are the worst kind -- people like him are JUST AS GUILTY as the Rafsanjanis of the world, except they're not as filthy rich! People like Dariush and the rest prolong the wretched existence of this monstrosity that is the "Islamic Republic." You and other Islamists are against a FREE Iran. You are against Iran, period!

For people like you, Iran is a vehicle, a means to an end. You will use and abuse its resources to promote your Islamic agenda! You are, in fact, a pimp of the worst kind, because you promote the raping of our motherland! And you do it with a smile and a happy heart! You people make me sick!

If you were truly Iranian, you would be pushing and hoping and praying for the speedy destruction of this evil, bloodthirsty, depraved, perverted and terroristic regime that has taken Iran and its people hostage for 30 years!

Why do you side with the hostage takers on every one of your posts? Why do you side with treason, greed and corruption and murder? Why don't you side with those who wanna turn the page and remove the forces of darkness from our motherland? Why don't you wanna help her get rid of her captors and her rapists? Why don't you help her stand up and be free?!

And don't bring up Israel and America! We all know all your ready-made excuses all too well!!! America bombed the hell out of Japan and Japan has been kicking America's ass ever since, economically speaking! We can do this ourselves! We can be independent! We don't need America and we certainly don't need Israel. If Japan can do it, so can we IF we play by the rules!!! -- as opposed to being a terroristic regime hellbent on domination of the middle east, at any expense!

It's pathetic that people like you will always use the American "threat" as an EXCUSE to support our homegrown torturers and butchers!!! Shame on you for spreading lies and misinformation worldwide!!! If there is a heaven and hell, you will pay for it with your soul for having sided with the forces of darkness in your systematic suppression of the innocent and the young people of Iran!

Shame on all of you IRI supporters!!! You're the biggest traitors of all! You're knowingly selling out your country for your own personal gains and you do it shamelessly!!!

BBC's Mullah

Most of What you are proposing has already been tried for 8 years by Bush administration. Going beyond that and creating more chaos and disorder will possibly create a war that will cripple the world, otherwise, bush would have done it already.

The very hardliners in IRI does not have the leverage and support that The Shah had, hoping if they leave, they might come back or be safe to wherever you want to send them to, therefore, they will not hesitate killing unlimited numbers of oppositions to keep the power. The best way to reduce the number of hardliners is to increase the number of moderates. That can happen over time and may even change the whole system some day. Many hard liners can be changed to moderate using the right policies and reasoning. What you are offering will do the opposite.

As for what has been happening to university students and many others. They all happened while the threats existed.

You are also forgetting that the majority in Iran does not think like you and they support IRI, and these threats will help the very hard liners to take advantage of public support. The majority's first priority is the sovernty, then freedom of speech and etc. Unless they are not threatened, they will not take any chances to change their position. You are an army of thousands against millions.

As for Israeli's agenda. That includes using United States, Europe or others.

Sitting outside the ring and telling you get out, you fight, you die so we can be free will only get the oppositions killed, reformists to fail and the very hardliners to succeed.

we all know what happened to martin Luther King and blacks in decades of struggle. If United States then was under sanctions and threats like Iran has been, the blacks would be hanged in hundreds of thousands in order to silence the movements for the sake of national security.

Parham,

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Why are you lost?

The first draft of the constitution did not contain a position for the Supreme leader. In the elections of the first Majles Khobregan, many delegates who were chosen by the people insisted on a formal supreme leader. Even after this, Khomeini still advocated limiting the role of the clergy in government, for example personally preventing Beheshti (one of the most popular revolutionaries) from running for President, and approving of non-clerics such as Bazargan, Bani Sadir and Rajai (and Mousavi).

Khomeini as a person was extremely popular and people in general trusted the rohaniun, electing pro-Khomeini delegates, and overwhelmingly approving the constitution that made him the supreme leader. Furthermore, there was a large feeling of BETRAYAL toward the left, especially after the string of bloody murders conducted by the Mojaheds which instantly elevated the status of the clergy to selfless martyrs. Most people associated MEK with the "left" allies of Bani Sadr. Furthermore, the invasion of Saddam Hussein made the issue of unity more important than plurality in the eyes of Iranians as they elected Khamenei as President (even still a pretense of seperation was maintained through the position of prime minister.) There was popular support for all these moves, be it the product of religious influence, special circumstances, propaganda or genuine patriotism.

