Are you up on Mahmood Ahmadinejad

[pie]

I know almost nothing about him

[drdon326]

1. A progressive freedom-fighter who.....

despises America and Israel and would like nothing more than see the ultimate destruction of the infidels and the zionist pigs and monkeys.




In other words, should be popular to some here.:shrug:

[catnhatnh]

2. Well well....

...offer NOTHING of any help and then slander others???

[drdon326]

6. Now was that nice ??

I think an apology is in order.

[catnhatnh]

11. YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT....

...I'm waiting...

[Mz Pip]

9. Doesn't sound

too "progressive" to me. :shrug:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Cocoa]

34. link, please

I haven't seen anyone post anything like that about him.

But maybe I missed it, can you back up what you wrote?

[Zhade]

100. "can you back up what you wrote?"

DrDon authenticate his claims?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Frederik]

79. Do you have any quotes to back that up?

Ahmadinejad is mainly a populist and a social conservative.

[JHBowden]

108. drdon326--

I generally agree with you. If there is no transparency with regard to Iran's nuclear program, we must be prepared and willing to strike.

Given I'm liberal on most social issues and a few economic issues, it sucks to see many rank'n'file Democrats not take security threats seriously. Instead they hide behind reasoning like "(insert nitpicking of America and Israel here), therefore we can let Iran kill millions living in the Great Satan." I don't get it.

[Zhade]

123. Do you likewise advocate other countries being allowed to attack us?

After all, we're secretive about our arms stockpiles, and we won't let other countries inspect us. We're also the only nation ever to have actually nuked another country, and we're pursuing new mini-nukes as we speak, to include their possible use on the battlefield.

By your logic, other countries have the right to undertake a preventative attack on us, even bomb cities where this technology resides, killing innocents to rid the world of the threat from our nukes.

If you don't agree, you're a hypocrite.

[JHBowden]

136. "allows" has nothing to do with it

It isn't like there is a God telling us what we can and cannot do. If someone attacks the United States, they will be destroyed. That's all there is to it.

However, if a government says they want to destroy us, and is in the process of getting the means to do it, I think there is an imperative to act if we value self-preservation.

[Zhade]

138. You didn't answer the question.

Do other countires have the right to preventatively attack us because our nuclear program is a threat to them?

It's not a hard question to answer.

Your last paragraph is revealing, though: if they move to attack (based on your logic, they'd have the right to do so), and then we attack, we get drawn into war - see why preventative strikes are a bad idea?

Still: do other countries have the right or obligation to attack us over our threatening nuclear program?

[JHBowden]

144. Nations have the right to do *anything* they want.

It is what *we* do that is at issue.

[Zhade]

149. As I asked below, would you find it acceptable?

Would they be justified in attacking us to stop the nuclear threat from the only country ever to nuke another?

If you say they are not justified, your stance is hypocritical.

[JHBowden]

185. My preference is for no attacks on the United States.

There is nothing inconsistent about this. We defend ourselves and smackdown the baddies. My *preference* is for no attacks on the United States.

Deontological ethics is what is inconsistent. Rights instead of good outcomes are primary in such systems. That means that one should not tell a lie, even if lying in a case saves the lives of millions of people. Some writers like W.D. Ross have tried to patch up such Kantian ideas with prima facie rights, but without lasting success.

I think that **consequences** matter. If you think I'm being hypocritical, you are attributing to me a philosophical position I do not defend.

[Zhade]

187. Of course, we share the same preference.

"If you think I'm being hypocritical, you are attributing to me a philosophical position I do not defend."

So you now DO NOT think the United States is justified in attacking or aiding in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Good! Your position is consistent, and therefore you are not a hypocrite.

Glad to hear it!

[JHBowden]

190. No, I am saying that outcomes matter.

Read what I wrote. Slowly if you must.

[Zhade]

193. There's no need to be snotty.

I read your post. While outcomes matter, so do legalities. It's a simple matter of fact that preventative strikes are illegal under international law and the UN charter.

Iran has no more justification under the law to attack us for our nuclear program than we have justification to attack Iran for its nuclear program.

To say that one is justified, and one is not, would be hypocrisy. If you are not saying that, then you are not a hypocrite. If you hold that America has different rules under international law, then you most assuredly do hold a hypocritical stance, one that reflects people like Richard Perle, who welcomed the damage done to international law caused by our illegal invasion of Iraq - illegal because we never obtained a second, required UN resolution.

[JHBowden]

195. Would you break a law to save the lives of millions?

That's my point in a nutshell. I can't make it any simpler.

[Zhade]

197. Not if there was no credible threat.

Attacking someone because they one day MIGHT think about maybe attacking you is NOT a phiosophy I can ever get behind.

It's the same reason I don't stab someone who hates me when I see them - until they actually move to harm me, there is no justifiable reason to murder them.

I can't make it any simpler.

[Frederik]

151. You agree with the neo-cons then

that international law does not exist?

[Vladimir]

154. In fairness he has a point there

in the absence of any method for enforcing international law against NATO member states and the likes of Russia, China, India and other major powers, it does tend to be a nice idea which ends up used to beat poor third-world countries with.

[Frederik]

162. Sure

But the central tenet of international law since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 has been the sovereignty of the state over its territory. Which means that you can't go bomb or invade another state unless it's in self-defense (preemption of an imminent attack or response to an attack by the state in question). That prinicple has been eroded since World War II and the signing of the UN Charter, which does allow for military action against other countries if it is sanctioned by the Security Council, and in later years by the concepts of "humanitarian intervention" and preventive strikes.

There's been a huge debate in international law and political science about the legality of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, which was not sanctioned by the SC but justified with the notion that it was a "humanitarian intervention". Over Iraq, there's not much of a debate; opponents think it was illegal and its apologists think international law has become old-fashioned or "quaint".

As for the Osirak strike in 1982, it was clearly illegal. So would a strike against Bushehr and other Iranian installations be.

The neo-cons don't believe in the sovereignty of any other country than the US. They subscribe to a "might is right" philosophy - only the strongest is truly sovereign.

[Zhade]

172. Point of order: preventative strikes are illegal under international law.

The United Nations does not recognize preventative strikes as a justifiable action for a nation to take. Preemptive, yes. Preventative, no.

[JHBowden]

188. The standards of legitimacy *have* changed

Under the reasoning here, Afghanistan should not have been attacked by the United States since it was a "sovereign" nation.

If a state supports international terrorists or cleanse their own people, they open themselves up to intervention. This is especially the case when the state at issue is tyrannical and is up to no good.

[Vladimir]

192. Well, a case could be made that

Afganistan had been complicit in the attack on the USA, and hence the invasion was an act of self-defence. As it happens, I think such an argument was incorrect at the time (which is why I opposed the war against Afganistan), but it was certainly an argument one could make.

[Zhade]

194. Who decides the tyranny? Those with vested interests in attacking?

The standards have NOT changed, regardless of your insistence that they have. Kofi Annan has already stated that the war was illegal, and he is correct.

Regarding Afghanistan, you are 100% correct. The attacks on 9/11 were a criminal action that should have resulted in criminal sanctions and trials for those involved and those who aided and abetted the specific crimes.

Instead, we invaded and indiscriminately killed thousands of Afghanis that had nothing to do with 9/11. I doubt I need to remind you that NO hijackers were Afghanis.

[Frederik]

202. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by

the terrorist attacks on the US, which were apparently perpetrated by people who had received shelter in Afghanistan. The Taliban was also a regime that was only recognized by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. Three countries that are incidentally the biggest state supporters of the same terrorist elements.

Still, the justification for the attack on Afghanistan was rather weak in my opinion, absent any hard (public) evidence incriminating the country in the attacks.

[JHBowden]

186. I agree that it is conventional.

Again, it isn't like some God came down from the clouds and gave us stone tablets with "rights" on them.

[Zhade]

200. Did you happen to support the war in Iraq?

NT!

[Frederik]

150. Iran is hardly a big security threat to the US

Pakistan is a much bigger threat, given its nuclear weapons (which Iran may not even develop) and its strong ties to Islamist terrorism (much stronger and more important than those of Iran).

