Hillary Clinton on Iran

Getting involved against Iran

Keith Olbermann once again rightly points out why no one in the media takes on and talks about this SERIOUS and SIGNIFICANT matter! She did not read the NIE before voting for Iraq war. She clearly did not read the NIE again!! on Iran!!!


Darius Kadivar

Mamad IMirror Mirror on the Wall ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Well then what are you complaining about ? ...

Good for you if your famous. To me you are still anonymous and in hiding.

Oh and I suppose I did not know Mamad is an abreviation for Mohammad ?

Jesus ... er Mohamad You have an Ego Problem Man !

Cool Down with this :


Good Night From Paris

Darius Kadivar

Thank You Hakkak I hear you

by Darius Kadivar on

Hear, Hear

Quite Right.




Dariush Kadivar

by Mammad (not verified) on

Good point about writing my own articles, except that I do publish articles regularly under my full name, not only on various sites, but also in print, in Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, etc. I am sure that if I gave you my last name, you would recognize me. Here, I just want to have a good debate, to learn and to teach. Why does it have to include full names?

By the way, Mammad IS my name. It is, as you know, the Persian abbreviation for Muhammad, or Mohammad, which is my real, not pseudo-, name.

Darius Kadivar

Mamad Insults ?

by Darius Kadivar on

Well dunno how more clear I can be.

I don't recall even knowing who you are or when I answered you for I cannot put a face on you except your Fish logo. That's your fault for not being recognizeable. I don't look and memorize the pseudo names I read amongst hundred that are published daily most to write nonsense because they don't want to be recognized.

I have been mostly accused of being too civilized to date after 10 years of writing on this website despite receiving death threats for defending my views with objectivity and politness. Now once in a while I may have gone overboard by reading all the nonesense and personal attacks I have been subject too because of the new format that allows virtually anybody to publish comments.  I finally answer back a little harshly to you guys who think expressing ones views is for granted and you take it personally when you see perfectly that you have not registered under a real name or at best a pseudo.

My Friend Bruce Bahmani was also about to stop writing because of all the personal attacks he got from many of you anonymous people and I told him to stand firmly and not give in. That is how all this bad mouthing began. Aggressiveness leads to aggressiveness.

Well here is what I suggest to you mamad since you think you are entitled to a civilized answer.

To me you are still an anonymous emailer amongst MILLIONS of others on this website. If you have the ambition of being a feature writer and want to be taken for a person and not a fish or chicken not by just me but anyone reading the website then why not sign under your real name and put your photo up ?

Then start writing your articles. You seem to have arguments and intelligent enough to express yourself. So go ahead Start taking responsability for what you say and think. What are you afraid of ?

I have family too some who are in Iran. Thats too easy an argument to justify that you have the right to express yourself anaonymously.

By being anonymous you are simply giving in to Fear on which all Totalitarian systems thrive upon otherwise  Might as well sign under a number like in the Army when they don't even consider you as an individual.

Take this constructive Step forward and I will promise I won't insult you because you will then be a person who takes responsability for his or her words and not an anonymous individual taking advantage of the freedom of expression you have and truly deserve like anybody on this website. 





Dariush Kadivar

by Mammad (not verified) on

Mr. Kadivar:

I have never ever insulted you. I have never ever called you any names. I have criticized you in the past, but it has been in the most polite way. There is a difference, as I am sure you know, between strong but polite criticism and bad-mouthing, labeling, etc.

You have called me, and others (but I only speak for myself), fish face. You call other people badbakht, bichareh, etc. You accuse people of being jealous of people whom you support. These are, in many people's book, insults.

I do not agree with a lot of things that you say or promote, but you do have some good points sometime. My point was, why do you insult people? Stop that, and just express your opinion. If other people do that, let them.

You are, of course, your own man to decide, but if I were you, I would not do this. I do not, even though some people attack me viciously, simply because they do not agree with what I say, the accuracy of which can easily be checked.

Darius Kadivar

Mamad Insults ?

by Darius Kadivar on

Where did I insult anyone ? You guys are calling me names and not even registered under your full name and accuse me of being on a payroll of the CIA and the US and attacking my honor when I am fully exposed with my FULL NAME unlike you guys and then you expect me not to react ?

