ayatoilet1
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Americans Have 9/11, Iranians have 9/22
09-Sep-2011
On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi Army invaded Iran. Iraqi military aircrafts bombed Iran's major airports. In days, Iraqi soldiers had occupied and conquered many major Iranian cities. Iraq targeted oil tankers, oil platforms, and Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf with weaponry supplied by France, the same country who had funded Khomeini's flight back to Tehran a year or so before. Iran's oil exports were effectively shut down.
Said K. Arburish, biographer and author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, said Hussein met with CIA agents in Amman approximately one year before the invasion. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a political journalist and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, backed up the claim, proposed the sessions were Brzezinski's idea.
Timmerman quoted National Security Council member Gary Sick as saying “Brzezinski was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran.”
Beside US 'encouragement, there are now allegations that key members of Iran’s opposition, consisting of former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, former senior Iranian military officers, and Prince Reza Pahlavi also held meetings with Iraqi officials. They provided intelligence and guidance for the Iranian invasion. One of Reza Pahlavi’s aids (Shahbazi) later alleged his involvement in identifying integral Iranian military targets. Bakhtiar's associates have also confirmed that he had travelled to Baghdad many times prior to the invasion.
It is also now established that in August of 1980, Saddam Hussein met with Saudi princes who encouraged the war for their own reasons.
Suddenly, Iraq and its army percieved an opportunity and had also become a tool for enemies of the regime in Iran.
Hussein quickly planned the invasion of Iran. He hoped to seize a substantial portion of Iranian territory early on, which would destabilize the Islamic Republic and allow him to overthrow Khomeini's regime.
Iran, for all intents and purposes, was defenseless against Hussein's forces. With the Iranian government against the wall, Reagan's staff and Iranian officials held a final, secret meeting in Paris during the month of October in 1980. This meeting was led by America's Vice President Elect George Bush and William Casey (later Reagan's Director of CIA) and Iran's Speaker of the Majlis Mehdi Karroubi.
Bush and Casey delivered $40 million to the Iranians. This, along with $5 billion in illegal arms deals and an agreement not to interfere with the Islamic Republic, was a bribe offered in exchange for the 52 American hostages held in Tehran to not be released until after the 1980 election. This would guarantee Carter's defeat and Reagan's victory.
The agreement not to challenge the new Iranian regime allowed the Islamic Republic to take full control of Iran.
On January 20, 1981, the very day of President Reagan's inauguration, America released nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets. Iran finally freed the hostages more than a whole year after their initial capture.
Israel agreed to ship American weaponry to Iran. The Washington Post claimed Haig authorized the shipment, and that it was worth between $10 million and $15 million. Other reports said the weapons were worth up to $246 million.
Haig denied his involvement, but said, “I have a sneaking suspicion that someone in the White House winked.”
An aircraft carrying American weaponry from Israel to Iran crashed in Turkey in July of 1981. Banisadr said it was the third arms shipment from Israel during Reagan’s presidency. Israeli Housing Minister and former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon said the American government sanctioned all Israeli arms shipments to Iran during the war. The Israeli ambassador to America, Moshe Arens, said Israel’s arms shipments were supported by the government at “almost the highest of levels.”
The arms shipments ceased on October 28, 1988. Over 2,000 American missiles and parts had been shipped to Iran by that point.
America sustained the war beyond simply supplying Iran. Haig told the Senate’s foreign relations committee he anticipated better relations with Iraq. The government removed Iraq from the American government’s list of terrorist countries and gave a $400 million credit guarantee for American exports to Iraq. By 1984, America and Iraq held full diplomatic relations for the first time since 1967.
The process continued until the end of the war as Iraqi and Iranian forces alike died in the line of fire. Waves of soldiers and civilians fell to bombs and chemical agents, a tragedy beyond the comprehension of the beltway strategists who sat in their comfortable homes and planned the deaths of thousands. America, an advocator of world peace, supplied both countries and sustained the war for their own gain.
America, the United Kingdom, and Germany provided technology to Iraq which allowed them to expand their missile program and radar defenses. According to a leaked, uncensored copy of Iraq’s declaration to the United Nations, they obtained the knowledge and materials required for developing unconventional weapons from 150 foreign companies. These companies came from countries including America, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and China.
The Russians remained neutral until 1982. Scared that the ideology behind the Islamic Revolution could spread to neighboring regions they controlled, the Soviets supplied weapons to Iraq. With Russia presenting itself as an enemy once again, Iran's mullahs expelled 13 Soviet diplomats and commenced a mass execution of Tudeh Party members. Iran began supporting Afghanistan’s battle against the Russians as well.
In response, the Soviets established a working relationship with Kuwait. They agreed to sell arms and protect Kuwaiti ships in the Persian Gulf. This move threatened America's control and strategy in the Persian Gulf and led to an American-influenced Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, several years after Kuwait's mistake.
Russian arms shipments to Iraq are estimated to have been $10 billion, including over 2,000 tanks, 300 aircraft, 300 surface-to-air missiles, and thousands of artillery and armored vehicles.