[Vladimir]

152. It will indeed be interesting to see what a post-Musharaaf

Pakistan does. The US has actively encouraged the dictatorship of Pakistan becuase it suits their interests to do so (a familiar theme), but if it is overthrown, I somehow doubt a US-friendly democracy will spring up. Some lessons you just can't learn.

[Zhade]

3. I have no idea who he is.

I assume, based on experience, that he is not exactly as DrDon has described him, but past that, I don't know the name.

Why did his name come to mind?

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Quick google search

A hardline radical who was involved in the taking of the US embassy in Tehran. Also involved with a group who expelled or executed dissidents. Holds a very anti-American attitude. Believes in an "Islamic Iran" with all the traditional "trimmings."

[julianer]

5. BBC also

reported this morning (though I can't find it on their website now) that he is a sort of populist nationalist promising to use Iran's resources for social programmes, while wanting a reigning in of the western influenced culture that is developing among sections of the mostly middle class youth.

[Vladimir]

28. Yes indeed

the BBC article has a long section about how horrified bloggers in Iran are - but then bloggers being out of touch with popular feelings is nothing new. I think the election result is bad news for progressive forces in Iran for a number of reasons, not least because it may increase the chances of an attack on the country. In those situations, the left almost inevitably gets pincered between opposition to being colonised and opposition to its government and ends up being shot by both sides. Of course his social (as opposed to economic) programmes are nothing to get excited about either. On the whole, its not a result to cheer, but there was never going to be a result for the left to cheer. In any case, our main task should be to continue agitating against any possible intervention in Iran - however reactionary its political scene is, imperialism ain't gonna help anyone.

Btw. welcome to DU! :hi:

[julianer]

37. I'm a bit more

hopeful than you. He's just been on the BBC saying he wants peace, justice and moderation. He is not interested in confrontation but he doesn't think Iran needs the US. Presumably this is a sign that he isn't going to sell of the country's resources as Rafsanjani promised.

If he sticks to this he should retain his popularity.

I think a strong show of independence is the very thing to prevent aggression against Iran. Iraq was disarming when invaded.

I completely agree that we shouldn't let up on the pressure against a new invasion. It isn't really likely IMO, because Iran could unleash a widespread revolt in Iraq if it was attacked.

[Vladimir]

51. You may be right

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4624193.stm

The president-elect told reporters: "The peaceful nuclear technology has been the result of the scientific development of the young people of Iran.

"Iran has a right to achieve scientific development in all fields.

"We need the peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medical and agricultural purposes, and our scientific progress.

<snip>

Asked about talks between the European Union and Iran over its nuclear programme, he said: "With preserving national interests and by emphasising the right of the Iranian nation for using peaceful nuclear technology, we will continue the talks."

[Tinoire]

107. Iranian bloggers blogging in English - lmao!

You have to wonder just who are these Iranian bloggers - wealthy emmigrants who fear not being able to fly in during hot summers to enjoy their villas by the Caspian sea ;)

I wish the best for the Iranian people- to hell with the US', the EU's or Israel's interest. :hi:

===

If the Ahmadinejad government tightens dress and behavior codes that have liberalized in recent years, Iranians said, some Iranian Americans might be reluctant to return for regular visits to Tehran. The president-elect's social justice rhetoric is also of concern to wealthy Iranian emigres who travel to Iran to manage property they own there or to visit summer villas on the Caspian sea, Iranians said.

(snip)

The defeated candidate, Rafsanjani, a wealthy cleric whose family became an economic dynasty in the years after the revolution, lost the election in part because he personified the growing gap between rich and poor, Tohidi said, not because voters opposed his pro-reform platform.

Ahmadinejad is the son of a blacksmith who "won because he portrayed himself as the simple, clean man of the poor," she said.

"Islam was really not a big issue in this election," she said. "The priority of those who voted for Ahmadinejad was jobs, rather than wearing lipstick and short scarves."

"This vote is not necessarily against social reforms; it is a call for economic reform," she said. "This may not turn out as badly as some people fear."


http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes0005.html
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-me-lairan26jun26,1,354419.story?coll=la-headlines-lifestyle

[Vladimir]

109. You know, if it is worrying the L.A. emigres

then maybe this is a good thing after all...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tinoire]

112. Lol- thank you!

My first hearty laugh of the day!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zhade]

117. HAHAHA! Indeed!

I live in L.A., so I get the reference. ;)

[Tinoire]

126. Hi Fellow 'fornian

:hi:

I once rented from an Iranian. She was one of the loveliest ladies you can imagine and both her husband & son had the manners of a Prince.

She owned the property and she collected the rent. I have no ideas what her political leanings were but Lord, everytime I hear about oppressed Persian women, she's the first one who popped into my mind. Educated, liberated and smart as a whip. Alas, part of the summer dacha crowd I fear but definitely not oppressed and this was 15 years ago.

Just babbling to you ;) & wanting to say hi

[Zhade]

128. Hi yerself!

:hi:

I once met a veteran from the Iran/Iraq war at a schwarma restaurant that sadly no longer exists. Fascinating guy.

Weather's nice in SoCal today, how's about in the Bay?

[Tinoire]

143. Schwarma, shawarma ?!

Do you know how much I've been craving one of those? I keep toying with the idea of buying a vertical rotisserie just for those but for a single household, that would be folly. So the dilemna now is, where to find a reasonably-priced rotisserie, either vertical or horizontal, where I can splurge and close my eyes to the fact that I really don't NEED it... but the mouth salivates... And besides, it would be SO much fun with friends!

It's cool up here today... Schwarma/Doner Kebap weather ;)

[Vladimir]

146. Mmm Schwarma

my local Lebanese place does a mean lamb Schwarma. Beautiful stuff. :)

[Tinoire]

153. Guess what I made last night

Kibbe

:P



It took me 3 hours to make about 50 of them and they're sealed in the freezer in bags of 3.

I think I'll have some RIGHT NOW with a little cucumber salad ;)


But I would crawl miles on my hands and feet for a shwarma! Lucky you!!

[Zhade]

173. Happily, I just found a killer Pakistani/Indian place recently.

Fantastic food, and a mere 5 minutes up the street. Mmmmmm. Cheap, too!

[Zhade]

174. Now I'm all hungry.

:P

[bribri16]

7. Hmmm, if he lived in America he would a super patriot!

But to us, no one is supposed to love their country or their land and want to fight to keep it but Americans.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Yeah, he is right up their with the Rethugs.

The really funny thing....Rethugs are considered "bad" here, but their counterparts worldwide seem to get a pass. Funny, huh?

[Zhade]

102. The poster said "patriot".

Republicans are anything but.

[Behind the Aegis]

147. I agree, but they seem to think they are.

He has the same position they do in reverse...Iran good, America bad; unwilling to deal with a "rogue nation" (The "Great Satan"); strict Islamic 'family' values. He sounds like an Iranian version of the Rethugs.

[Zhade]

175. Well, no fan of the new Iranian leader myself.

I just don't agree with some (NOT you, you're sane) that it's fine and dandy to drop a nuke on Iran for not bowing to our hypocritical demands regarding their nuclear program.

Happy Pride, btw! :)

[Frederik]

156. Nothing like a rethug

At least not in the economic domain. He won on a programme of economic reform and greater redistribution of the country's wealth.

[Behind the Aegis]

166. didn't the Rethugs here win on a similar plan?

We'll see if he follows through, unlike his American counterparts.

[Tinoire]

129. Precisely.

No one is supposed to love their country above ours
To defend their country against us
To love their children more than our "freedoms"
To love their own culture more than our Coke and MacDonalds


If he lived in America, he'd be hailed as the next Presidential candidate and probably a Democratic one at that.


Welcome to DU Bribri :toast:

[drdon326]

8. Like I said....

A progressive freedom-fighter who despises America and Israel and would like nothing more than see the ultimate destruction of the infidels and the zionist pigs and monkeys.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Malikshah]

13. Actually, pie did the asking

others ranted then accused others on the board of being down with it.

Lovely sentiment that.

