Iranians are uncivilized bastards

[Questor]

yes I agree but I also tire of the US is hitler stuff too. Iran is much worse than the US in its treatment of everyone. but the US is not perfect and has many things to answer for. but the actions of individuals do not make a state or a people

You put a lot there in a few words. US is Hitler? US is a country. Hitler was a man. And the US will probably never gas 6 million Jews. But then Hitler sought to conquer the world militarily while the US seeks to dominate the world economically and politically. They only choose to use their military when other options fail.

I don't quite agree with you that Iran is much worse than the US in its treatment of everyone. The US is much better than Iran in terms of treatment of its own citizens. But globally, the US is much worse. How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 50 years?

And unfortunately the actions of a few individuals do make a state in some situations, unless I misunderstand what you are trying to say. George Bush gave the word to attack Iraq, the army moves on his command, and he speaks for the state in matters of foreign policy, even if he does not have 100% control of Congress and the Senate.

 

[lomotil]

persian women are good in bed- and they all swallow. in my experience

Persian women are highly vocal and have ear and window shattering orgasms like no other.

 

[papasmerf]

Persian women are highly vocal and have ear and window shattering orgasms like no other.

Names, contact info?

 

[papasmerf]

Ok, but how about with Persian men?

Persis would be able to answer that

 

[kupall]

George Bush gave the word to attack Iraq, the army moves on his command, and he speaks for the state in matters of foreign policy, even if he does not have 100% control of Congress and the Senate.

agreed that this IRAQ debacle is George's fault, prior to this, the US has had to assume a greater role in its global responsibility as a superpower ie: Somalia, former Yugoslavia, still in Korea etc... hence its tendency to get involved in a lot more conflicts than IRAN

when the mullahs took power in Iran they changed its image in the world as a country or nation that supports Terrorism, if the people there don't support their government, why don't they do something about. I agree that the blame should be on the Iranian government, but the people aren't really condemning its actions, the violence that the IRANIAN government causes is not only directed towards westerners but fellow muslims as well.

 

[danmand]

when the mullahs took power in Iran they changed its image in the world as a country or nation that supports Terrorism, if the people there don't support their government, why don't they do something about. I agree that the blame should be on the Iranian government, but the people aren't really condemning its actions, the violence that the IRANIAN government causes is not only directed towards westerners but fellow muslims as well.

Someone I know has family in Iran. He told me that the moderate politicians were steadily gaining ground untill GWB made his famous Axix of Evil speach.
He believes that speach caused the radicals to win the election.

 

[kupall]

Someone I know has family in Iran. He told me that the moderate politicians were steadily gaining ground untill GWB made his famous Axix of Evil speach.
He believes that speach caused the radicals to win the election.

yup danmand, bush miscalculated i agree, but it just shows that a majority of the population are still misinformed about whats really going on around the world, we are lucky that we can talk about it openly.

 

[Questor]

agreed that this IRAQ debacle is George's fault, prior to this, the US has had to assume a greater role in its global responsibility as a superpower ie: Somalia, former Yugoslavia, still in Korea etc... hence its tendency to get involved in a lot more conflicts than IRAN
I don't think so.

Why have they "had to" assume a greater role? Most of the world considers it outright aggression and empire building. And its way more than the countries that you named. Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela to name a few more. The list goes on and on. They intervene when what is happening in a country does not benefit American interests. They intervene in sovereign countries and yes, they sponsor terrorism.

when the mullahs took power in Iran they changed its image in the world as a country or nation that supports Terrorism, if the people there don't support their government, why don't they do something about. I agree that the blame should be on the Iranian government, but the people aren't really condemning its actions, the violence that the IRANIAN government causes is not only directed towards westerners but fellow muslims as well.

Well, yes, it seems clear that Iran supports terrorism too. But please don't forget that the current government in Iran came to power following a revolution that overthrew the Shah, a US-sponsored dictator responsible for a reign of "terror" against his own people. The current government in Iran came to power because of and in reaction to US meddling where they don't belong. Face it, US foreign policy has been making a mess of the world for a long time. Osama bin Laden is a creation of US foreign policy.