Were you to do this with your own name I would settle this at court but you don't even have that honesty to sign up with your real name but a pseudo. How can I tell you from anyone else fish or not ?

Most registered people here have been writing for the Iranian.com for years and earned the right to express themselves over the years at the expense of not ONLY personal accusations and insults but death threats by the likes of you and other anonymous people who have since infested this website.  

There was a day when Iranian.com was struggling to exist and where freedom of expression on this website meant something to all of us regardless of our views or backgrounds. You guys have spoiled that spirit of tolerace with your attitudes and personal attacks.

If I insulted you by mistake I am sorry but don't expect respect when you hide behind nicknames and anonymous posts.




Dariush Kadivar

by Mammad (not verified) on

1. Who says that Olbermann should be neutral? For every liberal commentator, there are 3-4 right-wing ones. For every liberal site, there are at least 10 right-wing ones. We have the ultra-right Fox Channel, but no counterpart among the progressives. We have the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute, the Hoover Institute, ...., all right-wing, but not one counterpart among the real progressives.

Even the New York times, the "bastion" of liberalism now has two neoconservative commentators, Bill Kristol and David Brooks, and two proponents of foreign interventions, Nick Christoff and Tom Friedman.

2. Who says that Iranians who have convictions are not democrat, and are only interested in forcing their convictions on others? Surely, there are some people like that. But, the Iranian democrats - the true ones not those who only claim to be - are not like what you describe.

3. Why do you feel compelled to bad-mouth other people? Why do you constantly insult others (including me in the past)? If your argument is that others did that to you first, why do you lower yourself to their level? Speaking of conviction, if you have convictions and certain principles, and truly believe in them, then, you must be able to respond to other people without using some of the worst insults that you do. So, then, the question is, why do you do it? Just wondering.

4. Why do you attribute people's criticism of someone (Hillary, for example) to jealousy? There are many accomplished Iranians who comment on this site. Without knowing them, if you do not like what they say, one of the things that you accuse them of is being jealous. Jealous of what? Often, they are far more accomplished than those that they are supposedly jealous of!


Hillary is a center-right political animal

by Mammad (not verified) on

Ann Coulter, the ultra-right, conservative racist, who advocates invasion of Islamic countries and converting muslims to Christianity by force, had this to say about Hillary:

Between Hillary and McCain, I'll vote for Hillary and would volunteer for her campaign, because she is more conservative than McCain.

Now, this is exaggeration, but just a tad.

Hillary Clinton and her hunsband do not give a hoot to anything other than being at the top of the political hierarchy. Bill always had pollsters taking polls for him to decide what is politically expedient to do, as did Hillary.

Hillary lies when she says, "had I known what I know today, I would have not voted for the Iraq war Resolution" in the Senate. She knew it, or she could have known it easily, had she bothered to learn and read.

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was classified was TOTALLY different from its declassified version that was sold to the public in October 2002. Read What Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, who had read the classified NIE and voted against the Iraq war Resolution said. So, Hillary either did not bother to read it, or she chose to ignore it, because it was politically expedient for her.

So, the fact is, her vote at that time, and her fake opposition to Iraq war today are just part of her plan to be the President. As soon as she was elected a New York Senator, what did she do? Becoming a member of the Armed Forces Committee, so that she can present herself as a tough-minded person, who is eligible to be the commander-in-chief.

She says that she opposes the war in Iraq now. But, what has she done to stop it? She has voted for every single resolution approving every dollar George "God told me to attack Afghanistn and Iraq" Bush has demanded.

In addition, she is as "good" as Bush, or BETTER, when it comes to supporting Israel. Last week she suggested something that even Bush has not: Creating a defensive shield FOR ISRAEL that would include her NEIGHBOURS. That is the most incredible, unbelievable thing any US politician has said regarding the support for Israel.

Hillary will support Israel to the hilt to attack Iran. Israel will attack Iran, Iran will respond, and, then, president Hillary will declare that the US must support Israel, and will attack Iran. This is a very likely scenario, which may happen even over the next few months, before Bush will leave office.

Actually, it was the US Senate that set the stage for invasion of Iraq when, in 1998, it voted 96-0 to approve the Iraq Freedom Act that made it the official US policy to seek the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

What about Obama? He is certainly better than Hillary, but when it comes to foreign policy, he may not be much better. Consider just the following three items:

(1) Obama says that he will "withdraw" the US forces from Iraq, but will leave a "residual" force of 80,000 behind! Some residual!