I do definitely agree w/ the wank off comment, but in the end most of these, hopefully, will be deleted by mods

I'm taking a wait and see attitude (not to the Iranian president-- he's just what the Rovian junta ordered. They would much rather deal w/ a radical than a moderate...funny how he came out of nowhere and basically rose to the top. Wonder if Diebold runs the iranian election system...)

The wait and see attitude is whether or not the mods will react to someone accusing others of acts.

[Zhade]

104. Some of the ranters are rabid Zionists who refuse to acknowledge...

...the historical reality of the theft of land from Palestinians. Take that into account.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. He's the guy the Iranian people chose to be their president.

Mostly in response to his "populism" and the threat posed by American "liberators" on their borders and the usual ignorant blatherings by our own elected president.

More "unexpected consequences" from the glorious victory in Iraq.

[drdon326]

15. Did women get to vote ??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. No. And, your point is?

[drdon326]

17. How fair an election is it.......

if women are not allowed to vote ?

[Gabi Hayes]

18. sorta like blacks in florida and ohio not being able to vote, or not

having their votes counted at all....that sorta thing?

[drdon326]

26. So its not a fair election......

JUUUUUST LOVELY.:puke:

[Karenina]

73. It would certainly be a welcome change

if Americans were to deal with "fair elections" in their OWN country. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

158. Can't Karenina. Too busy. Too busy spreading "freedoms"

We've NEVER had fair elections in this country. You can't even start the clock ticking on fair elections until AFTER the civil rights movement and people have been constantly disenfranchised since then. I got literally SICK when I read about Black disenranchisement during Democratic Primaries THIS election. How shameful.

But who am I, are we, to complain? Freedom, after all, is on the march.


Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. --James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

[Zhade]

176. Woah, what did I miss?

"I got literally SICK when I read about Black disenranchisement during Democratic Primaries THIS election."

During the primaries? The DEMOCRATIC primaries?

How the heck did I miss that? Please, tell me more!

[Tinoire]

189. Here's my Michigan Bookmark re 2004 Black disenfranchisement

incidents.


Detroit caucus sites <snip>; black leaders call for new elections

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=290602#290612

The NAACP was going to get seriously involved and then everything went kind of quiet.

===

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- The leaders of four black statewide groups may challenge the results of Saturday's Democratic caucuses because some caucus sites weren't open or had been moved, Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus Chairman Derek Albert said.

"We feel very strongly that African-Americans were disenfranchised today. ... You had people running from site to site looking for where they could vote. ... We're calling for a new election," he told the Associated Press.

"We just went through this in Florida in 2000. Michigan should be above this. The Democratic Party should be above this. We're not going to tolerate this."

The challenge would come from the Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus, the NAACP of Michigan, the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus and the National Action Network Michigan Chapter. The four groups plan to hold a news conference Monday to announce their intentions after meeting with a lawyer Sunday, Albert said.

(snip)

Edwards state director Derek Albert, however, said most of the moved sites were affecting minority voters and were robbing them of their right to vote.

"This is worse than in the '60s," said Albert, who also is chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus. "This is horrible. This election needs to be stopped. Because this is not right."

(snip)

http://www5.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/elec04.prez.democrats.caucus.ap/

[Zhade]

199. Yikes, I DID miss that.

If this is widespread, it could explain the indifference to minority disenfranchisement during the past two presidential elections.

But that'll depress me - I'm already upset about a post by another DUer that pointed out the probability that some Dem elites (Kerry, Edwards, Roberts) knew of the the pre-IWR bombing and kept quiet.

I was furious when I read that. Absolutely furious.

[Tinoire]

203. Ok. Now I am going to make you really sick

U.S. SENATE,

Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.


Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq.

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Frank R. Lautenberg
Dick Lugar
Kit Bond
Jon Kyl
Chris Dodd
John McCain
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Alfonse D'Amato
Bob Kerrey
Pete V. Domenici
Dianne Feinstein
Barbara A. Mikulski
Thomas Daschle
John Breaux
Tim Johnson
Daniel K. Inouye
Arlen Specter
James Inhofe
Strom Thurmond
Mary L. Landrieu
Wendell Ford
John F. Kerry
Chuck Grassley
Jesse Helms
Rick Santorum

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=S12240&position=all

[Zhade]

204. Yeah...and I voted for the guy.

Never, ever again.

[Tinoire]

208. Me too.... But I figured it was better to have a sane captain than

a mad captain steering the ship. A little bit less gratuitious death and destruction was my reasoning but I'm not too proud of that enabling vote.

[Karenina]

180. A picture is worth how many words?

[Tinoire]

191. Not a very pleasant image or thought

Pax Americana. YIKES!

You know, I really am happy we have the internet to expose these MFs.

The internet is allowing the proletariat of the world to unite against these bastards. Good!

[julianer]

39. Women make up 54%

of the Iranian electorate.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/iran_women.shtml

[Englander]

44. Yes they can.

Here's a woman,voting,in Iran;



'Iranians are voting in a tight presidential run-off. Here, a woman proudly shows the ink on her finger after casting her ballot.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4618619.stm


' IRAN - Who holds the power?




ELECTORATE

Women and young people were the main bloc of voters who brought reformist President Mohammad Khatami the presidency in 1997. Advocates of reform also came to dominate the parliament in 2000, until their majority was overturned in the 2004 election in which many reformist candidates were barred from standing.

Of a total population of about 65 million, more than 46 million people – all those over 15 - are eligible to vote. Some eight million of them were born after the 1979 revolution.

Record voter turn-out of about 80% delivered Mr Khatami's 1997 landslide victory, but with disillusionment growing, only about 50% of the electorate voted in the 2004 parliamentary elections.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/electorate.stm

[Frederik]

81. Yes they did

Women can vote in Iran. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman are the only Middle Eastern countries that refuase women to vote.

[alfredo]

19. Yes they did get to vote. Not sure how much longer. Bush

invigorated the radicals with his remarks about their election. He should have kept his fucking mouth shut. Of course this might be exactly what he wants.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. Everything that's happened throughout is exactly what they want....

from 911 to the war to the elections, to the economy, to the environment....you name it

the worse things get, the better they like it, because the concomitant unrest just allows them to move us closer to the new, improved PATRIOT Act, which will make the Enabling Act of 1934 look like the Bill of Rights

just wait

[alfredo]

21. Neo conservatives want chaos. They figure they can exploit it

to their advantage.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. they learned their lesson exquisitely well from their heroes in the

Weimar republic

don't think they haven't studied the Nazis' accession very closely, if only from a PR standpoint

[alfredo]

23. I think I read that the Neo cons were

influenced by Trotsky's constant revolution.

[Vladimir]

30. Sort of

more ifluenced by the writings of Leo Strauss, although some neo-con writers and jounalists, like Hitchens, were indeed Trotskyists in their youth.

[alfredo]

209. Strauss is perfect for a person born into privilege

[Karenina]

31. Don't forget Leo Strauss

University of Chicago. Ideologies, "master" plans, means and motives...
This is a fine melting pot we're in, eh?

[alfredo]

60. It is apparent that the christian right is playing right into the hands

of the Straussians. The Straussians believe the masses should not have access to higher thought. The christian right with their anti intellectual leanings is playing right into their hands.

[Vladimir]

25. In fact they did

There were no female candidates allowed, which is somewhat different.

[drdon326]

27. Link ?

[Vladimir]

29. Here you go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/electorate.stm

[drdon326]

32. I Thank you .

thank you.

[not systems]

42. Yes women voted, according to the financial times.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0c5a659a-df11-11d9-84f8-00000e2511c8.html

Iran candidates count on women’s votes

Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Published: June 17 2005 10:34 | Last updated: June 17 2005 10:34

Young and not-so-young women, women in chadors and women in bright headscarves - a cross-section of Iran’s female population - were among those queuing to vote on Friday as Iran went to the polls to elect a new president from among seven male candidates.

“I’ve studied what they’ve all said and I’m voting for the future of my country, not just on issues that concern women,” said Mahya, 17, voting at the Imam Hassan mosque, Mahallati, north-east Tehran.

