A couple of months ago, We had the unfortunate displeasure of watching the Iranian president' Mahmoud Ahmadinegad being interviewed by Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes." As if that was not enough we had to tolerate watching him again ranting and raving in the United Nations.
I was surprised how this little psychopath was able to manipulate the American media and detour every one away from his atrocities and that of his supervisors. For a moment, I wished I was sitting there asking Mahmoud Ahmadinegad the questions. Questions such as:
What gives him the right to proclaim that he is the president of Iran, when he was put into office through a rigged circus act called the Iranian elections?
Why has he taken the little freedom that Iranians had, and why has he made life so harsh for Iranian women? Why is it that at the dawn of the 21st century, the women of one of the oldest nations in the world are forced to wear medieval clothes in Tehran's summer heat?
What gives Ahmadinegad the right to keep thousands of political prisoners in the notorious Evin prison, and why does Amnesty International declare Iran yearly to be one of the worst countries in the world regarding human rights?
Why does one of the richest countries in the world have so many poor, and why are the poor clergymen of yesterday the billionaires of today?
I want to know, when he functioned as a revolutionary guard, how many people did he kill and how many Iranian boys he sent into the minefields.
I would ask him what happened to the pre-revolution promises of democracy, and why is he part of a government whose very existence is in contrast to Iranian history and an insult to humanity.
Unfortunately, most of the reporter's questions were centered on the topics for which he has prepared himself. he was not asked about his crimes against people of Iran, and crimes against humanity. I just do not know how long millions of people of Iran have to endure one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
www.neuropsychcenter.net
My name is Dr Abbas Sadeghian. I Am a Clinical Neuropsychologist. I work mostly with people who have suffered from stroke or other neurological conditions. My minor in college was History. I am an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine.
Yeah but after the nuclear bomb drops, Iranians will miss hi
What you say may all be true. They said it about Saddam Hussein too. And it was probably true about him as well. However, in Iraq today, NINETY PERCENT of all Iraqis now think that things were better under Saddam than they are now under Bush. All this is pretty much relative. Bombing the heck out of Tehran isn't gonna help.
And the women of American Iraq and Afghanistan still have to suffer the summer heat while covered from head to toe.
by
Jane Stillwater (455 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 62 comments)
on Friday, December 15, 2006 at 2:43:16 PM
Things which have gone wrong in Iraq are well known and do not need my commentary. However, each one of the Middle Eastern countries have their own tragedies, and ones misery does not justify the other ones bad luck.
I was born and raised in Tehran. I loved Iran and still do. I was involved in Iranian revolution and was briefly happy to get rid of the Shah of Iran. However things changed. Ayatollah Khomeini who had promised us democracy turned out to be a murderer. He turned the country from Monarchy to the world's only theocracy.
Life in Iran is miserable .The secular law has been replaced by the laws of the 1500 years ago. Human rights and freedom are forgotten. Clergymen get richer and richer and poor become poorer and poorer. The devastation that Ayatollah Khomeini's followers have caused to the country is beyond belief.
The errors of American administrations in handling post revolutionary Iran is well documented and does not need rehashing. However, I would like to assure you (as much as much reassurances that one can provide in the Middle east), that the U.S. is not in any shape to bomb Iran or to let the Israelis loose on them.
Tomorrow things might change but today, the only one who benefits from this conflict is Ahmadinegad, as he tells Americans off and gains notoriety doing it.
by
Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Saturday, December 16, 2006 at 5:36:06 PM
The Supreme Court stopped the election, stopped the votes from being counted, and installed their guy.
And he calls himself President, so why shouldn't Ahmadinejad?
Jane's right. If you think things are bad there now, do a little research on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see how bad things can get with U.S. intervention. The situation in Iraq is nothing compared to what Bush has in mind for Iran.
I don't believe it's anything personal, though, no matter how antagonistic Bush may feel towards Ahmadinejad. Our military-industrial complex has made trillions of dollars making nuclear weapons that were never used. They want to make trillions more making new ones, but how can they justify that if they are never used?
The U.S. is now the world's biggest debtor nation and has to borrow money from China and Japan just to pay the interest on its debts from day to day. Now Bush wants an even bigger military budget for Iraq. But he also wants the U.S. to make more nuclear weapons. How do you think he plans to justify that expense?
The Democrats and Republicans in Congress have stated that they are willing to give him as much money as he wants for the military. But now he wants billions, if not trillions more for more nuclear weapons. Since we don't have the money to pay for them, this will be more deficit spending by the borrow-and-spend Republicans, as the Democrats don't dare raise taxes for fear of being called tax-and-spend Democrats. But if Bush nukes Iran, he can say, "See? These weapons are useful. Ahmadinejad isn't a problem any more. We need more of these weapons of mass destruction so that we can wipe out other countries I don't like." And then Congress will give him the money, or rather authorize him to borrow it from China and Japan.