(2) He rages against US interventions abroad, but wants to expand the US army by 92,000 (larger than Hillary's suggestion of 80,000)! What for, one might ask?!

(3) He says that the US should leave Iraq, but wants to leave intact the Green Zone in Baghdad, the very symbol of US colonialism in Iraq!


Vote for Obama please

by Elite mullah (not verified) on

How Iran Sees the US Primaries
The Time
April 2008

From President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's office and the sitting rooms of high-ranking mullahs to university campuses and the Farsi-language blogosphere, Iranians are following the American presidential race more avidly than ever before. That's partly because they're eager for the exit of President Bush, who branded Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" and implicitly raised the possibility of a military strike against the country over its alleged nuclear weapons program. But the Iranians' interest is also driven by a sense among many Iranians that the candidacy of Barack Obama offers real hope for repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Commenting on the Iranian preference for a Democrat in the White House, Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the reformist Etemad Meli newspaper noted that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as "He's with us."

Senator Obama would be the first to disagree with that, of course, but the sympathy his candidacy has aroused among many Iranians stems from a variety of factors, including his African heritage, his partly Muslim family ties, and a belief that Obama would move to end Washington's 30-year Cold War with Tehran — or at least reduce the prospect of a U.S. military attack on the Islamic Republic. "I think people want him to win," Shi'ite cleric Mehdi Karroubi, the reformist former parliament speaker defeated by Ahmadinejad in Iran's 2005 presidential contest, told TIME.

But Obama isn't the only candidate drawing careful scrutiny in Tehran. Some Iranians are also intrigued by John McCain, pointing out that Henry Kissinger, a "realist" McCain adviser, recently called for "direct negotiations" between the U.S. and Iran. Nonetheless, many consider McCain a hawk and fear his experiences as an American POW in the Vietnam War may hardwire him for hostility towards revolutionary governments. All Iranians seem aware of McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" Beach Boys imitation, and many take it as an indication of his inclinations. Yet many anti-regime Iranians are praying — albeit quietly — for a McCain victory. Some Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad also favors McCain, in the belief that continued confrontation with the U.S. — as long as it stops short of all-out war — will enable Iranian hard-liners to rally popular backing against reformists who seek to improve ties with the West.

Iranians are divided on Hillary Clinton, largely basing their views on the record in the Middle East of her husband, who Iranians expect would effectively be her senior foreign policy adviser. Mohammed Atrianfar, an adviser to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, argues that Bill Clinton has a "peace-seeking image" among Iranians. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, now a Hillary adviser, publicly accepted American responsibility for involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran and subsequent support for the repressive regime of the Shah. Iranian diplomats complain, however, that Clinton also imposed economic sanctions on Iran.

It's not only the policy expectations that account for Obama's popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father's Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi'ite Islam practiced in Iran — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as "the Great Satan."

But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."

There are doubts, however. Many Iranians feel that the American political establishment would put the brakes on any rapprochement until Iran ended its hostility toward Israel. There's also concern in Iran that Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs may prompt him as President to actually take a harder line on Iran rather than risk appearing to be a weak leader.

And precisely because of the attributes they find most positive in Obama, many Iranian leaders believe he's unlikely to be elected. Iran's Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaee, whose daughter married President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's son last week, told TIME that Obama "seems not a bad person" and said that, if he were an American voter, he might even cast a ballot for the Illinois Senator. But Mashaee thinks Iran will more likely be facing McCain or Clinton in the White House. "It's far-fetched that he will be allowed to become President," Mashaee insisted. Pressed to elaborate, Ahmadinejad's deputy declined to specify whether it was because of Obama's race or other factors. He just laughed and exclaimed, "Let's make a bet on it!"


What the hell is wrong with An.-today?!

by Ali Hakkak (not verified) on

You just don't get it! It's not that nobody dared question Hillary on her "drastic" vision! It's that people who are "peer-reviewing" this process KNOW she is on the right track.
You and people like you can stick to your half-ass politics in your ivory towers but down here on earth, the heat is up and the shitheads are growing in numbers. It's time to elect a logical president (not a jackass like Bush) to wipe off the dust, not push it under the carpet. Go Hillary!