...

[Frederik]

80. Yes

Woman can vote in Iran and did vote in this election. The only countries in the Middle East that do not allow women to vote are Saudi Arabia, United arab Emirates and Oman.

[drdon326]

24. Ahhh....the Thoughts of Mahmood Ahmadinejad

"We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy,"


He defended Iran's nuclear power programme and accused "a few arrogant powers", a reference meant to include the US, of seeking to limit Iran's industrial and technological development.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. You are against Iran's nuclear program? Also, Israel's?

Israel already has nuclear weapons, should we invade, and remove them?

[drdon326]

36. Youre serious, arent you ?? You dont see a difference ??

Has israel threatened to use them against their neighbors??

.............................start................................


RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

.............................end..................................


And HE'S the moderate !!


What a sick fuck.

[salin]

38. It is a dilemna

what would you propose our policy be per Iran and nukes?

Btw, the whole Larry Franklin dustup was, I believe, about trying to float back and forth the idea that strikes on nuke facilities in Iran should be carried out "before too late" either by US or Israel - but I could be wrong about that...

Seriously - what should our Iranian policy be?

[drdon326]

40. One word.....

BUNKERBUSTERS.

And i'm serious.....if france , germany , and england cant stop the deveopement of nukes, and considering they apparently will use it, then nail the nuclear outposts.

[salin]

45. okie dokie

there would be no physical or international blowback from that, now would there...

Question - three years ago - were you supportive of bushco's rhetoric selling the public on the need for war in Iraq?

[drdon326]

47. Nope....but I sure would have been happy ....

if anyone had put a bullet in the BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD and his entire ruling regime.

[salin]

49. There are countless regimes

that I would cheer an end to - but the blowback track record from when we have interfered has been abysmal. Including the one that continues to blowback in Iran. Yep - I place it all back as reactions that began when we intefered and backed the Shah.

[drdon326]

52. Blowback?? From BunkererBusters ?

that would last about...oh....2 or 3 hours.

Ok , i'll bite.....if france,england and germany FAIL to persuade iran to give up its nuclear desires, what DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO ??

CHOICE A. Nothing
CHOICE B.GO TO THE UN and whine
Choice c. Issue a really stern condemnation
Choice D. BUNKERBUSTERS
Choice E. _________________.

[Vladimir]

53. You presume that you have a right to do something n/t

[drdon326]

56. So lets get you on the record....

Given that iran has threatened outright to commit mass genocide and given that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, you believe the world has no obligation to stop them if the negotiations fail.

Is that about right??

I really want to see your answer and i'm going to bookmark it.

[salin]

58. two questions

1) Hasn't NK stated the same thing - or at least implied it (willingness to go the nuke mile regardless of the implied suicide) - isn't that why they are so dangerous? Should we play that card too?

and

2) I am unfamiliar with the pledge to which you refer... who are they willing to commit suicide against (clearly just nuking themselves for the sake of doing suicide isn't the point)? Certainly there would have to be a provocation of some sort - to invoke such a suicidal move. What am I missing?

and a comment

Pakistan - has a nuke - has threatened to use it - has extremists just a heart beat away from Mushareff who has very tenuous control - and harbors al qeada (and likely OBL). I really don't think this is a hound to unleash.

[salin]

63. and another question

If, as is asserted by some, this president was elected in part due to our actions in Iraq, then what "present" to which other country (in terms of change in governance) would likely occur if we were to attack Iran? And do you really believe that were we to "surgically attack" that Iran would not go to war with us through Iraq?

[drdon326]

66. I'm a slow typist....

Hasn't NK stated the same thing - or at least implied it (willingness to go the nuke mile regardless of the implied suicide) - isn't that why they are so dangerous? Should we play that card too?

I'm actually going to say something unheard of here....I dont know what the right answer is. My hope is that China will reign them in.

and

2) I am unfamiliar with the pledge to which you refer... who are they willing to commit suicide against (clearly just nuking themselves for the sake of doing suicide isn't the point)? Certainly there would have to be a provocation of some sort - to invoke such a suicidal move. What am I missing?

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_200...




If, as is asserted by some, this president was elected in part due to our actions in Iraq, then what "present" to which other country (in terms of change in governance) would likely occur if we were to attack Iran? And do you really believe that were we to "surgically attack" that Iran would not go to war with us through Iraq?

Doubtful....they would not attack in the conventional sense given they really have no army or air force of any consequence.

..............................................................

Now let me ask you


1. if negotiations fail with iran...what do you suggest if anything?

2. if negotiations fail with NK, what do you suggest if anything?

[salin]

71. confused -

these are words of the one who lost. He would have been better than the one elected?

Create an atmosphere of MAD - he doesn't state he would do it suicidally - but that there would be "minor damage" - make it clear that it would have to be a standoff - as there would be more than minimal damage. This has constrained India and Pakistan.

I am not for a preemptive strike - as I believe the payback would be hell as I have stated elsewhere. However I do believe that were Iran to get said capacity - that we should be in a mutual protection stance - that is - the response of an attack on Israel would lead to an equal or more deadly attack on Iran. I do not read in his words that he would attack under those conditions. MAD, as you assert elsewhere, has worked and still works in India/Pakistan.

I have thought for years that NK was a sticker problem than the other two members of the "Axis of Evil." NK is a great challenge - esp with a Bush WH who NK doesn't trust (hell to go back to the table earlier required getting an agreement that Bolton wouldn't be there - great UN ambassador material, there...) - Clinton had gotten them into a cooldown phase - so it CAN be done diplomatically, just don't know with the cowboy administration that it can be done - and I am sure that it Can NOT be done if we were to strike Iran. I really don't have an answer to NK and wish that our administration wasn't so stubborn to reject all things Clinton just because they were associated with Clinton.

[drdon326]

72. Yeah.....,HE lost and HE'S the so-called "MODERATE"

PRETTY FRIGHTENING , HUH?

He said those words 3 years ago.


Granted MAD has worked in certain countries (us-ussr, india-pak) but i really have trouble seeing iran as a country that wants MAD when they have pubically stated they WILL use it if they obtain them.


I think anti-pre-emptive strikes was a great policy years ago when weapons were of limited destruction. I believe the world has changed and policy must change with the times. Hey, isnt changing with the times is what a liberal/progressive is all about??

[Vladimir]

74. No they haven't

Not even Rafsanjani. Not even in that quote you keep brandishing. Actually, lets review that quote:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"

Leaving aside ridiculous notions of a "world of Islam", the stalemate being referred to seems to be precisely that of MAD. The website you quote is, of course, only too happy to provide its own analysis, but the words themselves do not seem to support it. The use of a nuclear weapon against Israel would result in hundred such weapons being used by Israel and the USA in the other direction, and Iran knows it full well. Of course, certain political interests are all too well served by pretending that there is yet another bearded threat over the horizon...

[drdon326]

75. You are free to your opinion........but not free to that facts.

Further down the same article.....

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

For the untrained eye, that FABRICATED ENTITY is often called that ZIONIST ENTITY or often called the home of PIGS AND MONKEYS.

[Vladimir]

76. Yes well that is some grade A anti-semitism you got there

however, it still does not constitute a promise to use nukes once obtained.

Look, I can see perfectly well why Israel might be quite nervous about Iran getting nukes - after all, having a monopoly on nukes in the region is a powerful thing. But I can also see how this rhetoric about Iran and nukes is playing into the hands of those who want to carry on 'spreading freedom and democracy', and I am a lot more worried about Iran being attacked in the near future over some fabricated programme to develop nukes than over the possibility that Iran might one day get the nuke and decide to commit collective suicide by using it. One is plausible, the other ain't...

[drdon326]

82. Vlad.....you're a good man....but....

israel is nervous about iran BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD A MONOPOLY ....because they have been told they are going to be the recipient of A THERMO-NUCLEAR DEVICE.

over some fabricated programme to develop nukes ??

Really?? So france,england and germany are in perpetual negotiations over SOME FABRICATED PROGRAMME that is just in their imagination??

That will be news to them.

I gotta go......but I want you to have the last word.