North Korea was also a major supplier to Iran. They produced and sold their own arms, and also served as a deniable intermediary to Iran for Russia and China. North Korea first sold and shipped Russian weaponry to Iran in October of 1980, not long after the war began. A billion-dollar sale of Chinese equipment followed. Iran paid for the supplies with cash and crude oil, and North Korea became Iran’s leading arms and munitions supplier in 1982.
The deals between North Korea and Iran were no laughing matter. The details of an SA-7 missile sale conducted in 1987 show the extent of international involvement in the war. As the North Korean purchases continued, Russia, who publicly sold weapons to Iran's enemies, benefited as well. In fact, the SA-7 missile shipment came from a Polish, Soviet-controlled firm known as Perenosny Zenitiny Raketny Kompleks.
European companies prospered from the deals. The London branch of Commerzbank A.G., a West German bank, posted a $100,000 performance bond. Swiss firm Wuppesahl A.G. insured the shipment and the Union Bank of Switzerland issued a letter of credit to Iran for $18,640,000. Funds transferred through London's Commerzbank, which received commission for its services, to Russia's account with the West German bank, Deutchebank A.G.
The whole world seemed to benefit from the war. America, Europe, and Russia all supplied arms to Iraq. In turn, neighboring Arab states financially supported Iraq. America, and indirectly Russia and China, supplied weaponry to Iran as well. Global superpowers maintained the war's stalemate and reaped the financial rewards at the cost of innocent lives.
The tides turned on October 5, 1986, when an American cargo plane crashed in southern Nicaragua. Two crew members died, but one, Eugene Hasenfus, lived. The Sandinista army captured him and escorted him from the crash site at gunpoint.
Hasenfus’ capture set in motion a chain of events which ultimately led to the embarrassment of Reagan’s administration. The truth of one of the biggest political scandals in American history was blown wide open. The true nature of the October Surprise, including America's arms deals with Iran, was finally exposed to the American people.
Over the course of several Congressional hearings, members of Reagan’s administration were convicted. However, none of the sentences reflected the nature of their crimes. The harshest ruling was two years of probation and a $20,000 fine. None of the politicians were imprisoned.
These events came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
American involvement in the war was contradictory. Despite privately supporting Iran, they publicly opposed the Islamic Republic.
President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selected Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in December of 1983 and March of 1984. American ambassador Peter W. Galbraith said, “The Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."
Howard Teicher, the Director of Political-Military Affairs for the National Security Council, accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his affidavit, the CIA secretly directed armaments and technology to Iraq through third parties in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait. They encouraged private suppliers and military companies to do the same.
Two of every seven approved licenses for the export of “dual use” technology were American. This technology was sent to Iraqi forces, weapons producers, or enterprises suspected of diverting technology to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by Chairman Henry B. Gonzales of the House Banking Committee.
In the last five years of the Iran-Iraq War, 771 export licenses were given to Iraq for items relating to weapons. Iraq purchased ingredients for chemical weapons, biological agents including anthrax, cluster bombs, and calibration devices for mustard gas production. Recently declassified Congressional and NSA documents show America's government was aware and supportive of these sales.
Americans mourn the events of 9/11, which led to the deaths of over 3,000 innocents and resulted in 4,000 more military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iranians should mourn 9/22, the date of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, which resulted in the deaths of half a million Iranian and Iraqi people.
Ironically, Jimmy Carter, who played a large part in encouraging one of the bloodiest wars in modern history, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
| Recently by ayatoilet1 | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Keep Boycotting BP | 14 | Dec 01, 2012 |
| The War on Oil – Part 2 | 3 | Nov 30, 2012 |
| The War on Oil – Part 1 | 1 | Nov 30, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
VPK - with all due respect, here is the definition of FACT -
by ayatoilet1 on Mon Sep 12, 2011 04:31 AM PDTHere is a extract from the definition of FACT in wiktionary ... by the way, there is clearly a difference between a fact and the truth, although they can be used synonymously; AND, an allegation is considered a fact... and the use of an allegation as a fact has a long history in the english language. There is also a great deal of difference between a FACT and a VALUE (judgement).
1) Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is red or Matter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
2) Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[4][5]
3) Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[6] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.
So again facts are facts.... we need them to pursue the truth.
Responses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Sep 12, 2011 04:21 AM PDTYes, Arj you are right, AND
by ayatoilet1 on Mon Sep 12, 2011 03:32 AM PDTNow in retrospect I think there were a few incidents like that (including the downing of the Iran Air plane) that should have been mentioned...AND, the role of the MEK/MKO/PMOI should have been there ...
I like what I wrote, but I should have done more.
As for Dr. Bahar, I said it before, please contact him directly via facebook etc. AS far as his information goes, I still think its credible with regard to Bakhtiar etc. Its just too detailed for it to be otherwise. He is a straight shooter, sometimes it rubs people the wrong way. But like everyone else is entitled to his opinion. My opinions and values are different. But facts and values are two different things. I can disagree with someone on their values, but the facts remain indisputable. Lets not confuse the two. Facts are facts. He can be very right on his facts even if many people disagree with him on his values.