I can't stand Shrillary. She is DANGEROUS!

by Anonymous77 (not verified) on

She's been banging on about ATTACKING Iran since 2004. It's been part of the Shrillary clan Democrats' strategy for a long time, especially wanting to seem tough on security for the electorate.
She is a warmongering, exceedingly dangerous woman.
I wish her and her entire dangerous family nothing but ill-will.
Let her have power and she will be worse than the bushtapo.


Anonymous-today baba tanet mikhareh?!

by Anonymouse on

Roo ke nist, sang-e paw gazvin-e. Das bar dar ta bad tar nashode!

By the way, what is a "French Bitch"? I am not sure I understand the "French" version.


You're feeling sorry for yourself again

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

I don't care if you believe Olbermann or not; it's your privilege. I'm not a regular viewer of his either. I'm weary of the over-hyped super charged news in the US regardless of who does it. Mind you all this started with the FOX news and the liberals are fighting back in the same way. But I wonder if you listened to what the guy was saying. He said that Hillary's little slip of foreign policy was to the right of McCain and that no one questioned her on it. A bold vision of imperial presidency and no one dared pick up on it. That there was no follow up on this drastic vision of not only supporting Israel at any cost but basically making the Middle East a protectorate of the United States. You, who call yourself a journalist, should appreciate this, regardless of your political bent. Hillary after all is a Democrat not a Republican. Instead you bunch Olbermann and Galloway together (why? What do they have in common exactly?) and then keep referring to "they", that they should tell who funds them? What does gooze have to do with shaghighe? I'm all for questioning anyone but where is your argument? Is that all you have to contribute to the conversation, a couple of vague comments about who funds people as different as Galloway and Olbermann? It seems to me you’re the one who is acting predictable. What is so politically correct or incorrect about Olbvermann’s piece? It is after all an editorial, which by its nature is polemical, i.e. he is arguing for his position that American foreign policy is reckless and Hillary’s position will lead to more recklessness and that this position must be questioned. Heck, Pat Buchanan is arguing the same thing albeit from a right wing nativist point of view. Again, what does gooze… And you lecture other people about political maturity. I read your original post again and saw nothing that was worth posting. I will check your link to Olbermann and see where his funding is coming from but that will not affect my opinion of his piece. It stands on its own even if he is funded by Ahamdinejad. Now let's see if you can respond to me without crying about your tough childhood and calling me badbakht, beechareh and all that nonsense.


Inspired by Honest Hassan

by IRANdokht on

You know you're iranian when....

every debate ends up being another character assassination and mudslinging event.




DK jan

by Anonymouse on

Nemifahme. Az posht-e kooh amadeh. Velesh kon gonah dare. Ghalat kard. Digeh az in ghaltha nemikone.

Darius Kadivar

Anonymous-today You are ...

by Darius Kadivar on

And you are a Pathetic Fish face !

What's wrong with doubting in Obermann or Dobermann's sincerity. I clearly said I did not share the views of neo cons or people who call for bombing Iran, does that mean I have to swallow every type of propaganda simply because it serves the Democratic Party's agenda's ?

Obermann's comments simply don't sound neutral which does not mean I disagree with them entirely but that simply I don't trust journalists who are overly moralistic when it comes to politics. Things are never Black and White and as simple as it seems.

Who in turn are you to insult me or call me names as you guys seam to indulge in doing so lately and expect me not to answer back. I am not of the masochistic type like you lots always asking for self pity and claiming moral superiority on all issues from Human Rights to Political discourse. When did I call myself civilized an Artist or anyother denomination as such. Most of the time I have promoted others and fellow compatriots in the community who deserve much more attention than myself or all you politically obssessed Lot of empty heads.

I don't think ANY Iranian is a Democrat. We simply have convictions and want to force others to think the same. We have never lived amongst eachother at least with any form of tolerance or fairness. All we do is focus on the negative ajust to find reasons for our own failures. Once it was the Shah's fault, then Khomeiny and now its Bush. Why not take some of the responsabiliy for all this Shit than always look for conspirators everywhere.

If one says something against political correctness or criticizes liberals or if you say something critical of Mossadeg ( Which I never have) you are accused of being a Savaki, an Agent of Israel.