[Vladimir]

86. Sure, and we were told that Iraq was 45 minutes

away from bombing London, and all sorts of other things. They certainly have a civilian programme, they may be wishing to develop a military one also, but I find any statements to this effect by our government less than believable. Not to mention that the EU negotiations are jockeying-for-influence with the US as much as anything else. To be honest with you, I find much of what our governments have to say about the Middle East in general to be hysteria in search of a problem.

Oh and you know I love having the last word. Peace Don. :)

[Taxloss]

167. In the interests on clarity and accuracy, Vlad ...

... the 45-min claim was about bombing bases in Cyprus, not London. The facts were muddied by tabloid hysteria, but No. 10 never claimed London could be hit within 45 mins by conventional means, it was British bases in Cyprus.

[Vladimir]

169. Good bit of fact-checking

thanks for the correction Tax.

[Frederik]

87. The nuclear programme is a nuclear ENERGY programme

not a WEAPONS programme. Those are two different things.

[Zhade]

114. In DrDon's world, anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism.

So you may be wasting your efforts explaining this obvious difference with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions, my friend.

[Zhade]

111. No, liberals and progressives are not for PREVENTATIVE strikes.

Which is, of course, what you're conflating with PREEMPTIVE strikes.

And since you're clearly NOT a liberal or progressive, I don't know how it is that you think you know what we stand for. I can tell you that it isn't for what you're advocating here.

[JHBowden]

116. This liberal *IS* for pre-emptive strikes

I am pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-science, and pro-education. However, I'm not willing to wait and let millions of people be incinerated before we address a threat.

Some of you, given a chance of preventing 9-11 with a few airstrikes, would have preferred having 9-11. What is the sense in that?

[Zhade]

120. Please reread my post. I said we're not for PREVENTATIVE strikes.

Your line about 9/11 is inflammatory, as well as an untrue strawman.

I said that DrDon was conflating PREVENTATIVE strikes with PREEMPTIVE ones (and he was - the whole "we should attack if negotiations fail" IS advocating preventative strikes). I, and most sane humans, am against PREVENTATIVE strikes.

[Frederik]

85. Rafsanjani doesn't call for the annihilation of Israel

the link didn't work, but judging from the quote you posted, all he says is that a Muslim country with a nuclear bomb would have a strategic advantage, because Israel is a small country. That logic only works if you factor out the United States, which would probably retaliate on Israel's behalf.

To believe that a nuclear Iran - which in itself does not appear to be imminent - would actually launch a nuclear attack against Israel, you would have to be rather paranoid.

[JHBowden]

119. No. they'd just give the nuke to Islamic Jihad, Hamas,

Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization they support. Iran does not even recognize Israel's right to exist -- they call it the "Zionist Occupying Entity."

[Vladimir]

121. And sign their own death warrant?

I doubt it. Individual suicide bombers are one thing, but ruling classes have never in history been fond of collective suicide...

[Zhade]

122. You mean, you FEAR they'd do so.

So do you advocate killing someone because they might buy a gun and shoot you? If not, why not? The idea of attacking Iran to prevent them from gaining nuclear capabilities of any kind is the same idea, writ large.

[JHBowden]

124. "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!" makes their intentions clear.

Being an ostrich about this won't make the jihadists go away.

[Zhade]

127. Sure, they'll always be around.

I simply don't find the allegation that Iran would be stupid enough to ensure its own destruction by nuking Israel to be credible. I find it to be a paranoid fantasy.

[JHBowden]

134. Their LEGISLATURE was chanting this

Read for yourself:

TEHRAN -- In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/05/28/476115.html

To pretend we are dealing rational agents that were produced by the enlightment is wishful thinking.

[Vladimir]

135. How is that less rational than

the collective prayer outside Congress in the wake of 9/11?

[Zhade]

137. Right, and the country is dumb enough to ensure their own deaths...

...by nuking Israel?

Ain't gonna happen, friend. It's just fiery rhetoric to whip up the masses. Still paranoid to imagine they'd actually NUKE Israel, since they'd just get nuked in return.

Have you decided on your answer about other countries being allowed to attack the United States to stop the threat from our nuclear program, which based on your logic you'd have to agree they have the right if you don't want to be a hypocrite?

[JHBowden]

140. Israel was attacked quite a few times during the last half-century

I don't want Iran to become a nuclear K-Mart for terrorists. A direct attack is unlikely; an attack by a proxy terrorist group is what concerns me. And yes, Iran has been supporting these groups.

I don't know who "allows" countries to attack each other; God doesn't exist. Nations either attack each other or they don't. As Americans it is foolish to be for attacks on the United States. It is also foolish to let people who seek to destroy the United States obtain the means to do so because some cloud in the sky told you to play fair.

[Zhade]

142. Let me rephrase, then.

Would you find it acceptable for another country to attack us to stop the very real threat of our nuclear arsenal?

By your own logic, you would find this acceptable, if regrettable. If you suggest this is not acceptable, your stance is hypocritical.

[Frederik]

159. When has Iran acted irrationally

in their foreign policy? I can't recall any incident, rhetoric aside.

Anyway, chants of "Marg bar Amrike" in the parliament is scarcely any worse than the Showdown:Iraq jingos that were hammered into the minds of the American people in the run-up to the Iraq war.

[Frederik]

157. I find that scenario extremely unplausible

I think there is much more reason to worry about Pakistan than about Iran concerning nuclear terrorism.

[Vladimir]

61. You can have me on the record anytime you like

I do not accept your premises about Iran's intentions to commit mass genocide, and I do not accept the notion that the US, UK or any other imperialist power has the right to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot develop. I will not support any attack against Iran, surgical or not, under whatever pretext it may fall, carried out by our governments or agencies acting on their behalf. Having said this, I of course fully support the right of any country to defend itself if attacked.

Oh and btw., if you are going to quote this at me, do me a favour and quote the whole thing.

[drdon326]

64. Thank you for your response......bookmarked

Interesting ....i'm glad you fully support the right of any country to defend itself AFTER IT IS NUKED AND THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS HAVE DIED .



We disagree.....there ARE times for preventitive actions.

[Karenina]

65. Your position, sir

is that of a BULLY.

[drdon326]

68. Thanks......

i've been called alot of things but thats a first.


lol

[salin]

57. really

no blow back. Hello Iran in Iraq. Hello ISI control in Pakistan.

Hello percieved international enemy per Germany in the thirties - seen as needed to be "contained" - don't think the banding together of the EU, China and Russia couldn't tank our economy? If we appear to be a big enough threat to world stability - that the damage to our economy that hits there economy is percieved to be equal to the damage to the world economy as the ongoing PNAC instability would cause... Do you think if we did this the world wouldn't wonder where we would attack next?

Wow.


Seriously if we were to do this - there would be a war with Iran - via Iraq. Not just a matter of 2 or 3 hours.

The belief in complete and utter US Military superiority, with no consequences always astounds this one time student of history.

[Zhade]

125. It's sheer hubris and arrogance.

Not to mention hypocrisy, since many rabid pro-preventative war (WHICH IS ILLEGAL, btw) folks don't believe other countries have the right to attack US for OUR nukes - and WE'RE actually a threat to world stability!

[Monkie]

62. choice E. Israel allows in the WMD inspectors or bunkerbust dimona?

i'll bite
going by your logic Israel is a legitimate bunkerbusting target for any nation within the 3000+ km range of its nuclear weapons that feels threatened?

[Zhade]

130. Indeed. Israel has invaded other countries before.

Logically, other countries have the right to attack Israel for its nukes.

(I of course think no country has the right to a preventative attack, and of course the U.N. and most of the world agrees with me - or I agree with them, whatever.)

[Frederik]

83. First of all

Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapons programme today. Even the Israelis admit that. I do think they have every right to develop nuclear energy. As long as they allow inspections of their facilities then I don't see any problems.

[drdon326]

84. That is the most amazing post I have ever read.

.

[Frederik]

88. lol

Why am I not surprised.

[Zhade]

131. Well, it was a pretty great post!

Reasonable, measured, SANE - pretty amazing, these days!

