Latest 15 of 129 Total Comments Show All

• 

  kinniku at 03:13 PM JST - 2nd July

  adaydream,

  Thank you for your response. While I cannot speak for the poster, I was under that impression that the quote was referring to if Iran had even one single nuclear bomb, not that they now have one. However, I could be mistaken in my impression.

• 

  SezWho2 at 10:48 PM JST - 2nd July

  HelterSkelter,

  Yes, Ahmadinejad engineered a holocaust denial conference and he invited David Duke. So what?

  I'm pretty sure that I'm awake. I'm also pretty sure I draw different conclusions from the same facts that you are looking at.

  In particular, I don't think that sponsoring such a conference implies that they are ready to destroy Israel. I think it more implies that they are not going to apologize, as a lot of the rest of the world has done, for that which they did not do.

• 

  SezWho2 at 11:10 PM JST - 2nd July

  kinniku,

  You never have to be sorry to tell me what I already know.

  I know you were not writing about the 1953 revolution. I know you were writing about the 1979 revolution. I know the Shah favored a secular state. None of that in any way makes the revolution less political.

  Who said anything about conditions improving in Iran since 1979? I don't think I would have been happy with legal system then or now. And I am seriously under the impression that Iran is not our business.

  The fact that the revolutionaries did not see their embassy as an act of war is hardly moot. We did not treat it as an act of war. We treated it as an indignity and as an outrage. Over the years it has matured into an act of war.

  I'm not quite sure what you are talking about when you speak of me comparing the US and Iran in terms of government and religion. But I do agree that it is the difference that makes them dangerous. Most worldwide polls that I am aware of rate the US as the greatest danger to world security. That doesn't mean it's so. It does mean there is a difference of opinion as to which is the lion and which is the house cat.

  Obama, by the way, was not talking about attacking Pakistan. He was talking about attacking known terrorist targets in Pakistan. We are doing that now, not always with good communication with the Pakistanis.

  I also agree that Iran has been threatening--although I would say warning--Israel and the US almost continuously since the 1979 revolution. Not coincidentally, Israel and the US have been threatening--and I would say threatening--Iran from the same time. That revolution threatened our plan for the Middle East. We didn't like that.

  And I have done anything but gloss over Iranian dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad. At least twice I have pointed to how he was rebuked in elections subsequent to his presidential election. I agree that Iran should work on improving the country over getting into scraps with other countries. I don't agree that Iran is prioritizing belligerence. I think that is clearly a different country.

• 

  RedMeatKoolAid at 11:32 PM JST - 2nd July

  "That revolution threatened our plan for the Middle East. We didn't like that."

  Who is "we" and what was "the plan"?

  Did the Soviets have a "plan" for the ME?

• 

  nethanyahubush at 12:03 AM JST - 3rd July

  Iran has never threatened Israel. It is the same type of BS propaganda the Bush administration came up with before invading Iraq. Iran is not anti Semetic for holding a Holocaust conference. If Iran really hates Jews as some of the Christian fundamentalists in US believe then how come Iran does not arrest the thousands of Jews who live in Iran and are even represented in the parlament. They can move to Israel if they wish but choose to stay in Iran. Iran is home of the largest community of Jews outside Israel in Asia. They are tolerated and there are synagogues all over the country.

  This proves that Iran is not a Jew hating country. It dislikes Israel not because Israel is Jewish but because Israel is an apartheid state. A better question to ask is why are Americans so much in love with an apartheid country?

  Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran.

• 

  RepublicofTexas at 12:08 AM JST - 3rd July

  To compare the US or Israel to Nazi Germany is a gross over-exaggeration. Furthermore denying the Holocaust as a myth, is to some degree anti-Semitic.

• 

  SezWho2 at 10:50 AM JST - 3rd July

  RedMeatKoolAid,

  "We" is the US and "our plan", then as now, was energy security.

  I'm sure the Soviets had a plan for the Middle East, but we were not fighting the Soviets in the Middle East on behalf of the Middle East.

• 

  rajakumar at 05:38 PM JST - 3rd July

  Iran intergrations with global community/other global nations, is best way to solve the woes with Israel. Israel intergrations with global community/global nations also needs more efforts.

• 

  Kijimuna at 03:14 AM JST - 4th July

  "Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran."