I appreciate all the comments on this article, I think we broke into the top 3 overnight in terms of comments. AND, the viewership hit a very high number (even though it was removed from the front page).
We, Iranians, MUST continue to seek the truth and facts about Iran - even if we disagree on values or how to deal with the future. But the starting point for anything has to be the truth.
Re Sahand
by Arj on Sun Sep 11, 2011 08:58 PM PDTDear Ayatoilet1, thank you for the interesting blog. It is indeed informative. However, I believe you overlooked a pivotal event that took place towards the end of the war which was attacking and sinking of Sahand, the Iranian freegate, by American Navy that resulted in the death of dozens of its crew, and destroying Iranian oil platforms, aka "Operation Praying Mantis!" Moreover, his doctrine of "dual containment" notwithstanding, Reagan indeed acted as the enabler to IRI throughout his presidency!
Similarities to Ruhollah are many
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sun Sep 11, 2011 08:54 PM PDTJB may care for Iranians, but like khomeini only the ones that agree with him.
Why is it people like JB can get the support to have tv channels/programs publish books and act like political assasins against good people? Does RP II really have alot of enemies among the general iranian public? I doubt it, He hasn't done anything yet! We Know he has enemies among anti-Iran interests like those that supported Khomeini.
What kind of democrats do we have, when the only reason they oppose him is because of his family name?
VPK you beat me to it I'm sure many wanted to flag that post.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sun Sep 11, 2011 08:29 PM PDTThis community has become officially violent.
What did you think of my points below?
Jalil Bahar FYI you come across to me like Ruhollah Khomeini
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sun Sep 11, 2011 08:25 PM PDTPlease do not take it as a complement or an insult. I see that like him you say "whom all are working for not well wishers for Iran and Iranians" and imply that you are the well wisher for iranians. The well wishers I have known don't go around implying they are a well wishers. People can see for themselves based on their "actions".
My Friendly advice to you would be to tell you that your approach won't work. You put out accusations, claim they are all of the truth and expect everyone to just say yes. You may get love from a pahlavi hater or a republican, but not objective, honest or balanced ones. Because there is no motive at all.
When I think of my own reasons for wanting to see freedom in Iran again, its so people can have the protection freedom provides to defend themselves from people who instead of serving others are infact using peoples legitimate desires to mislead them from their freedom. As you can see, unlike 1979, we are using the freedom we have responsibly.
The "action" of revealing a persons Identity, who did not wish it is an act one can not look past. I never intend to go back to Iran with mullahs in power so we all know who I am and which city I live in, but this person may have had a reason to not post his identity maybe he has family still in Iran.
Mr Bahar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 07:43 PM PDTOne of the rules here is you do not reveal peoples identity. You have shown your lack of respect for that. Do you understand that you may be endangering people by giving away an identity regardless of being right or wrong?
The more you post the less respect I have for you. You barge in here, make accusations. Break the rules. Show no respect for anyone. Then demand people be hanged. Shame on you. I just flagged your post for just that reason.
Supreme ayatoilet1 Jan and Who Said Modernity meant Progress ?
by Darius Kadivar on Sun Sep 11, 2011 07:18 PM PDTMiss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question
American Woman thinks Europeis a country...
In the meantime before asking for the Stars you may have to curb your ambitions ...
For as much as my Monarchy may still be Stuck in 1953 ...
BEWARE THE IDES OF AUGUST: August 19th Coup in Tehran '53 & Moscow '91
Your Republic however is still stuck in the 13th Century ...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QY1T-2f_KM
Congrats You have alot of time to catch up with us ...
8 centuries to be exact ...
If you asked me I'd say it will take your Agha DOKOTOR more than just Creativity to implement it so as to meet with today's "modern" standards...
;0)
Ayatoilet
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 07:03 PM PDTWill you please do me a favor? I am still trying to comprehend if this Dr of yours is serious about his call for "hangings". What is your position on it. I don't like people who pop in; say something then pop out.
They are the kind of person who wants to "get the last" word. Personally I have no respect for that. At least you stick around to respond. Hence once again: what is your position about this hanging businesses please I really want to know it.
Ayatoilet Kh Kh Kh, Sir...
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sun Sep 11, 2011 07:04 PM PDTSo it sounds like..... reading between the lines of your post....... you are desperately seeking to whole heartedly support a constitutional monarchy for Iran......... as we both know creative people need to be backed by principles that give rise to the pursuit of quality are inspirational and unifying. Now that we both agree on that, lets throw a party and celebrate RP II together in London and lets invite the whole iranian community.
Sir Kadivar, Let me give you a Peerage ...
by ayatoilet1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 06:50 PM PDTSir Kadivar" Its Dr. Bahar (not Mr. Bahar) you want to talk to offline ... and remember I am the Supreme Dr, Ayatoilet Kh Kh Kh... and I will make sure you get a title too!!! I remember there was a magazine in the UK called Private Eye and it used to call the Shah, the Royal Shit ... What a titile?
