Iran is no Nazi Germany....

[Flabbergasted]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/

Sept. 11, 2006 issue - It's 1938, says the liberal columnist Richard Cohen, evoking images of Hitler's armies massing in the face of an appeasing West. No, no, says Newt Gingrich, the Third World War has already begun. Neoconservatives, who can be counted on to escalate, argue that we're actually in the thick of the Fourth World War. The historian Bernard Lewis warned a few weeks ago that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be planning to annihilate Israel (and perhaps even the United States) on Aug. 22 because it was a significant day for Muslims.

Can everyone please take a deep breath?

To review a bit of history: in 1938, Adolf Hitler launched what became a world war not merely because he was evil but because he was in complete control of the strongest country on the planet. At the time, Germany had the world's second largest industrial base and its mightiest army. (The American economy was bigger, but in 1938 its army was smaller than that of Finland.) This is not remotely comparable with the situation today.

Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon's budget this year is more than double Iran's total gross domestic product ($181 billion, in official exchange-rate terms). America's annual defense outlay is more than 100 times Iran's. Tehran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.

Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall—and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politicians—most prominently the Cox Commission—doubled the estimates of China's military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons—and because he was a madman, he would use them.

[Prophet 451]

1. Have they started going on about "Islamo-fascism" yet?

That one always bugs me. I took a minor in PoliSci and none of teh Islamic countries are anything close to fascism or even have the required qualities.

[Big Pappa]

2. You are correct.

But they are not the girl scouts either.

[barb162]

3. Iran is still run by mullahs and their chief flake is Ahma-nut--job

Zakaria does make some good points though.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1424
UN women's rights official raps Iran over abuses
Sun. 06 Feb 2005
AFP

TEHRAN - The UN's top official on women's rights chastised Iran on Sunday over what she said were abuses and discrimination built in to the Islamic Republic's laws.

"In the family, women face psychological, physical and sexual violence, and gender discrimination," said Yakin Erturk, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women.

She told a news conference that Iran's laws "do not provide protection for victims of domestic violence and make it difficult to escape violence through divorce," adding that suffering wives also faced "time-consuming judicial procedures and stigmatisation".

snip
"I am concerned that victims of rape face obstacles in seeking justice and if they cannot prove they have raped they face sentences," Erturk said, referring to cases where women complaining of rape run the risk of being charged for adultery.
snip

[Flabbergasted]

5. There is no need for sanctions only diplomacy.

[azurnoir]

6. While women's rights in Iran

(read Islamic) countries are a humans rights issue, they have little to do with the present situation, except perhaps as a "moral superiority" talking point. Iran is holding 15 Brit sailors for boarding an Iranian ship which depending on who's story is believed may or may not have been in Iranian water. I am curious about the US, I am willing to bet we have satellite images that would pinpoint exactly where that ship was.

[barb162]

10. Violation of human rights of half the population (women)

is not a mere talking point. It shows extremely serious problems with their system. Any time there is Sharia law, women's rights get fucked big time.

[azurnoir]

19. I did not say it was unimportant

but I don't quite see how womens equates here, the question(s) are what are they and the rest of the involved parties are going to do about the British sailors, unless we are to automatically infer that the Iranians are lying and perhaps torturing these prisoners because Sharia law is discriminates against is odd though that these conditions have existed for the last 1000 years but no one gave a rat's bumm how Muslim women were treated until it became a political talking point.

[CJCRANE]

21. It is also a serious problem with many of our "allies"

in the region.

The problem is that the RW singles out Iran because it plays to their strategic goals and ignores what our "allies" are doing (even when they have the same or worse human rights abuses and fund terrorism etc).

[cali]

20. An Iranian ship? LOL!

Really, it's not hard to get your facts straight. There has NEVER been a claim that it was an Iranian ship that the brits were attempting to board. It was a Japanese ship. It may or may not have been in Iranian waters, but it was not an Iranian ship.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/240307/iran_rreporter_indpendent

[AshevilleGuy]

8. If women's rights groups did not get upset over what Iran does to its women,

then they might as well not bother anywhere. Only Saudi and Taliban Afghanistan are/were worse.

And what happens to gays and lesbians in Iran is not dissimilar to what happened to them in nazi Germany.
It's a vile oppressive theocratic dictatorship; who here would want to live there?

[barb162]

12. You're so right. I wouldn't EVER be moving there, for one.

It's a very reactionary theocracy.

I think they still execute homosexuals there and of course, women still get stoned or hanged for sex outside marriage.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Well, WE the Iraqi occupiers are allowing "reactionary theocracy" to exist in Iraq

Women TODAY in Iraq have far less freedoms than they did under Saddam.

That's why invading and occupying countries is NOT a good thing. :grr:

Reminds me of the old biblical phrase, "Those of you without sin, cast the first stone."

Translation: We need diplomacy with SOVEREIGN nations. It's time to stop WARRING! The only people who benefit from bombing, invasions and occupations are the greedy executives who are a part of the Military Industrial Complex. :shrug:

[barb162]

26. Yes, and that was almost inevitable with the makeup of Iraq.

Too bad Bush in his infinite wisdom couldn't figure that out

[Cleita]

4. I dunno. I was reading last night about how Hitler

invaded Czechoslavakia and how he got Britain's Neville Chamberlain to agree to it and by default the European nations that were by treaty supposed to defend it.

So I think Iran is more like Czechoslavakia in 1938. First they had to set up a "problem" in this case, ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland who were in "grave danger" as long as they were part of Czechoslavakia, never mind that they enjoyed freedoms the Germans didn't have.