Your Democracy is that of SHOAREH Beeh Bad.

Grow Up, its time after 30 years of Crappy justifications for all our divisions that have only prolonged the Islamic Republic's life span..

Your the pathetic one who accuses and slanders but does not dare register under a real name. You are the guys who think you can innocently slander people and get away under ridiculous names and anonymous posts just ot protect yourselves.

Then you have the nerve to be judgmental ? What do I care about your opinion or if you don't like my smile ?  You don't even show your face Badbakht.

Your beliefe in democracy is as low to your cowardice is high.

I shouldn't call you Fish Face its an insult to Fish.

Beechareh !




Clinton is just being realistic

by Hakkak (not verified) on

Keith Olbermann is a great journalist and a very liberal one too and I like him but bear in mind that he is part of the american liberals that have no realistic understanding of Iran and the middle east (I'm not suggesting that the conservative do have such understanding!). The main problem with these people is that they really think that people of Iran are happy with the republic they invented and the revolution was a good thing (keep in mind these are the ones who think highly of Chavez and Castro too).
So there's nothing wrong with what Clinton is saying. You might find it "offensive" if you have lived your life in the abstract world of Iranian-Americans in exile who tried to stay away from politics and over time have lost their sense of reality in the streets of San Fran. and LA.
Here is the difference between Clinton and Obama: Clinton has learned (through her hubby!) what has worked and not worked, Obama is going to learn that. And as usual WE (the poor taxpayers....and more....people of thw world) pay the price of this educational process.

If you think that Iran-U.S. (Isreal) conflict will be resolved by Obamas, Clintons or Olbermanns of the world you need an update to your "reality check"! WeI promise you that Obama and Olbermann and the like will be talking differently a few years from now. Just like Clintons and the like have a different view of the world now compared to 10-15 years ago.

P.S. Mr. Kadivar you rarely disappoint me as a journalist but you did today. I know what you mean but you should control your feelings and emotions otherwise you'll end up becoming just like the other 99% irrational pseudo-journalists on these pages.


Kadivar, you are pathetic

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

I don't see anything in my response that implies a defense of Hezbollah. This isn't even about Hezbollah. Your so-called mask of civilized journalist is so thin it's pathetic. Instead of addressing Oberlman's rant you questioned his funding sources. In other word because he questioned Hillary's doctrine of Pax Americana and her right to bomb anyone who disagreed with the US, you sulked like the French bitch you are, like an immature teenager, so I simply turned it around and said who is funding you, rich boy? Oberlman is an employee of MSNBS, not exactly a bastion of radicalism and therefore is funded by MSNBC. Can you and the likes of you who sit in places in France and criticize the IRI (rightfully) for being authoritarian and intolerant of dissent, learn to tolerate dissent yourself? Well, I bloody doubt it since you fossils still wax poetic about Shahanshah and have wet fantasies about feudal days when your forefathers could run roughshod over the people.

Darius Kadivar

Don't Forget all the Hollywood Orgies ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Please do add to the list. Not sure you Islamist's will like it much though. I heard you prefer doing it with Camels.  



Gate of Civilization: Mr. Kadivar ....Full Exposure please

by Dr. Abol Danesh, Author (not verified) on

Mr. Kadivar if you don't get pride in your membership in the shemr zel joshan association of head choppers...it is hard for me to say: Mr. Kadivar Happy Noroz...



Mr. Kadivar ....Full Exposure please ...

by Mr. Abol Danesh, Author (not verified) on

I am disappointed with Mr. Kadivar for he failed to give the full list of his associates...How about the bahais... how about formaseenorees... how about saudi vahabees...how about the british intelligence service fiananced by queen elizabneth ii...how about the yazidis ...how about shemr zel jo shan asociation of head choppers....

Darius Kadivar

To Anonymous-today The Ass without a name ...

by Darius Kadivar on

I'm financed by the CIA, the Mossad, neo con's and the ex-SAVAK'is how is that as an answer ?

Badbakhteh Hezbollahi !

Its incredible how you guys are susceptible and jealous ...




Three interesting articles you should read

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Majority of Americans find Clinton to be untrustworthy


Clinton slams progressive democrats - Not GOOD!!