FK

I am not going around anything. I am pointing out to you, as clearly as possible, that the far right fascist view of the history that you have always espoused on this site is the same as what the far right fascists, mostly concentrated in the Republican Party, have advocated. It does not matter what you call yourself. What matters is what you espouse. The difference is that whereas in the past there was a moderate wing of the Republican Party, it is nonexistent now.

The excuse that you always present in this site to wash up the crimes committed as a result of the US foreign policy, namely, fighting the communism, is old and worn out - just like the old worn out Peykan that you use. The Shah used the same excuse to kill leftist patriots. The IRI used the same excuse to kill progressives and leftists. The blood-soaking military regimes in Latin America used the same excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of progressives and leftists. The leaders of those regimes were trained in the School of Americas in Georgia, and their regimes were armed to the teeth by the US. 2.5 million Vietnamese were also murdered, first by the French and then by the US, under and guided by the same excuse.

So, regardless of what you call yourself, you are in the same league and a soulmate of the Shah, the IRI, the dictators of Latin America and elsewhere supported by the US, and the far-right fascists in the US itself.

The criminal invasion of Iraq occured long after the "threat" of communism had dissipated. The support of Israel by the US has continued, as has its support of corrupt dictatorships like those in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf Arab states, Jordan, Egypt, and now Libya. You simply are incapable of understanding the nature of the foreign policy of the US.

Abe Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. The fact that you and other extremist Republicans must invoke him only goes to show the bankrupcy of this line of thinking, and the dirt of not having anybody in recent times to point to.

And, by the way, do not put yourself in the same league as Ron Paul, an honorable, antiwar man whom I like and respect very much.

Mammad

Q

I'm referring to the interview he gave to the BBC, where he did actually mention that the clergy will have "nothing" to do with political affairs.

But then the main question becomes, are you saying there was popular support for the betrayal? I'm lost there.

Parham,

Having "nothing" to do with the government is really a stretch for Khomeini's view, the same man who outlined velayate faghih since the 1960's. I believe the main issue was the role of a "spiritual leader" and role of clerics as Presidential candidates.

Yes, it can be called a betrayal. I accept that characterization.

However, it could never have happened without popular support for it. A number of factors contributed to this support.

The Poison Pill

Dariush --

Firstly, Israel would not pass gas, let alone bomb Iran, without American say so. Right now, Israel is the bad cop to Obama's good cop. It's much the same game as the so-called "reformers" and "hardliners" in Iran, a trick played on the Iranian people. Khatami is a "reformer" -- sure, and Ahamdinejad is a "hardliner" -- sure, and I have this bridge in Brooklyn if you're interested.

Wasn't it under Khatami's watch in 1999 when students were thrown off 3rd floor balconies? Wasn't it under Khatami's watch when the string of murders of intellectuals happened in 1998-99?

Every time I hear about Iranian "reformers" I throw up a little bit on myself. As if -- AS IF -- this innately barbaric regime can be "reformed!"

Dariush, you and me both know that the "Islamic Republic" will never rehabilitate itself -- it's just not going to happen! Its foundation is rotten -- to the very core. Indeed, we can rehabilitate this regime as much as we could rehabilitate the Nazis. And again, if you think that's possible, I have this bridge in Brooklyn...

You ask what I propose to be done?

I suggest widespread civil disobedience, in the order of Martin Luther King. I suggest that America remain true to her founding principles of human dignity and decency and NOT engage the terrorists in Tehran. I suggest that the akhunds pack up and leave while they stil can so they can enjoy their stolen currencies (marks, euros, dollars and pounds) in some sub-saharan African country far away from Iran. I suggest we stop paying so much attention to America and Israel and solve this freaking problem ON OUR OWN!!!

I suggest these things because I suspect that the mullahs have passed the point of no return on the nuclear front. It's just that simple. Whether underground or overground, the ayatollahs are in this fight to the very end -- they want a nuclear deterrent, and even if they strike a deal with Obama, they'll still try to acquire nuclear weapons at some point in time. It is now the regime's raison d'etre to become a nuclear power, and I'm not talking energy.

The best thing to do right now is for people living in America and Europe to write to their elected leaders and document Iran's notorious human rights violations and make a connection to the disasterous possibility of such a regime acquiring nuclear weapons. Remember, police states are NEVER as strong as they pretend to be. In fact, in many ways they are the embodiment of a scarecrow (a matarsak).