Then the Nazis pounded the "problem" into the western nations heads as a dire emergency. By the time the Czechs were willing to agree to everything Hitler demanded of them to avoid an invasion and war, Hitler said it was too late. Germany had to invade.

Does this sound familiar?

[barb162]

9. No. He also invaded Poland, France, Norway, Austria , etc.

I would never compare Iran to Czechoslovakia. Iran is rattling the war drums loudly, with its calls to wipe Israel off the map, etc.

[Hardrada]

13. We should not be crying wolf all the time about Iran.

Ahmadenijad's remarks are deliberately mistranslated by a press that tilts toward Israel nearly all the time. We are just not going to buy all that fear-mongering this time around.
And some of his statements are basically for Iranian interior political reasons we are never too clear about.

[barb162]

16. No one's crying wolf.

ANd he's not being mistranslated. DO you think the UN , which condemns the nut job's remarks, has lousy translators?

[Hardrada]

18. And I don't think he's a nut job either. I think his remarks

are largely calculated for the Iranian public to shrewdly keep his place. In any case, he is not the final arbiter of Iranian policy. That is still the prerogative of the ayatollah and the other religious leaders. That is why one ought not to go all ballistic about his remarks. I don't see him as a real threat.

[CJCRANE]

22. His comment meant "regime change".

And he has repeatedly claimed that he has no intentions to invade anyone. For a start let's look at the track record on that one for pre-emptive invasions and attacks - US & UK forces next door in Iraq qives you a clue.

Ahmedinajad thrives in part because of the confrontational nature and unpopularity of Bushco. Any military attack on Iran now would only benefit Halliburton and the Saudis (as the oil supply is reduced and the price skyrockets).

[barb162]

25. His comments ? He meant what he said

unless you assume he's a total idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. He wants Israel wiped off the map. That is what he said.

[CJCRANE]

27. A map is a piece of paper. (+edit)

He means "regime change" (i.e. change the name on the map). He wants Israel to be ruled by the Palestinians. I don't agree with him - I believe in the two-state solution.

[madrchsod]

7. iran has free and open elections and as we did here

they elected moderates to local and national offices. like here in the usa they are run by a criminal political organization that controls the country. i really think that the citizens of iran do not want to go to war with us anymore than we want to go to war with them...

[AshevilleGuy]

11. It's like if Fred Phelps and Jerry Foulwell were running the US

as "religious leaders" with total power and no Constitution, and Rush Limbaugh were the figurehead president. Wouldn't that be scary?? I would leave, if I still had a passport and hadn't been arrested for being gay.

[lizbitchwitchy]

14. Wrong

Iran has the youngest population in the world, I do believe. Most of it's citizens are between the ages of 15 and 32 or something like that (over 90 percent of the total population in Iran). Iran also has one of the most educated people in the world as well. The Iranian government is indirectly an installation of the American government. Before we installed our dictator to run the show over there - Iranianian women were not oppressed and Iran was considered to be a non religious country in the middle east because the drank and they did not practise much religion - the women never wore scarfs etc.

The iranian citizens are totally against their own government. There is big underground movements happening in Iran right now which bypass the censorship the government puts on published music and there are underground night clubs and drinking and so forth and so on. In fact, they are sure to overthrow their own government if only they had an economy which enabled them to acquire a middle class - as we all know the middle class or the working class is the ones who determine revolutions. With the education and the youth in that country it is a shame that there own leaders don't capitalize on the resources to build a more stable economy but - that is what dictators do - they keep the people, poor and struggling.

Most experts have said before the press choose to sensor the statements to better suite the war that is currently underway with the US and Israel that it would be at least 10 years before they could develop nuclear weapons and a means to launch them in our direction. That leaves a hell of a lot of time for diplomacy and - it is more then likely that they don't want nuclear energy while they sit on oil wells galore but nonetheless, it is their right as a soveriegn nation to develope anything they want. We have no right to deny them their right to nuclear energy or weapons - who does the US think they are - with their stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If we allowed the country to develop their nuclear power plant - it would not only stimulate the economy and develop a middle class but you can be sure that the people of Iran would bring about the regime change that we claim to want to feel safe from a nuclear attack. That is the ONLY way a regime change should happen anyway. From the inside - anything else is illegal and oppressive and wrong. We could provide the population with whatever they needed to oppose their government but other then that - it can happen organically but let's face it people. We are not some great nation under god doing some moral work of the world here - we are utterly criminal and we need to stop the possible attack on Iran so everyone needs to educate themselves before making ridiculous comments like those I have seen here. Come on people - we are the laughing stock of the world and this is why!

We are victims of propaganda and our own history classes - and it wasn't until the Al Gore invented the internet (ha) that we actually had the means to educate ourselves in the truths we were missing forever - so let's not let that responsibility slip away - we need to take control of this situation before it gets out of hand and we have another Iraq or even worse situation not only on our hands but the blood of god knows how many more innocent people also on our hands.

The people are ultimately responsible for the acts of their government and we are always the ones who pay for it - it's not those warring or declaring them - it's those that live under their policies that pay - both karmically and financially. Keep your eyes on the blood spill and those places that could host the next one. Stop it now before it starts.

[Flabbergasted]

15. Are you saying the article is wrong?

[lizbitchwitchy]

17. Nope

Just some of the comments! There were more than one so I hit a general reply. Sorry to imply that your post was wrong.

[BoneDaddy]

24. I always found

the Hilter comparison wrong on so many levels. The people who utter such statements know absolutely nothing about history. Hitler's war machine spread across Europe, parts of Eurasia and Africa and was unstopable prior to our involvement. Iran couldn't even maintain a war on a single front.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so wrong.

Terrorism is a big problem, but it is no where the threat that Germany was.