Anyway, since I know you are a good man too, I will convey a peerage to you right now. Whatever makes you happy my dear fellow compatriot...
In a new world where creativity will be key, it is vital that we have a population that is widely educated, and well respected with the freedom to innovate and be creative without limitations .... Governments need to be vehicles for supporting the populace and unleashing their creativity not become limitions or inhibitors like the government in Iran. In the end, the nations that win the race in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to innovate the fastest...
The new adage will be "whatever it was that got you here, will not be enough to take you forward". We don't want to be limited by the past but position ourselves for the future. Without being disrespectful to the Monarchy, it is a legacy of the past, we need new mediums to drive Iranians forward into the future. And by the way a nation dominated by religion is also not it... khatami probably cant even type his name on a keyboard...
Also, it will be a hypercompetitive world, and you can see from the Iran-Iraq history that Iranians can not rely on outside forces to care for Iranians... We must undertake our own rebelion for positive change...and create a new framework for Iran's future.
Cromwellian Monarchy ? That's EXACTLY what the IRI is ...
by Darius Kadivar on Sun Sep 11, 2011 06:25 PM PDTWatch This:
Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell (1599-1668)
Why do you think our Former Sargord Pirooz was such an admiror of the Roundheads ? ...
Related:
ahosseini & Simorgh5555: What is it your don't Understand ? ;0)
I would respect you more if you would write with your full identity and stand accountable for your opinions particularly when accusing the man I consider my sovereign.
I never push or shove anyone around when they do so with their full identity.
Because as I said I have no problem with Republicanism per se .. .
A Constitutional Monarchy is actually a Republic implemented within a Royal Framework.
And anyway It's not You I am attacking but your opinion which I find erroneous.
Besides You are the folks who claim to be democrats. I don't have that "virtue" or intellectual arrogance to claim I am one.
On the contrary I am an advocate of Edmund Burke's School of Thought in that I believe that nations are entitled to the democracy they can afford:
Mini lecture on the political philosophy of Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
;0)
Anyway I know you are a good fellow and your heart is in the right place.
The trouble for you and your like minds is that you stand between me and my Knighthood:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK9tT-734dw&feature=related
;0)
No hard feelings anyway ...
I look forward to Mr. Bahar's response.
Best,
D
Darius Jan - lets agree to disagree...
by ayatoilet1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:33 PM PDTIn a democracy people are entitled to their own views. I respect yours, please respect mine. As I said before I am NOT against a monarchy in Iran, as long as the will of the people is placed above the will of the monarch. A cromwellian monarchy if you like...or a 1906 type of constitutional monarchy where the monarch plays the role of a servant to the people and every aspect of this life is ultimately controlled by the Majlis (his budget etc.). A symbolic monarch to attract tourism... a monarch to preserve Iran's historical buildings... nothing more. The people must be supreme. That's it. I can disagree with you, and that is my right, my free judgement, and I do not think Darius you can persuade me. And by the way, I have done a lot of homework on this...please be a little more respectful in the future. I don't think any of the monarchists who attacked me this morning could write a comparable article that is so well researched and coherent. I am actually very proud of it. And I am very proud of the number of hits it has had in 24 hours and the facebook likes etc.
Again contact Dr. Bahar directly. I think he would be glad to exchange words directly with anyone. I have found him to be very approachable. But above all I do not doubt his motives or patriotism...and I think he comes from a very honorable family in Iran, that have contributed much to Iran's culture and history. Its a priviledge to have been able to contact him for information. He knows a great deal, from deep personal engagement in the opposition movement. Its a great resource for someone trying to do his or her homework on these issues.
Responses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:15 PM PDTThis is my last response to the Bahar situation. Dear Ayatoilet: I suggest you distance yourself from him. This man with his calls for hanging people is showing his real face. Have we not had enough hangings?
Now you got another one with shrill calls for more hangings. I think Mr Bahar just gave himself away completely. Anyone who comes here and starts demanding hangings has no place in a democratic Iran.
I will never bother to listen to "facts" from someone like that. Khomeini and Khamenei did enough hangings for at least ten generations to come. I think a permanent ban on hangings is in order. Bahar and his kind frighten me.
ayatoilet1 Why Not ? My Response to Bahar also applies to you
by Darius Kadivar on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:14 PM PDTMy Response is perfectly relevant to your Blog given that You Started these Accusations against RPII and the Monarchy which are deeply rooted in your ideological Republican bias .
Go do Your Homework First Before Lecturing us Monarchists from Your High Horse:
SARBAZ: Fereidoun Farrokhzad helps child soldiers of Iran Iraq War
Mr Bahar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:10 PM PDTI say, take it or leave it.
I will leave it ok. You also have a genuine Monarchist DK who is responding to you from the Monarchist point of view.
Attack all you like, facts are facts.
Who attacked you? I just said I saw no reason or motive for RP or Bakhtiyar. I still do not you just repart yourself.
And lets agree in advance if they facts are true that they will ALL BE HANGED??!! Do you agree with that??