And most importantly, the akhunds are FAR MORE scared of the Iranian people than they are of America or Israel. That is a fact. They know full well that they will meet their wretched end one fine glorious day at the hands of brave Iranian men and women.

In short, we must turn the page to this black chapter of Iran's history. Anything short of a complete and categorical removal of the mullacracy is a continuation of our national cancer.

BBC's Mullah

What matters is how to approach and deal with issues, not republican or democrat. There are republicans who agree with Carter and Obama and there are democrats who disagree with them.
The way republicans have been dealing with problems not only hasn't been helpful, it has made the situation worse.

What would you suggest to be done?

I think the best option that can bring some results is to respect Iran's international rights, stop making threats, lift all the sanctions for six months to show some goodwill, then start negotiation for human rights and etc. As this brings positive results, the lift can be extended for more positive results, and eventually there will be peace in iran and the region and no sanctions. It is better to stop the killing in and out of Iran and let peace and education do the job of improvements rather than continuing the old policy that we are seeing some of it's results today and it can get much worse.

The only problem I see on the way, is not IRI or Obama, but the Israeli's agenda.

Re: Mullah Treason

"It's just that simple, folkes. These people: Rafsanjani, Khalkhali (both Mongols), Khamenei (Turk) and their master, Khomeini (Hendi), are not "really" Iranian."

As if the genetic cesspool of Islamism does not contain enough diversity, the Jebel Amel component with its genetic and ideological component should not be forgotten either. Well done!

Mammad,   Just the

Mammad,

Just the fact that you go around and call everyone who disagrees with you as “Republican” in an insulting fashion, where as Republican Party being so diverse (from Falwell, who myself heard saying to Amanpour he will vote even for an Atheist if he can ensure America’s safety (I like to hear the most moderate Muslim cleric, including Iranian, say he will vote for an Atheist under some circumstance), to Ron Paul and other liberal and centrists) and has produced people like Lincoln and has been adhering to fair democratic game, shows how close minded and shortsighted and brainwashed of a person you are.

That being said, I’m not a Republican, and I told you before, if I was, I would have absolutely no reason to hide it, however, I do not want to see the Republican Party become “irrelevant”, because unlike you guys on the Left, I do not believe in a single party system, and I’m glad that Republican in the last 8 years and Democrats now, are not beating up on the rival too much so it becomes “irrelevant”, because both parties, and others, value this great democratic system.

FK

You and your deluded, misguided, twisted far right soulmates - the fascist right - in the US are the only ones who think so. The Republican Party, the advocate of your deluded, misguided, twisted views of history is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the US. Your type is the incredibly shrinking man in this country.

The same IRI that you profess to hate so much gave the same excuses in the past. In the early to mid 1980s, when it was killing the leftists, it also gave precisely the same reasons as you are giving now, namely, that they were fighting the communist/Marxist threat to the country.

Mammad

LoL at all the Democrats

It's rather unfair to condemn an entire party based on a 15 second sound-bite by John McCain, who said in an off the cuff joke, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Didn't Hillary Clinton pretty much say the same thing, that Iran would be "disintegrated" or "Obliterated" if it ever used the bomb?

What is the Iranian fascination with the democratic party? Really, are we not in this monumental mess because of an Arab-loving sissy democrat, Carter, who was giving Arafat advice (even as to what he should wear in US meetings) until his dying day? By the way, Arafat died of AIDS according to his own doctors.

As I stated earlier, NO ONE is advocating the bombing of Iran!!! No one!!! That would only help the flea-infested mullahs! But at the same time, America should not turn a callous eye to the gross human rights violations in Iran, the way Europe, China and Russia have done for years. America should put pressure on the akhunds to open up the system, free political prisoners, and therefore, condition any talks/agreements on improving human rights first, and nuclear enrichment suspension second.

Indeed, the whole nuclear redherring is a form of misdirection. While the whole world concerns itself with Iran's nuclear ambitions, it seems no one wants to stand up to the mullahs and force them to improve their human rights record.

In fact, where is that do-gooder Jimmy Carter???? Why is he not screaming from his roof-top in Georgia, demanding "Human Rights" in Iran? In his inauguration speech in 1976, he mentioned human rights over 20 times!!! I guess that was his signal to the revolutionaries! But where is the peanut farmer now when the Islamic regime locks up people like Roxanna Saberi and murders bloggers like Omid Miryasafi, and butchers the likes of Zahra Kazami??? Where is Jimmy Carter? Where was he when the butchers in Tehran executed over 25,000 political prisoners in the Summer of 1988?