 

[lustyhombre]

ROFL Yes, I hear the hobbying there is great.

You may not care to know but it really used to be during the Shah's reign , at least when I lived there 74-78 ...

To answer somebody else's question : The upper class in the late 70's was very sophisticated and cultured and as critical of their political leadership of the day as well as of the mullahs waiting to take over.

I am sure they are still the same today , but in that kind of society you have to have an antenna for "doublespeak" to understand what people are feeling but don't dare to express openly ....

 

[Topol-M]

hehe...
Bush and Blair should have thought about "Royal humiliation" before kidnapping Iranian diplomats....

 

[kupall]

Why have they "had to" assume a greater role? Most of the world considers it outright aggression and empire building. And its way more than the countries that you named. Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela to name a few more. The list goes on and on. They intervene when what is happening in a country does not benefit American interests. They intervene in sovereign countries and yes, they sponsor terrorism.

Well, yes, it seems clear that Iran supports terrorism too. But please don't forget that the current government in Iran came to power following a revolution that overthrew the Shah, a US-sponsored dictator responsible for a reign of "terror" against his own people. The current government in Iran came to power because of and in reaction to US meddling where they don't belong. Face it, US foreign policy has been making a mess of the world for a long time. Osama bin Laden is a creation of US foreign policy.

I do agree with you that US foreign policy has brought suffering and harm to other nations and certain conditions do exist today because of that policy ie: Osama, but don't you think its so convenient these days to blame every single thing on the United States?
The US was in some of the countries you mentioned because those were the cold war days when the communist threat was still alive ie: honduras, nicaragua, guatemala; columbia was drug wars; venezuela? maybe now since Chavez is president; Panama=Noriega and the all impt canal. So again its not as simple empire building as it may seem, its also acting as a responsible military and economic superpower. All these countries want to trade with the US obviously for economic reasons, which in turn brings these countries into the US's sphere of influence.
That is in a small way IRAN is also doing in the mideast, trying to get the gulf states into its own sphere of influence, so IRAN wants to be a regional power/player, but doesn't want to play by the international community's rules.

 

[akita80]

I take issue with the use of the word "Islamo-Fascism." It insults the intelligence of people who actually study the discipline of history and know what real fascism is. Not every racial slur or epithet can be deemed "fascist," simply because it is aimed at jews. The policies of the Iranian leadership are a disgrace, but they certainly aren't "fascist" in the 1920s to 1940s mold.

Furthermore, one would be wise to consult historical record before assessing Iranian politics. Iran was on the path to democracy before the U.S. thwarted this progress in 1953, by overthrowing the elected leader, the non-Communist, western educated Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. The Shah was then placed back into power in a subordinate role to the patron U.S., and proceeded to mismanage the economy for the next thirty years, while grossly violating human rights with his SAVAK secret police force.

The theocratic revolution of 1979 only took place because of U.S. interference in the country. In light of history, it would be wise for foreign powers to keep their hands off this volatile country.

 

[Aardvark154]

The Shah was then placed back into power and proceeded to mismanage the economy for the next thirty years, while grossly violating human rights with his SAVAK secret police force.

The theocratic revolution of 1979 only took place because of U.S. interference in the country. In light of history, it would be wise for foreign powers to keep their hands off this volatile country.

From what I've read on the build up to the Islamic Revolution in Iran it was mainly driven by two factors. The Ayatollahs were upset by the Shah's westernizing/liberalizing of Iranian Society particularly of the role of women. Many of the young middle class where on the other hand driven by the classic factors of Dr. Crane Brinton's The Anatomy of Revolution frustrated economic expectations (e.g. western trained engineers unable to obtain jobs as such) governmental inefficiency and corruption.