No way nobody is going to be hanged if I get my way. I want to ban the death penalty. Besides who is going to be the judge: you? I don't think so.; You seem to be having a kind of desire to hang people. Get some help.
Darius Kadivar Khan - Please contact Dr. Bahar directly...not
by ayatoilet1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:08 PM PDTNot here. He has a facebook page that is very popular, and I can get you his email, even his phone number if you don't have it...he used to publish it on TV on this program that was live from his house.
Anyway, don't make this a forum to discuss the NF or anything else. This article is about the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, I used some material from his book, and yes, I believe and trust him. He is very open, genuine, honest and a very decent Iranian. I do not question his motives or patriotism.
As he said take it or leave it. But he reported what he found out to be true. And people like me believe him. That is it. If you don't that is fine. But contact him directly, as I have done, and you might be as persuaded as I was that the facts are true and accurate. He has first hand accounts of how all this went down.
I like his idea of creating a Majlis hearing on "who aided saddam hussein" and having people like Rajavi, or Rafsanjani or the crown prince etc. providing testimony - and let the public decide. In a democracy that should be the right of the Iranian people, No??
But please contact him directly and don't use up a lot of space under this article for issues you might have with his information. Yes, I used it in the article, but its about the Iran-Iraq war. Its about paying homage to the dead, the fallen, the injured, the heros, the enemy, the realities of western and eastern politics etc. etc.
Darius - please move on. Iran's monarchy is not the central issue here. Its about a more important issue - the Iranian people. Its about the long shadow cast by the war...that led ultimately to the bankrupting of the U.S. and two more wars with Iraq.... Move on please. The scope of the article is much larger than the future of the monarchy of Iran. Move on...no one right now, today, cares about the Monarchy. We want our freedom and democracy first. The issue of the Monarchy might get settled in a future referendum. Even Reza Pahlavi does not claim a throne any more, he says he wants Iran's democracy and freedom first. Don't keep hitting a dead horse.
Re: Andrew Young
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:01 PM PDTDo you think I could forget that fool? I remember it like it was yesterday. You do not need to remind me who he was I have a degree in "idiot-ology" !
Sometimes looking back it just seems surreal.
Yes it does. That is why I so much despise idealists.
Mr. Bahar I am all for transparency but I Question Your motives
by Darius Kadivar on Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:05 PM PDTTo begin with let me say that It's the first time I hear of you so forgive my ignorance.
Secondly as a Constitutional Monarchist that I have absolutely no problem with putting everything on the table to public judgment for the sake of transparency when it comes to people in the Public eye be them monarchs or presidents or politicians you name it.
After all the King of Sweden has been accused of worse:
ROYAL FORUM: Unauthorized Bio Tarnishes King of Sweden's Reputation With Wild Sex Allegations
So has Britain's Prince Andrew:
Prince Andrew slammed over child sex offender friend
the issue in my opinion is not democracy but your and your likeminds dislike and distrust of the Monarchy as an Institution.
In short under the disguise of being a democrat any argument is good to blame everything on us monarchists just to avoid the slightest accountability for your own Republican ideals.
We can go very far in mutually holding each other responsible for the current situation.
Give me one Good reason why Your Jomhurykhah Ideals are any more legitimate when it comes to Democracy than let's say a constitutionalist ?
You cannot blame us Constitutionalists for our shortcomings of the past but then refuse to be accountable for the shortcomings of the Republic born from the Revolution your likeminds endorsed and then come back and say Sorry folks the Revolution was highjacked from our hands.
How fair is that ?
What are we to gain from all this ? If not Seeing the IRI Triumph in it's revisionist reading of Iranian history and advocating a legitimacy which no serious observer or historian would acknowledge after 32 years of crimes, assassinations and tyranny.
I use the term tyranny to describe the IRI which in my book is far more condemnable than an autocracy or a poliitcal dictatorship as was the case under the Shah.
Even if your argument is that you personally may not have endorsed the Revolution but are a Republican nevertheless ( secularist as we understand it) you cannot separate yourself from the historical choice you are advocating without looking at the historical legacy of the current republic in Iran today.
In other words You can't have it both ways.
For the simple fact that your ideal however respectful in it's own right is probably based on a desire for a future democratic system of government to be ( i.e: A Secular Democratic Republic) which never existed in Iran. But then neither has a genuine Constitutional Monarchy ?
In addition your constituency has absolutely no accomplishment or failure to put to the test of time and debate.
We do. Hence our vulnerability and I am willing to admit a fairly justified susceptibility in seeing our ideals and past deeds be misrepresented by our opponents as "cheap" shots against our honor which prompts us to respond to recurrent character assassinations which have been your Constituency's favorite sport.
It's a comfortable position. You can come out and claim that you are a democrat and we are not. What proof do you have that you or your like minds would be any different in exercising that power invested upon you ?
But as a Constitutional Monarchist my problem with such attacks is not what people may say or think about RP 2 but the fact that you use these attacks to undermine the very concept of a Constitutional Monarchy and discourage any constructive alternative of a would be a restoration of the Pahlavis back on the Peacock Throne.