Agai, wWhere is that PHONY, Jimmy Carter????

And now, another phony, Hussein Obama, screams human rights when it comes to a bunch of suicidal maniacs in Guantamano Bay Prison, and yet, this phony wants to cozy up to the mullahs (the way he cozied up to Hugo Chavez), even though the mullahs and Chavez have dozens of Guantamano Bay-type prisons all over their respective countries!

If that's not HYPOCRACY, then what is it???

No, we, who did not vote for Hussein Obama are not "Republicans," we are Iranians who were betrayed by a similar democrat who HANDED IRAN OVER TO AN EVIL GANG OF TERRORISTS ON A SILVER PLATTER!!!

LOL at all the republican

LOL at all the republican Iranians showing up here.

Whether you are for/against/neutral about the revolution, supporting a party that has called for "bomb bomb bomb"ing Iran makes you traitors of the worst kind, and not just to Iran, but to humanity in general. Please stop pretending you care in the least bit.

As for the rest of you, he that lies down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas.

Mammad,   That’s

Mammad,

That’s your deluded, misguided, twisted, and leftist version of history.

Here are the undeniable facts and truth regarding America’s post WWII policies:

-         The biggest trait of U.S’ foreign policy post WWII was fighting Communism. The U.S led the world, and with minimal help from others, defeated a dark and regressive ideology that butchered and enslaved people and nations. By achieving that, U.S was the main factor in bringing democracy, prosperity and integrity to hundreds of millions of people in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldavia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, and defeating Communism in USSR reduced the threat of Communism in numerous other countries, to name a few Greece, Iran, many African and Latin American nations, and the version of Communism we see now is reformed and much less extremist than before such as in Venezuela, Bolivia, China, and elsewhere.

-         As I said before to you, during that era, U.S’ main fight was against Communism, and the threat of Communism did not worry the U.S only, but almost all countries around the world, and all who understood the threat, allied themselves with the U.S to shield themselves from that threat. Some of them were free democratic nations, such as Western Europe and Japan and Singapore and S Korea, and some where right wing dictators, like Somoza, Shah and Pinochet. It is not U.S’ fault to get blamed for their dictatorship. It’s the supporters of those regimes inside of their countries who are at fault. U.S isn’t at fault for their historical socio political imbalances and tyrannical heritage; it’s their history, their society and groups within them that hold others back. U.S is not at fault that there were people in Iran who believed Shah was a god, and then others who believed Khomeini was a god. Have you ever thought about how logistically the CIA was able to pull off all those alleged “plots” all over the world? It’s logistically impossible my friend. Those days there were 2 blocks: Communism – Capitalism. Communism consisted of entirely Fascist left wing dictatorships and Capitalist consisted of both free, democratic and some right wing dictatorships. If U.S wouldnt’ve supported those countries, they would’ve fallen into Communism, and their situation and security, and ultimately the security and survival of the U.S, which was Communism’s main target, would’ve been at great risk.

-         Besides those, other ways to define post WWII policies are : U.S being the biggest contributor of foreign aid, the biggest inspirer and supporter for democracy in the world and for civil society and its organizations all around the world, the biggest producer of technology and science which has helped millions and millions of people around the world achieve a better more comfortable life with eradication of disease, poverty (U.S investment in China has helped 400 million people there), and now, with its leadership in globalization which has inspired liberal human rights values all around the world, has been nothing but a shining light on the hill.

Mammad, I know that the last few years, the Left has made attempts to re-write history, and its getting lot of help from Leftist media around the world, and from the college and university elite such as yourself, but I keep telling you, it won’t succeed. Because people know better. Even the harshest, but fair, critics of American foreign policy do acknowledge U.S’ positive role in world affairs, specially post WWII. It’s not flawless, but at the end of the day, it has made America a beacon for good.

My question is this......

How is the legitimacy of the IRI established if there is no clear, objective and accurate data on what it's citizens want at this point in time?

I have seen, heard and read so much information on pro-IRI and anti-IRI. The sources of information are not just from expats.

solh 

tolerance?

I can't believe IRI supporters are calling criticism of their support for IRI "intolerance", it's much like supporters of Nazis or KKK asking people to respect their opinions ... it's comical really. Of course these IRI lackeys attack other people's opinions all the time and call them every name and label in the book; it goes to show how disingenuous and nasty these people are.