:D

[Tinoire]

155. Don, you're going to have to be a bit more locacious than that

What precisely did you find so amazing about it? The suggestion that countries be allowed to have nuclear capabilities even if they're not part of the Axis of Liars?

C'mon Don... This is not time to be coy ;)

[Zhade]

177. Ooooh, "locacious " is a great word.

I must start using it a bit more, it's tasty verbiage.

[Vladimir]

43. Alternatively one might say

that, since Iran has now got an American colony either side of it (Afganistan and Iraq), they are quite within their rights to develop any and all deterrents necessary to ensure that they aren't attacked. Whether nuclear weapons would be a particularly intelligent deterrent is a different matter entirely. But its up to them to decide that.

Stop playing imperialist and colonialist games in the Middle East, and you might regain the right to lecture countries on agression...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Israel has threatened to use them. And, not just against it's neighbors.

Israel has threatened to use them, not only against it's neighbors, but against it's other "enemies" like Russia. Which would bring the USA in against Russia igniting a worldwide nuclear holocaust.

Are you FOR Israel having nuclear weapons?

For the threats see:http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html

Just a few snippets from the above webpage:

In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us." According to Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."

... Shimon Peres; "acquiring a superior weapons system (read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed." From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes, "What would prevent Israel... from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?"

.....Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel's favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote "We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, 'If you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'" During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time, "If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and...we will have to draw very serious conclusions..." Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said "If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large... To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid." ....

[drdon326]

78. First, let me thank you for your response.

Please forgive me but that site seems to be a vanity site and clearly has an agenda.

Are you FOR Israel having nuclear weapons?

The reason israel is in existence now after seemingly endless attacks by its neighbors is because of the deterrent affects of its nukes....tg.

[Frederik]

89. "that clearly has an agenda"

lol, in contrast to the site you keep quoting from.

[Zhade]

133. Well, DrDon likes the Jerusalem Post, too.

And THAT record has RICHARD PERLE on its board of directors.

Yes, some rabid Israel-firsters here on DU actually rely on a source partly directed by a neocon PNACer for their news.

So, block of salt, ya know?

[Frederik]

90. "endless attacks by its neigbors"

You've got to be kidding me. Israel has been attacked twice by its neighbors, in 1948 and in 1973. It has attacked its neighbors three times, in 1956, 1967 and in 1982. Am I missing something?

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Yes, you are missing something.

The wars in 1956, 1967, and 1982 were provoked responses. Should Israel have waited for the foreign armies to actually invade?

1956 -- The Suez war -- Egypt refused to allow Israeli passage or any ships carrying goods to Israel. Nasser also became the leader of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Egypt amassed an army in the Sinai, and said their was no need to negotiate with Israel, nor would he. Israel routed Egyptian forces, and they (Egypt) was forced to retreat.

1967 -- The Six Day war -- Again, Egypt, in an act of war, cut of another water-way, in attempts to isolate Israel. Enemy forces, again, amassed to the south (Egypt), the west (Jordan), and the northwest (Syria). Syria, for almost two years had been bombing Israel from the Golan Heights. Israel responded and all three enemy nations lost land.

1982 -- For almost 2 years, the PLO, encamped in southern Lebanon, pounded northern Israel with missiles and terrorist attacks. Even after a 1981 cease-fire was declared, the PLO continued to violate and Israel attacked.

Seems to me that Israel was being provoked and they responded. Just how long should Israel have to wait before it responds to aggressive acts of war? Should they wait until the enemy soldiers actually cross into Israel?

[Frederik]

99. And if you asked people from those Arab nations

they would probably say that they were provoked in their attacks as well. Countries that start wars are always "provoked" in one way or another.

[Behind the Aegis]

132. In what way were the Arab nations provoked?

The only provocation I have heard (from that time) was that Israel shouldn't exist. Were there others?

[Tinoire]

161. Moshe Dayan dispelled the myth about 1967 having been unprovoked

In a series of interviews that Dayan gave journalist Rami Tal in the mid-1970s and which were recently published in the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, Dayan states that the years of cross-border violence between Israel and Syria that preceded the war were largely a result of Israeli provocations. According to Dayan, some 80 percent of the pre-war border incidents were the result of Israeli initiatives.

Moreover, Dayan told Tal, he strongly opposed Israel's broadening the war to encompass the Syrian front. But kibbutz leaders from the border area sought to annex the lush farmlands of the Golan Heights, Dayan said, and for that reason they prevailed on then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to launch the IDF ground attack against the Golan on the fifth day of the war. Until then, the Israelis and the Syrians had confined themselves to trading shell-fire across the border-line.

In the interviews with Tal, Dayan described his grudging agreement to fight Syria as one of the most serious errors of his life. This version of events before and during the war flies in the face of some of the most cherished Israeli myths.

(snip)

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970606/isra-sb.html

Repentance from the Grave: The Dayan Memoirs
Interviews of Moshe Dayan by Rami Tal

(snip)

Greed, Simple Greed!
The first interview took place on November 22, 1976.

DAYAN: ...But what I wanted to say was that in two cases I did not fulfill my duties as the Minister of Defence, in that I did not prevent things that I was certain had to be stopped. The first case was on the fourth day of the Six-Day War, when a delegation from the kibbutzim met with Eshkol in order to convince him to begin a war against Syria. Dado had sent them; he was the commander of the northern district and feared that he was going to be left out of the war, so he sent the kibbutzim members. The kibbutz members came and put on a big show for Eshkol: "What is this, you are abandoning us, and how are the Syrians going to get away clean, and all this kind of rubbish."


(snip)

DAYAN: Leave off. I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more than 80%, but let's talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start firing artillery, and later also the airforce, and this was the way it was. I did this, and Laskov and Tzur did it. Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more than anyone else, who enjoyed these games.

TAL: I'm pretty astounded at what you say. What was it all for?

Dayan prefaces his answer with an analysis of the armistice agreements and adds:

DAYAN: What do I want to say by this? We thought then, and this continued for quite a long time, that we could change the lines of the armistice agreements by military actions that were less than war. That is, to grab some territory and to hang on to it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us. It can be said absolutely that this was sort of naive on our part, but you should remember that we did not have the experience of a state...

TAL: So all that the kibbutzim wanted was the land?

DAYAN: I am not saying this. Certainly they wanted the Syrians to disappear. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they lived in the kibbutzim, they farmed, raised children, lived and wanted to live there. The Syrians opposite them were soldiers who shot at them and they certainly did not like this. But I can tell you in absolute certainly: the delegation that came to convince Eshkol to attack the Heights did not think about these things. It thought about the land on the Heights. Listen, I am also a farmer. I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel-Aviv, and I recognize this. I saw them, and I talked to them. They did not even try to hide their greed for that soil. That's what guided them.


http://www.hagalil.com/GuShalom/maamarim/dayan.htm

I'll stay away from '82 unprovoked because this isn't an I/P discussion.

[Behind the Aegis]

165. That explains away one of three invading armies.

What of the other two?

[Zhade]

179. I gotta say, props to you for recognizing the truth of Tinoire's post.

A lot of your fellows would say these were just anti-Semitic lies (from a former Israeli military officer, but hey, rabid Zionism can blind one to reality).

While you and I don't agree on everything with regards to Israel, I admire your willingness to accept the truth when presented. That's a good quality.

Just wanted to say that.

[Tinoire]

196. Thank you for such a polite, reasonable response.

I'm truly, pleasantly astonished.

I'd have to meet you in I/P for the rest but I swore not to return there because people just go round and round and there are too many posters of bad faith who force others back against a partisan wall.

Modern Israeli history is just as revisionist, imo, as American history. The saving grace is that Israel has a freer press and its intellectuals don't get lost in the media rubble so the truth gets out a little faster.

It's unfortunate, truly unfortunate that you weren't there a few years ago. I would have enjoyed discussing with you; please forgive me if I don't want to re-research those issues. I got involved in those discussions because I felt the world would soon be headed for a global conflict if we didn't resolve the I/P question (not cause but fuel for the larger conflict). It all makes me very sad right now and it seems so pointlessly late to argue and assign blames. I wish both sides would just close their eyes, take a few steps back from the green, black or red line, beat their chess in a mea culpa and just go ahead with a one-state solution- for the sake of the children.