The only catch is that China apparently gets some of its oil from Iran, so they might not want to loan Bush the money to cut off their oil supply. But their economy depends heavily on U.S. consumers buying products made in China, so if Bush promises to compensate them with Iraqi oil, they might agree. And if Bush nukes Iran, it could very well take all the fight out of the Iraqis next door.
International affairs is a complicated business, but it is still a business and the business of fascism is business. Not people, not human rights, just business. One of the fastest growing businesses in the U.S. is our prison industry, and Bush has given Halliburton, Bechtel and other corporations a lot of money for having built huge detention (slave labor and death) camps all over the U.S. that can hold millions of people in the event of any need arising to detain illegal immigrants or to suppress civil unrest by legal citizens. If you are of Iranian descent and Bush nukes Iran, even if you approve of his actions, you could wind up in one of those camps as a matter of national security--just ask the Japanese-Americans who were interned during WWII.
Ever hear the saying, "Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it?"
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Friday, December 15, 2006 at 10:05:28 PM
I do believe this the first of your writings I felt compelled to contest Mark.
I am not sure how many serviceable nuclear war heads the USA has in the arsenal at present, I guess in the neighborhood of 5,000.
But back at the cold war peak, they were saying we had over 20,000 armed war heads. The salt treaty reduced those weapons, the war heads were decommissioned and the delivery vehicles where destroyed. The silos were destroyed and back filled.
But the Plutonium and Enriched Uranium didn't go anywhere. There is no where to put it. It is sitting around somewhere waiting for transfer to Yukka Mountain to be stored in the salt cavern that has a small river running through it. It will not be safe there but at least it will be out of sight.
As the saying goes in the High Rad Drifter crews,
" If you can't see it, can't feel it and can't taste it,.. it can't hurt you."
So even if Bush did need new nukes the plutonium or uranium from 15,000 war heads is sitting there, and it is the enrichment that is costly about nukes. That is why we built all those Nuclear Power Houses in the 60's and 70's, cooking the fuel in a hot reactor is the first step in the enrichment process.
Now I will not say he won't use a nuke bunker buster or two, but the goal is to control the world's energy supply not destroy it. The goal isn't even the oil. The oil is going to make them lots of cash for sure, but the real necessity of controlling the oil is being able to dictate the currency it is traded in. As you have mentioned, America is bankrupt, the only thing holding it up is the foreign countries that have their own currencies backed by American Dollar Reserves. If the world oil markets were to start trading in Euros. The Dollar would collapse and take 80% of the world's currencies with it. Saddam was trading in Euros.
When Condi worked for Unocal she was negotiating leases on the oil and gas fields of the Caspian Basin and she was also the negotiator for the pipelines route to get the stuff from the Caspian to the Adriatic by way of Serbia. All these Republican Neo-cons that worked in the American Turkish Council and The Azerbaijani American Council were bribing and twisting arms to get the pipelines route cleared through all the 'Stans. Condi had a clean go all the way except for that damned Taliban. Even when she brought Karzai in on Unocal's dime the Taliban would not be bribed or threatened. The only other obstacle was Iraq.
That is what Bush meant when he said he hit a trifecta on 911. While America was gearing up to wage war on mighty Afghanistan, and America still had the good will and sympathy of the nations of the world. Our State Department was busy collecting signatures on long term leases to support our Terrorist fighting troops. As a result the USA now has a string of 13 military bases, each larger than Brandenburg in Germany, evenly spaced from the Caspian to Afghanistan right along the Baku pipelines route.
The Baku pipeline started pumping last spring. If Sudan was in the way the USA would have done something about Darfur, like they did for Bosnia.
That's why we are NEVER going to pull out of Iraq. It is all that keeps America solvent.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 164 comments)
on Saturday, December 16, 2006 at 5:00:53 AM
In all fairness in the sharp continental climate like Iran it is necessary to cover thyself and for women especially. It all depends on material. They do use natural stuff and that insulation is as necessary as the cattlebreeders wear fur hats.
I sincerely would recommend to our ' freedom fighters' to look around and fight for freedom here. Pleanty of things to do.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Saturday, December 16, 2006 at 9:48:20 AM
If so, it is a known fact that white skin is more delicate and sensitive than dark skin, so why shouldn't all U.S. troops, male and female, of Caucasian descent in Iraq be required to wear burkas, while our African-American troops could wear ordinary uniforms?
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Saturday, December 16, 2006 at 2:50:38 PM
that wearing covers and especially dense covers in the desert climate is explained by heat transfer. As for the US aremy, I am sure there is a manual there for what to wear and why. It depends on material and also on the goal. It also depends on the availability of water. If you drink a lot of water you can forego some covers. In the Eastern civilizations women were more protected from the climate for the procreation purposes and to keep them younger. Also, abundance of water is not what Eastern women enjoy.
What I am saying again: we better look at ourselves before judging other cultures which existed long before us.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Saturday, December 16, 2006 at 7:09:49 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