If you genuinely had an understanding of the concept of Monarchy you would know best that the issue is not RP II nor even his eventual capacity to Lead or even lack of courage or not. The Real debate is one of Legitimacy:
RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy
pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)
Is the Monarchy and the former Constitution any more any less Legitimate than the Republic you people wish to Reform ?
I use the term "Reform" deliberately even for those Jomhurykhah's like you who may advocate Regime Change ( not necessarily through foreign intervention but another National Upheaval, revolution or any other term you wish to describe it) because that is merely a Forceful way of Reforming the Republic (which simply happens to be a Theocracy) into a Secular one and eventually a democratic one.
The MKO is actually tried to do that in the past ( Regime Change that is) and now through other means but failed to date.
Not my cup of tea but at least they are coherent with what they advocate.
I personally believe Secularism is a prerequisite to IRan's democracy but On the otherhand Secularism is not necessarily a guarantee of democracy either ?
Some secular states ranging from South American Banana Republics or even in the Middle East like Syria are Secular. That didn't nor doesn't make them any more democratic.
But then What do you folks advocate. A Peaceful transition ? A Forceful one under Popular Will thanks to an eventual upheaval ?
Either way at best all this boils down to the fact that you don't consider the current republic as legitimate in your eyes.
Well neither do we ! ...
Should we conclude that we share at least one thing in common ?
If so then blaming Monarchists ( Constitutionalist or Not) for the shortcomings of the Previous King who happened to embody the type of government we uphold is not enough an argument to question the Lack of Democratic Credentials of Constitutional Monarchists who consider RP2 as their legitimate sovereign.
I believe there is a total and deliberate misunderstanding if not abuse of the term "Democrat" or "Democracy" by you folks when it comes to debating on the issue of the Monarchy VS Republic.
You fully know well that even in a perfectly democratic and Parliamentary Monarchy, No Monarch can be impeached unlike a President.
In similar circumstances like let's say an English Watergate style Scandal The Queen of England will never stand a trial like Nixon did. Nor would the King of Spain. At worst these monarchs would be forced to abdicate in favor of their Son's or grandsons.
Even then Medieval Salic Laws prevail in a country like Great Britain to this day:
British Monarchy To Remove Sexist Rules Regarding Royal Succession
So it's truly incredible to see the number of great expectations you folks wish to impose on the Pahlavis as Pre conditions before accepting them as your Legitimate Sovereign within the limits of their own Dynasty of course.
The Monarch is NOT a Leader but a Symbol of Power and a Symbol of the Nation.
So those like ayatoilet1 claim Iran is for Iranians. Yes in principle maybe in practice under a Monarchy you folks are "subjects" of the monarch.
The Government regardless of whether they are rightwing or leftwing conduct the affairs of the State in the Name of the Monarch and not in that of the People.
Why ? Because symbolically that Monarch embodies the nation.
Insulting the Monarch or attempting to his or her life is punished by the Treason Act in Great Britain as a well as in all monarchies.
So it makes me laugh when I hear such none sense uttered by people who wish to present the Monarchy for something it isn't nor ever claimed to be : A Democracy or an Egalitarian System.
The Monarchy is only Benevolently Democratic. But in practice when implemented properly it is Perfectly democratic:
How Truly Democratic And Stable Is The British Monarchy?
The British who restored the Son of their former beheaded monarch after living under a similar Theocracy like today's Iran don't even Have a Written Constitution.
We Iranians on the other hand Only Exiled our Monarchs and Actually have a Constitution:
Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution
Which proves that democracy is first and foremost guaranteed by a Collective Social Behavior which reinforces it's democratic nature. It's not enough to have it written on a piece of paper. It requires Maturity and mutual concessions.
But all You Jomhurykhahs keep doing overtime is complain but offer no solution:
COMPLAINING JOMHURYKHAH: What Have the Pahlavis EVER Done For Us ? ;0)
One day it's the Pahlavis Fortune:
pictory: Shah's Fortune demanded back by Iran's Revolutionary Government (1979)
Another their Gun Control Policy:
MOSHIRI's COLD HAND's: Bahram Moshiri Slams Pahlavi Era Gun Ban Policies
And We are even to be lectured on how to bury our loved ones in moments of grief.
Bahram Moshiri On Ali Reza Pahlavi’s Suicide
You who apparently worked and served under the previous regime should know better.
The difference is that the previous regime was an Absolute Monarchy as was the case in England under Charles Ist prior to Cromwell take on Power where he in turn became what Khamenei is today: a Velayateh Fagih only called Lord Protector.
What followed in England was Charles II was Restored on the Throne and Parliamentary Rule Took off and truly implemented itself with the Advent of what became known as the Glorious Revolution and the Drafting of the bill of Rights:
RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'
A Draft which inspired subsequently the American Constitution and the French One.
In Short a Social Contract between the governing body ( Monarch/ Prime Minister) and the governed ( the People at large).