What tolerance really means is that, in a secular democratic Iran after the overthrowing of IRI, no one would be imprisoned (let alone executed or tortured) for merely supporting the idea of a theocracy or being an Islamist, as long as they don't hurt anybody; of course in a secular democratic Iran, these people would most likely be considered a fringe group in the society much like KKK in todays United States.

In the mean tine, Anybody who cares about Iran and Iranians would speak out against crimes of IRI and would criticize people who support this brutal and inhuman regime.

BBC's mullah

The legitimacy of any political system/government is bestowed upon it by the people who are ruled by that system/government, not by any foreign power.

Therefore, regardless of whether the IRI is legitimate or not - its supporters say it is, the opposition says it is not - President Obama's use of the "the Islamic Republic of Iran" did not, cannot, and will not give any legitimacy to the IRI, just as not using that would not have given the IRI illiegitimacy.

The United Nations also recognizes the IRI as the legitimate government of Iran, as do over 170 countries that have diplomatic relations with it, even if each and every one of those countries detests the IRI.

Only people who want outside intervention to change the system in a country also seek out legitimacy by outside forces. 

Mammad

Obama-nist

It's really very sad so many Iranian people voted for Obama, knowing full well that, like that clown, Carter, Obama would try to engage and rehabilitate the despicable butchers in Tehran. Don't get me wrong, this is not a Bush or Obama or McCain thing, it's an Iran thing. As an Iranian, it's hard to imagine how a Moveon.org president could be tough enough to put pressure on the Mullahs, without bombing the country.

Nobody wants Iran bombed. That would only help the maniacs in turbans, for they would mobilize their reptilian forces and have yet another excuse to crack donw on dissent. Having said that, most Iranians also don't want the US to jump into bed with the Islamic vermin in Tehran.

We all know that the akhunds thrive on crisis. Simply put, BUT FOR the hostage crisis of 1979, the eight-year war with Iraq (which the mullahs prolonged on purpose), and the Palestinian crisis, the mullahs would have been history by now. It is, in fact, their manipulation of any and every readily available crisis that has kept them in power all these years... so, I repeat, no one wants Iran bombed.

And of course, the mullahs are only using the nuclear threat to get what they really want, a grand bargain, i.e., a life insurance policy = a security agreement prohibiting America from removing them by force in the order of Saddam Hussein. In fact, that is exactly what the Soviets were able to achieve for Castro in Cuba. Another democrat, JFK, rewarded Soviet bad behavior by not only removing American missiles in Turkey, but also giving Castro a security agreement, meaning America would no longer try ot depose Castro, i.e., a life insurace policy.

Soviet bad behavior resulted in two big chips for the left. And simpletons still hail Kennedy as a hero for his part in the Cuban missile crisis!

And that is exactly what the flea-infested mullahs are after. In point of fact, after 1962, knowing full well that America could not touch him anymore, Castro became emboldened and got involved in many shananigans in Latin America -- even helping Hendi Ruhollah overthrow the Shah with impunity.

And I'm afraid this tool of a president, Hussein Obama, will in the end, in the order of JFK, coward Carter, and Clinton (who once waited 45 minutes outside a UN bathroom to shake hands with Khatami, who embarrassed the American President by refusing to come out) will cave in under pressure and pull a Chamberlin act (the Prime Minister of England who thought he had peace in his times when he made an agreement with Hitler, who soon thereafter bombed the hell out of London).

Point is, Obama was WRONG to acknowledge the "Islamic Republic." Why legitimize a regime that has no legitimacy in the eyes of a majority of its people. The revolution has failed the Iranian nation. It has been a disasterous tragedy, for Iran and for the world. Why would Obama or any other leader of a civilized society engage a bunch of sadistic barbarians?

Seriously, isn't it grossly inconsistent and hypocrytical of Obama to care so much about Guantamano Bay prison, which houses suicidal maniacs, and yet, he wants to cozy up to a regime which has 100 Guantamano Bay type prisons all over Iran???

Mihan-parasts, don't lose hope! The late great Shah ruled Iran for 37 years. The mullahs, 30. Even the Shah looked invincible for many years. Things can change over night! Death to the mullahs and their bedouin balderdash and desert fairytales!

Q

So who would you say telling that the clergy would step aside in the post-monarchy era and have nothing to do with government (as an example, when that didn't happen at all) is a betraying of? Or are you saying that's not betrayal?