Thank you

[Behind the Aegis]

206. Hey, not a problem

To the victors, go the spoils. This also means the recording of the history. There are a few things I question as well, in private, because Israel has enough detractors. And, I wasn't try to lure you into an I/P conversation, I hope you didn't think that. I hate when threads that even are tangently related to Israel get "sentenced" to the I/P.

C'est la guerre!

Have a great weekend...at least what is left! :)

[Tinoire]

207. I didn't think that

Just wanted to be very honest about why I didn't want to discuss it. And you're very right about the recording of history.

One of the things I look forward to in the afterlife, if you believe in that, is FINALLY getting answers to what really happened! My main fear is that I might not care anymore but what I would give right now to know these things!

I think I'm going to finally have to get around to reading books like "A People's History of the United States" and at least get a good start.

Merci, et bon week-end a toi aussi! :)

[Zhade]

178. The 'Dado Incursions' play like a penny-ante version of pre-IWR bombing.

Classic baiting tactic. Thanks for the info, this was new to me, and likely to many here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. We all have "agendas". Care to respond to their's?

The reason Israel is in existence now is because of the support of the United States.

I am not against the state of Israel. I do, however, have a great deal of disdain for many of it's policies including it's stockpile of nuclear weapons. The same can be said of any country with nuclear weapons or other WMD. I'm not a fan of Iran's new president or his announced policies by any stretch.

Do you really believe that the American government would give a rip about Israel if it weren't surrounded by oil states? If it were in Africa surrounded by hostile poverty ridden countries, what went on there wouldn't even make it on the evening news.

No state in the Middle East has clean hands, including Israel. And, no "major power" does either. At some point, hopefully, Israel and it's neighbors will come to some sort of agreement if for no other reason than self-preservation. That would entail settling fairly the Palestinian "problem". Something that Israel has steadfastly refused to do.

[TeeYiYi]

92. The answer to your question is an unequivocal YES . . .

. . . on numerous occasions.

re: "Has israel threatened to use them against their neighbors??"

'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'
By Ze'ev Schiff - August 15, 2002

If Iraq strikes at Israel with non-conventional weapons, causing massive casualties among the civilian population, Israel could respond with a nuclear retaliation that would eradicate Iraq as a country. This grave assessment, from American intelligence, was presented last week to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=197819&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0


Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace

by John Steinbach - March 2002

"Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." Seymour Hersh(1)

<snip>

Israeli Nuclear Strategy

In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a "weapon of last resort," to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation, and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still believe that to be the case. Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; "The Samson Option is no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel."(22) Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union(and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War). One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli Prime Minister "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."(23) (In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel's security influence to stretch from "Mauritania to Afghanistan.") In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us."(24) According to Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."(25)

Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence" or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel's perceived advantage, such as to protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare.(26) In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called "nonconventional compellence" and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; "acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed."(27) From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes, "What would prevent Israel... from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?"(28) Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its nuclear threat.

Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel's favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote "We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, 'If you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'"(29) During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time, "If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and...we will have to draw very serious conclusions..."(30) Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said "If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large... To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid."(31) Since then Israel's nuclear arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.

<snip>

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html


NEVER AGAIN
by Joe McCain (Senator McCain's brother)
04/11/2002 9:34:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time

There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now -- "Can Israel Survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize -- the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world doesn't come to understand that, then millions of Arabs are going to die. It's as simple as that. Throughout the history of the world, the most abused, kicked-around race of people have been the Jews. Not just during the holocaust of World War II, but for thousands of years. They have truly been "The Chosen People" in a terrible and tragic sense.

TYY

[Zhade]

139. Woah, facts that disprove the Jerusalem Post-esque spin and propaganda!

Gasp! Truth!

Nicely done.

[Tinoire]

198. Whoa - NICE Avatar!!!

;) Thank you for letting me use it. Not even to show solidarity with Conyers could I change it!

TeeYiYi (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-28-04 08:24 PM
Original message
Iraq deserves a BETTER flag . . .
Edited on Wed Apr-28-04 08:47 PM by TeeYiYi

I have been so bugged by the blatant symbolism that was built into Iraq's 'new' flags. Both of them. It seems obvious to me, what the colors and symbols of their new flag SHOULD be and should NOT be. (snip) If the war in Iraq is truly about helping the Iraqi people then it stands to reason that they deserve a flag that would better represent them and that they can be proud of.

So I designed them a new one which stands for a unified Iraq, nestled in a field of green (stands for growth and Islamic ideals) between the Tigres and Euphrates rivers (two black stripes). A flag for a country that embraces its diversity — three peoples (three crescents) under Islam living together peacefully as one (one white star symbolic of Islam and the white dove of peace) and prospering together in a new democratic society that they sacrificed their lives to realize.



I had several ideas but this one was my favorite. There are dozens of ways that this flag could be designed that wouldn't be a slap in the face to the good people of Iraq. After all they have gone through in the name of a free Iraq, they deserve a flag that they can be proud of and that will give them hope.
TYY


Edited to clarify that Iraq deserves a better flag than the blue and white one that has been foisted on them in the last few days. I didn't mean to suggest that there was anything wrong with their original flag. There was nothing wrong with the old flag. ~TYY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1492037#1492052

[Tinoire]

94. It would be nice if they didn't truncate that quote. Here's the full quote

Today at the age of 49, Engineer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who lives modestly and who can't be accused of self-enrichment or corruption, is an examplary son of the revolution as attest several of his statements: "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy; the democracy and liberty (in the Iranian system) surpass what one could imagine."

Aujourd'hui âgé de 49 ans, l'ingénieur Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, qui vit modestement et qui est peu suspect d'enrichissement ou de corruption, reste donc ce fils exemplaire de la révolution, comme en attestent quelques-unes de ses déclarations : "Nous n'avons pas fait la révolution pour avoir une démocratie" ; "la démocratie et la liberté (dans le système iranien) sont au-delà de ce que l'on peut imaginer."

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-663994,0.html
===

The US/UK media are really funny with their hatchet jobs. A half quote here, a misquote there with a redaction 5 days latter on page D21. I wish I could say I was surprised.

[Zhade]

106. *I* defend their nuclear program.

They have every right to develop nuclear energy, and even weapons. It'll keep them from being attacked. I don't care for the Iranian government, but it's not our place to terrorize that country into changing its political system. To do so while in the midst of a "war on terror" is sheer hypocrisy.

Israel has NO moral authority on the subject of nuclear weapons, thanks to their secrey and treatment of heroes like Vanunu.

[Cocoa]

35. James Dobson with a tan n/t

[drdon326]

41. Nope.....James Dobson soon to have a nuke.

gd help us.

[salin]

46. we let that genie out of the bag

we should also be concerned about Mushareff (pardoned Khan)... the crazy leader of NKorea ....

And more seriously the threat of China becoming closer and closer allies with Russia where there are scattered among the landscape and old states numerous nukes.

Why is Iran more troubling than this?

Putin is a scary dude. Has already started remantling the old govt - control courts - no more elected governors - retaking control of media... I think our blind leaders should be paying more attention.

[drdon326]

50. Intelligent reasoning nd question.

We have a history Russia regarding nukes....it may go bck to MAD.

China would not use nukes against the US as their entire ecomon=my would collapse as we are now their number one trading partner.

WE have no history with Iran and they have stated publically that they wish to commit mass genocide.


i HAVE ALWAYS FELT that iran was the much bigger threat.

[salin]

54. Seriously

well we just have to disagree on this one. I see them as nowhere near comparable in terms of real threat.

Sure let's become THE perceived threat in the world by staging another invasion.

You don't think coalitions would be formed to put us in check? Hey a war economy is a strong economy, right? WOrked for us - might just be a good replacement for China - or a reinvigorator for Russia.

And how long does Mushareff control HIS nukes if we go after another Muslim country? His hold is tenuous now (hence Khan's pardon despite our desire otherwise.)