 

[slowpoke]

Iran has pardoned the UK prisoners and has said they will release them. Considering how the west has routinely interfered with and sabotaged Iran since early in WWll, we are probably lucky that Iran only wanted to make a minor point about these constant intrusions into its territorial waters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Iranians release British sailors

Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.
He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable

 

[Questor]

Yeah, the murder and torture of millions of the Shah's opponents by US backed and trained SAVAK secret police, which made Saddam look like a cupcake, had nothing to do with it.

So let's see, we have (West to Iran BEFORE any Ayatollah)

1) overthrow democratically elected government to control their oil
2) put in place brutal regime, arm it, finance it, train its savage state police
3) still hold on to billons of country's money in "frozen assets"

and we wonder "why don't they like/trust the West?".

Gee, if THEY had done the same thing to us, do you really think WE would take it lying down?

ROFL Do ya think? You must be with the terrorist! (winky smilie face)

 

[gryfin]

Oh...what about the numbered prisoners

I'll be holding my breath for the Iranians to indict some in their government for their behavior.....

Can we imagine for a second the outrage in the middle east if Israel showed their captives wearing Yamulkas.......

LOL

OTB

I guess you forgot the pictures of Israeli soldiers parading stripped and blindfolded Palestinian men with numbers written on their arms. What does that remind you of...or do we have to connect the dots for you. It seems your memory as well as your outrage is rather fleeting.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yeah, the murder and torture of millions of the Shah's opponents by US backed and trained SAVAK secret police, which made Saddam look like a cupcake, had nothing to do with it.

I think that this was more the icing on the cake in relationship to the factors I mentioned previously. Don't just argue with me if you are interested read some of the books on the subject (which come from many different viewpoints).

Unless official repression becomes of a whole different order e.g. the Soviet Union in the late 1930's (why do you think it was called the Great Terror/Great Purge) most people in most countries with a secret police don't have much to do with them, it is the fear of the visit in the night that keeps people in line rather than constant actual visits.

Please don't do the usual TERB thing and misinterpret this to mean that I condone having Secret Police etc. . .

Finally, not that it makes much difference to the families of those killed but the best estimate is that under SAVAK thousands of people rather than millions of people were killed. The standard estimates of the number of people killed who were killed by the regime of Saddam Hussein ranges between half a million and a million. Of course the book is still open on SAVAMA but it has already caused the murder of several thousand people

 

[Questor]

Finally, not that it makes much difference to the families of those killed but the best estimate is that under SAVAK thousands of people rather than millions of people were killed. The standard estimates of the number of people killed who were killed by the regime of Saddam Hussein ranges between half a million and a million. Of course the book is still open on SAVAMA but it has already caused the murder of several thousand people

I didn't realize that the other US supported dictator, Saddam Hussein, was so much more successful in his reign of terror than the Shah. Thanks for reminding us that American governments sometimes screw up and support a wimp like the Shah, while other times, they pick a winner like Hussein in Iraq, Osama bin Laden in Afganistan, Rios Montt in Guatemala or Somoza in Nicaragua. Now those guys definitely make the all star team of American sponsored terrorists. The Shah, it seems, is just a second stringer.

 

[slowpoke]

I didn't realize that the other US supported dictator, Saddam Hussein, was so much more successful in his reign of terror than the Shah. Thanks for reminding us that American governments sometimes screw up and support a wimp like the Shah, while other times, they pick a winner like Hussein in Iraq, Osama bin Laden in Afganistan, Rios Montt in Guatemala or Samoza in Nicaragua. Now those guys definitely make the all star team of American sponsored terrorists. The Shah, it seems, is just a second stringer.

This is a slightly different roster of bloodthirsty despots who've been on the US payroll - some to this very day:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,901625,00.html

The latest issue of Le Monde Diplomatique reminds us that the US supported Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah in Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, and Mobutu in Congo/Zaire. "Some of the bloodiest tyrants are still supported by the US," it adds, noting that Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea was received with full honours by Bush last September. Now the US is cuddling up to Uzbekistan, another country with an appalling human-rights record, because it is convenient for US bases.

 

[Aardvark154]

Sometimes the home grown talent does just fine on its own. "The book is still open on SAVAMA but it has already caused the murder of several thousand people."