So you see we share much in common with the British after all ... Except we never try to learn from them it seems ...
So yes the Monarch remains immune to critics.
In other words unless beheaded a Monarch remains a Monarch. This is true in all Monarchies in Europe where the head of State is the Monarch and the Head of government is the elected Prime minister.
You don't VOTE for a KING or Queen. Their POSITION ( NOT PERSONA) IS SACRED within the Structure of the Constitution. They can be investigated, family members can be put on trial if they commit acts against the law but the Monarch cannot be put on trial because he or she embodies the nation.
At best you can make fun of them. And that is what the British do but when it comes to Standing behind their monarch in moments of Crisis they do so.
The British may have many shortcomings but one thing they have which w don't is that they remain patriotic. They remain be it symbolically loyal to their Sovereigns.
If RP 2 proves unfit to reign he will be replaced by his daughter or a family sibling next in line.
That's how monarchies work. They are not Cult Ridden but Oligarchy ridden.
You may not like it but then don't try to define it.
I can fully understand that you or others may conceive this notion as obsolete but I will not define the Monarchy differently just to fit your standards of Democracy.
It happens that the Constitutionalist definition of democracy happens to be one shared by some of the most advanced democracies in the world which happen to be Monarchies.
This is confirmed by regular independent poles made under the careful scrutiny of international organizations as is the case for this one:
World's Top Democratic Governments: Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2010(PHOTOS)
Those are the same Standards which we Monarchists advocate for tomorrows Iran.
You cannot accuse us of advocating a Western Model of Democracy which happens to be simply different in it's definition from the Western Model You Advocate for our country.
DEMOCRACY IS A WESTERN CONCEPT !
So if you folks want to implement a Western Model to an Ancient land like Iran, give me one good reason what makes Your Western Model more legitimate than Ours ?
Why is it that you folks think that suggesting that a Post IRI Iran should become a Federal Republic like the US or Germany or a Parliamentary Republic like France is any more logical or legitimate than advocating a Monarchy similar to that of Spain, Sweden or the UK ?
Are these systems of government not democratic ?
Yet the Monarchs are not subject to impeachment. That is simply not possible. Unless a Monarch let's say commits a crime or is involved in a killing then obviously one can advocate revolution to see him toppled. But even then The Royal Institution is not a Cult Ridden Institution but an Oligarchy.
The Current Monarchies in Britain or Sweden or Spain all come from a line of far more bloody tyrants than the Pahlavis ever were let alone the poor Reza Shah who keeps being criticized by Jomhurykhahs.
Yet all the above monarchies ( some of which were restored after precisely experimenting a period of interruption like a Theocracy under Cromwell in the UK, or a Civil War like in Spain. Holland used to be a fairly democratic Republic before Restoring it's Monarchy which today happens to be one of the most democratic and liberal ones in the world.
But the Stature of the Monarch remains sacred in all these countries.
If you don't like it fine but then Nothing entitles our Sovereign to be accountable to you folks ? Don't come and ask him to renounce the Crown in order to become Your President as if you were a bunch of geddas ...
Did the French ask the Son of King Louis XVI and MArie Antoinette to run for Presidency of the Republic which they toppled ?
What does that mean ? Where is your Dignity ?
Otherwise if you do wish to see him play a Political Role then you cannot reject the idea of a Restoration as Bakhtiar advocated it.
That is the difference between the Likes of Bakhtiar and you folks. Bakhtiar was a Patriot as saw himself as an instrument to bring democratic change to his country without questioning the legitimacy of the Constitution and Dynasty he was serving. He served his Monarch symbolically but was actually serving a much higher entity the Nation at large by trying to save it from itself.
To paraphrase ayatoilet1 ignorant comments he was actually the Doctor trying to fix the nation's ills. But instead of substituting himself to the head of the Hospital, he went where he was useful and needed: The Operating Room ( aka Government) in order to heal the patient ( aka the Nation).
The trouble is that you folks have such a huge Ego and distorted notion of nation building that you systematically get your priorities wrong. Just like the Egyptians today. By Targeting the wrong enemy :
Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?
and hence jeopardizing your own future:
THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?
That is why I believe that there are indeed two tales of Iran, in other words two distinct interpretations of Iran's century old struggle for democracy: A Constitutionalist one and a Republican One.
The Historical Legitimacy we advocate is based on Crown Prince Reza's Legitimate Right to the Throne:
pictory: Reza Pahlavi Takes Oath as Roi de Jure Cairo 1980
You are Free to question that but not on grounds of Democracy but merely philosophical rejection of the very concept in which millions of people in the World live under today and in most cases democratically and which happens to be a Constitutional Monarchy.
My Humble Opinion,
DK
PS/ When I use the term YOU, I do not necessarily mean You the individual but Your Like minds or What I perceive as your Jomhurykhah Constituency. So please do not take my comments personally.
Hey VPK - Do you remember Andrew Young?
by ayatoilet1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 03:08 PM PDTRemember he said something like Khomeini will be Iran's Ghandi or Mandela ... I can't remember? That was Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter's Ambassador to the U.N.! (No Less).