Finally another excellent article about Rev. Wright's speech:

By Dallas Blanchard: God Damn America?

Retired United Methodist Minister, Alabama-West Florida Conference. Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of West Florida. Ideology/Theology: Amerimnatic. An amerimnatic is not an atheist, not an agnostic, and not a theist, but one who considers theological questions useless. Literally: One who does not give a damn about theological questions


It is very educational and insightful to review the comments made to obtain a view of what people think.


I remain Hopefull...

by Abol Danesh, Author (not verified) on


I remain hopeful that one day I will get the American green card for I have a dream! And I don't care who is going to become president next time in the white house from the trio for I only care about my dream!

I have a dream that one day I get the green card! I have a dream! My dream is that whoever becomes the next american president will pass law so I can obtain my green card easiler for I have a dream...

Amigo... moocho porfovor... graseeyaas...bambino....moochoo travaaahoo...kaleeyenteh...gabroon!


Who's funding you, Mr. Kadivar?

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

What manner of nonsensical response is that? Who are you refering to, Keith Oberlman? He works for the MSNBC, and he is not hiding his political position. You, on the other hand, who is always trying to come across as just a guy writing stuff and all, show your bias in moments like this? So Oberlman is in the pay of the Islamic Republic too? Don't pussy out, come out and say what you mean. Don't imply rubbish, come and say it.


I don't trust Hillary

by John Carpenter III (not verified) on

John McCain is too old to be President.

Hillary is just too crooked.

Obama is the only candidate that gives people hope.

vote Obama in November 2008.


I remain hopeful that

by Abol Danesh, Author (not verified) on

...When Mrs. Clinton moves into the white house she will pass a series of good legislation in he senate successfully so true immigration reform could hold root in the country and as a result the motivated individual such as myself could come to America to ingnite the American economy with fresh blood...

I have a dream!
I have a dream that one day I could get the American green card! I have a dream!


Support NIAC

by Mehdi on

Get involved in US political system. This is the main reason Israel Lobby has so much power - connections within the government (as well as controlling huge financial institutions). Israel is second most disliked country in the world, so we don't want to take them as a model - God forbid - but they have managed to raise themselves on the food chain, mainly by getting involved in the US political system and making connections. No matter what happens, that is be a good way to go.

Be generous and donate to NIAC. Become a member. Get involved. When finally this potential war is averted, wouldn't you want to be one of those who can say, "I helped?" Trita Parsi has a solution. Let's support him before it is too late.


She is a fake

by ToofanZeGreat on

political prostitute. Obama is too, but not one fifth as clinton.


Because she can pull a bag

by transparent (not verified) on

Because she can pull a bag over everyones head. Rmember, the pillars of both political parties have long been hijacked by special interest groups like AIPAC.

For the past 30 years, our elections have been dominated by two names; Bush or Clinton. The only way to rid the system from the elite's monopoly is to over hall the electoral college process, and pass new laws pertaining to campaign finance reform.

Until then, your countless vote will go to the lesser of two evils for years to come, only for you to discover that your lesser evil was another wolf under the sheep’s skin and part of the “institution” all along.

In order for the elite/special interest group to subsidize lavish lifestyles, they need cash. When our system’s cash flow starts to run low, they’ll find a reason to start a war under the notion of democracy, freedom and human rights, only so they can in return suck the natural resources of another nation back over into our economy which will allow them to print more currency.

Subsequently, they bomb infrastructure assets like power plants, telephone central offices, airports and commercial airlines, building and bridges and alike. Only to award contracts for planes (think Boeing), Telecom gear (at&t, Alcatel) New power plants (GE), Military Arms (think Lockheed Martin / McDonald Douglas) Building & Bridges (Bechtel and Halliburton) and so on.

Now here we are! 5 years into a war with Iraq our economy is still in the tank and while GE and it’s 398000 employees post a double digit drop in earnings, the Mullah’s have picked up contracts to pump new electricity grids into Iraq……. OOPS!

Naturally they have to pick a fight with Iran now,but the question is can the community stomach the annihilation of the home land so a bunch of vikings can keep their billion dollar pay incentives? I say if there is room for more steeling in Iran, then let it be from its own.

Reminds of what what Maggie Tatcher said to her house of commons, “You can turn if you want, but the lady aint for turning”