Sadly - I think we may have created a world situation already in which there is a bit of MAD - not total destruction - but enough potential very harmful attacks to be at a stalemate. Only happy super warrior with no blowback thinking prevents thinking about the real likely responses to such actions.

This might not have been true - had we not "done Iraq."

Oh - and what about releases those waves of human warriors from the larger Iran into Iraq... Remember the late 80s Iran / Iraq war?

This would be an extremely foolish policy option (nuking iran installations.)

[drdon326]

59. Never said invasion.

I said bunkerbusters.

Actually france,england and germany would be in favor of invasion if the medium range iranian nukes were used in their countries.


Sorry we disagree but I respect your opinion.

[Karenina]

67. "WE have no history with Iran..."

Now you're just being histrionic and silly. :silly:

[Zhade]

145. China would survive, our economy would melt down.

They hold a quarter of our foreign reserves, remember.

[Zhade]

181. "WE have no history with Iran" - you mean, aside from overthrowing...

...their government and installing the Shah?

Seriously, do you even read what you write sometimes? WE HAVE NO HISTORY? You can't possibly be that ill-informed.

[Zhade]

141. "Why is Iran more troubling than this?"

Six letters: I-S-R-A-E-L.

One paranoid fantasy: Iran will ensure its own destruction by nuking israel, so OF COURSE they're going to nuke Israel.

:rofl: So illogical!

[Englander]

48. Profile: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

'The man who said: "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has turned out to be a dark horse in Iran's presidential race.

Ahmadinejad on Saturday broke off from the pack to capture second place and a spot in next week's runoff race for president.

Just two years ago Ahmadinejad, 49, was a little-known figure in Iranian politics. Then he became Tehran's mayor, put there by the rigidly conservative city council.

He is a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander, unabashedly conservative and loyal to Iran's Supreme leader Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei.

He is seen by many who voted for him as one ready to stand up to the United States. "I picked Ahmadinejad to slap America in the face," Mahdi Mirmalek said after casting a ballot for the Tehran mayor.'

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm

The result is a reaction to the invasion of this country;

[realFedUp]

55. Juan Cole writes about similarities between him and Bush today

Informed Comment
www.juancole.com

[Zhade]

182. That's a great analysis. Cole nails it.

I really like his reference to "Space Cadet Michael Ledeen"! :rofl:

Yes, this new Iranian leader is no wonderful guy. No, that's not a reason to bomb or invade.

Direct link to the entry: http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/ahmadinejad-uses-bushs-tactics-supreme.html

[Malikshah]

70. Wow--necon plan is working

Wonderful thread, this. Rife with neocon blunderbussing and demonization.

I feel so warm and fuzzy right now, knowing that we're going down that familiar path to illegal war.

Nothing like having a created evil to fight.

[Terran1212]

77. He was probably elected because of Iraq invasion...

Bush can tote that too, if it went in his PR favor (it doesn't).

Iranians don't want to be pushed around. They have national pride. Don't people understand this nationalism is stopping their democracy movement?

[Frederik]

93. He was elected

primarily because he promised to increase unemployment benefits. It's the economy, stupid.

[Tinoire]

97. + pledges to end government corruption and to raise people's incomes

The economy stupid... :hi:

===
(snip)

In his campaign, he brushed off questions on tolerance for political dissent and release of political prisoners. "Which political prisoners? The ones in the United States?" he asked sarcastically when a reporter asked what he would do for more than a dozen political prisoners here.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has played down fears of repression. "People think a return to revolutionary values is only a matter of wearing the head scarf," Reuters quoted him as saying. "The country's true problem is employment and housing, not what to wear."

What probably gained him his landslide victory on Friday, however, were his pledges to end government corruption and to raise people's incomes. He has presented himself as a simple man, stressing his modest upbringing and lifestyle. His direct manner and his blunt criticism of the wealthy attracted the support of millions of voters from the lower and middle classes.

In his two interviews broadcast last week on the state-run television, he offered simple solutions to the problems of some ordinary Iranians. "Teachers in our society have been making a lot of sacrifice and lived on small salaries," he said. "We can increase their incomes by economizing our expenditure in other government sectors." Teachers have been protesting low incomes for years.

In addition, he has shown a sense of humor rare for an Iranian politician. He caused a sensation when he began laughing heartily during a broadcast interview after a reporter told him a joke making the rounds that he would change the name of the ubiquitous Iranian car, Samand, meaning horse, into Zol-Jalal, the name of the horse of Imam Hussein, one of the Prophet Muhammad's successors in the Shiite tradition.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/middleeast/26mayor.html?ex=1120449600&en=5b9202ceedd71ca3&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[Frederik]

168. Everything isn't always about America

or Israel. :hi:

[Zhade]

183. I have to go with Juan Cole's analysis on this.

He's not a great guy...which of course is NO reason to interfere in Iran's affairs one bit.

[Tinoire]

201. I agree

and of course, not being Iranian, it's not our decision who represents them in this incredibly dangerous world.

Did you EVER think you would live to see the things we're seeing now?

[Zhade]

205. I didn't used to.

I admit, there are days I wish I'd never woken up...but I don't really mean that.

The helpless feelings come on strong these days, though. Sigh.

[Tinoire]

96. If you can read Persian, here's his website

http://mardomyar.com/

[Vladimir]

98. Why is it that we can always count on you

for some anti-Murikanism Tinoire?

:hi:

[Tinoire]

110. Must be the French blood ;)

And yet, I love America so much I would die for it if such a sacrifice would advance the people's cause by even one small step TO THE LEFT :shrug: You know, real freedom- not that neo patriot crap...


How are you? Thanks for all your comments- they've been edifying to read- as usual.

[Vladimir]

115. I'm fine -

DU is a great distraction from work! :)

I know what you mean Tinoire... I spend so much time just wishing that there was something to do that would effect genuine progess. Oh well, we gotta keep trying - ya never know, miracles do occur.

[Tinoire]

148. Lol- Every morning when I wake up

I turn on the news and rush to DU, hoping, praying, that a miracle happened while I was sleeping.

So far the results have been disappointing but like you said, we have to keep trying! I think our best hope is to continue talking and learning from each other, what Merh calls the "little ripples".

Peace :)

[Taxloss]

101. Funnily enough, I was just reading the Observer profile of him:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1514973,00.html

Chilly character. Social and political hardliner, probable friend of terrorism. On the flipside, has made good noises about tackling Iran's social divides and poverty. Economic leftist; social conservative; political hardliner.

My verdict: He's worrying but sane.

[Vladimir]

103. Friend of which terrorism? n/t

[Taxloss]

105. Well, I used the word probable. It's my guess.

So you can ttach as much weight to that as you like. But I think he would be happy to break bread with Hamas, unless I'm missing a doctrinal faultline somewhere. And I think he would endorse terrorism in certain existing circumstances.

[RPM]

113. No, but I am down with OPP.

Yeah - you know me.

[Vladimir]

118. Hahahahahahahahahaha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You just made me fall off my chair, you bastard.

[RPM]

171. thank you.

I'll be here all week - hope your tailbone is OK

[drdon326]

160. SEE NEW THREAD !!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3953354

[Behind the Aegis]

163. Shame upon ya!

Why should you spoil all the fun of those who wish to adulate the right-wingers of other nations?! Right-wing politicians in the US and Israel...bad. Right-wing politicians in other nations...A-OK. I think that about sums it up.

[drdon326]

164. Oh....its far worse that that....

Right wing in israel.....bad.

Reactionary nuke-loving america-hating israel-despising terror-supporting neanderthal......'hey, he's a great guy'.

[Frederik]

170. Except Ahmedinejad is not exactly a right-winger

He's more of a socialist, in economic issues at least, while conservative in "moral" issues. Given the two candidates, I would have voted for Ahmedinejad rather than Rafsanjani.

[Zhade]

184. That's a completely unfair and inaccurate assessment of this thread.

Just because some of us (I assume you are included, btw) don't advocate for intervention in Iranian affairs, we're adulating hardline rightwingers?

I think you misrepresent posters in this thread.