And definitely the Kuwait invasion was linked to the Iran-Iraq war. He osed them a ton of money, that they conveniently forgot about after the invasion and liberation. Also, the Americans wanted to teach the Kuwaiti's a lesson for letting the Russians into the Persian Gulf (read my article above, about it)...so they sent their bully boy Saddam into service...and in the end it turns out Bush (I) made a profit from the Kuwait invasion (you should read Jim Baker's account about how they fleeced the Saudis and Kuwaitis after the war).
Sometimes looking back it just seems surreal.
ayatoilet1
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:56 PM PDTYes the war did make the militants in Iran the power. But the problem was the hostage taking. Originally Jimmy Carter wanted to bring Khomeini into his fold. But the Marxists saw that and used the hostages to derail it.
Khomeini did use it to consolidate his power. But it was a bad move in the long run. This what the hostage crisis did:
Ayatoilet: Right after 9/11, I reciprocated ...!
by Oon Yaroo on Sun Sep 11, 2011 03:01 PM PDTI reciprocated the US official in 1983-84 on Night Line!
I asked a bunch of American colleagues the following, " One day the American historians and politicians will look back and as they go through the list of 9/11 casualties and they will ponder upon whether or not it was the right thing to undermine and betray their best ally in the middle east, the late Shah of Iran and whether or not it was worth it!"
That made me FEEL effen GREAT!
Yes - Oon Yaroo
by ayatoilet1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:39 PM PDTProbably one of the worst thing about this war, was that it gave the militants in Iran an opportunity to consolidate their power. It also essentially created the IRGC as a power house in Iran's military establishment. It transformed Iran's internal and regional political landscape. You could even argue that the 3 to 6 Trillion dollars having been spent in the U.S. these past 10 years on war is a direct result of this war; AND that America's current bankrupt state is a direct result of this war. I really do NOT think Saddam would have invaded Kuwait or even Iraq had been invaded if the Iran-Iraq war had not happened.
The shadow of this war - is very, very long! A great deal of darkness in the world because of it.
Oon Yaroo
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:31 PM PDTYes I bet the hostage crisis did have a hand in *** off the Americans. Duh! Those idiots who took hostages owe Iranian people many lives. They are as responsible for the war as Saddam was.
As they say do not play with Lion's tail. Those ***holes "students" should all be tried and make to pay. They cost Iran not just many lives but a chance for democracy. It was them who gave Khomeini the excuse to push out the moderates.
Response
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:26 PM PDTPS: I noticed Mr Bahar removed his post.
Mr. JB: On ABC's Night Line (Ted Kopple....) in 1983-84!
by Oon Yaroo on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:26 PM PDTI vividly remember this around 83-84 era in one of the episodes of the ABC's Night Line* (Ted Kopple) having both the Iranian (Rajai Khorasani who stole a pair of pants from a department store in NY city) & Iraqi UN ambassadors going back and forth at each other!
The next guest in the program was a US government official from the Reagen's state department where he stated the following about the Iran-Iraq war and I am paraphrasing it, "One day those Iranians who broke into the US embassy and took American hostages will look back and go through the list of war causalities page after page and will ask themselves the question, was it worth it?" This statement stuck to me like a glue!
The latter was the second primary reason why America helped/instigated Sad'dam to attack Iran!
All other reasons (e.g., selling arms, etc.) we all know that the Boeing's and the Lockheed Martin's etc. of the world have to operate and keep their light's on and so forth and so on...
*I bet that episode of Night Line can shed a lot more light on the issue at hand...and maybe not!
Take it or Leave it
by Jalil Bahar on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:27 PM PDTI say, take it or leave it. You do not have to
accept this or trust in my credibility. Just like I don't have to accept yours.
Attack all you like, facts are facts. I stand by the truth. I have investigated
this subject and I believe my account is accurate and fair.
I would welcome the day when we have open
hearings in Iran's majlis and bring RPII to account, as well as Rafsanjani, and
Rajavi ...all to provide testimony in front of Iran's public on live TV.
Now that my friends would be REAL DEMOCRACY.
And lets agree in advance if they facts are true that they will ALL BE
HANGED??!! Do you agree with that?? And then a new Monarch can be
named!?? Do you agree??!!
If you can not agree, then stop attacking my
credibility.
We are NOT going to replace the IRI with
another dictatorship or group of corrupt leaders. To those "moftkhors" who want to milk Iran again, I say
"in mama ra lulu borde"
VPK: Thank you for
by vildemose on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:12 PM PDTVPK: Thank you for pointing out the lack of motive for the 19-year old RP to be involved in this grand plot. It's not really rocket science. A bit of common sense will do.
Reform requires the consent of the corrupt
"Provoked", therefore justified !!!!!
by Bavafa on Sun Sep 11, 2011 02:03 PM PDTWith the logic such as this…. Many nations around the world would have been otherwise justified, had they attacked US since this nation often times advocate regime change or change of system in other nations.Absurd notion indeed.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mehrdad