  Outsourcing such activity to Hezbollah does not get one's country off the hook.

• 

  Kijimuna at 03:50 AM JST - 4th July

  Let's not get hung up on semantics. I would say that Hezbollah's activity in Lebanon the past few years looks very much like occupation.

• 

  adaydream at 03:59 AM JST - 4th July

  nethanyahubush - You make a good point when you posted, "Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran."

  I remember going to school during the 50s and 60s when Nazi Germany was still in recent memory to the teachers and my elders. I would listen to them tell about Hitler attacking other lands, just because he was a bad man and wanted to dominate the world. How he took his advanced forces and strampled through his neighbors and killed jews like they were a sickness.

  Then I relook at george bush's attack on a virtually defenseless country, kill anybody and everybody who got into their way and then occupied their country, just because we can.

  I can't and won't blame the Germans for what Hitler did, like I can never blame us American people for their patriotism because of what george bush did. he brain washed the American people and the world the same as Hitler did and they had their followers. As delusional as they may have been, they had their followers.

  Now we have the same kind of crap happening again. Lies being told about Iran, just like the lies about Iraq. Like when England became the US's little puppet follower, now we have Isreal the US's little puppet country now. Any attack by either the US or Isreal only goes to quantify the above statements.

  So, Iran is doing the smart thing and just play the game and see who sticks their foot up their butts.

  Pssst, Iran won't be the cake walk Iraq was. They actually have weapons and ammo, not like Iraq. We'd bombed Iraq for 10 years and had already destroyed their arsenals. Iran's sitting there with everything, except nukes. < :-)

• 

  WilliB at 11:17 AM JST - 4th July

  nethanyahubush -

  " "Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran." "

  No, imposing a totalitarian ideology, and preparing the "real holocaust" against the Jews (remember, Iran does not accept the first one) is comparable to the Nazis.

  To compare Bushes misadventure in Iraq to the nazis is ludicrious. The nazis did not overthrow dictatorships in the hope that democracy would break out; what a thought.

  Then again, if you only wanted to demonstrate the muslim speech tactic of "turn speak" (turning facts upside down), then yes, this is a good example.

  Moderator: All readers back on topic please. References to the Nazis are not relevant to this discussion.

• 

  kinniku at 05:13 PM JST - 4th July

  SezWho2,

  Thank you again for your response. I understand what you want to say about the 1979 revolution. Of course, there was a political aspect. However, I think you are overstating how much of a political action it was. The 1979 revolution was a wonderful thing for Iranian Muslims. They finally had the Islamic country of which they had been dreaming. Upon the ousting of the Shah they set up an Islamic state that followed the rules of Sharia. Please do not take this shining moment away from them. It was a specially event in Islam. Personally, I was very happy when it happened. Sadly, I never expected Iran to change quite in the ways that it did. I never imagine a fatwa being issued against Mr. Rushdie for his book. I never imagined the US Embassy being taken over. Finally, the Shah was out and they could have religious freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom was only fully extended to Muslims. Members of the Bahai faith in particular were singled out for punishment. Iran could have become a beacon, but it did not.

  As to the US Embassy being invaded and the occupants being captured. You surmised that Iranian did not consider such an act an act of war. Again, I beg to differ. When there was an incursion in the Iranian Consulate in in Iraq in 2007, the Iranians did in fact considered that action an act of war. Rules regarding consulates are far less restrictive than those involving embassies. The incursion on the US Embassy in Iran was factually an act of war. You argue (successfully I might add) that Carter's administration did not act as though it was an act of war. However, that does not matter. It was.

  I think Iran has been missing out on a chance to make better friends with countries around the world. You argue that we should not concern ourselves with Iran's internal affairs such as whether or not they are planning to develop nuclear weapons. I would counter that every country in this day and age is concerned with every other country and manages to stick its nose into other countries business. There is no longer any escape from this. There is only compromise and discussion. Iran certainly sees fit to butt into Israel's affairs whenever it has the chance.

  As far as the US being potentially more dangerous to the world than Iran. I would say that, of course, that is true. My point about Iran being dangerous was the internal use of religion to create laws and rules in Iran as compared with countries such as Japan or the US that you mentioned.

  You mentioned Mr. Obama's comments about Pakistan. Yes, you are correct. However, when he made those statements he did so without any discussion with the leader of Pakistan which could have created an even more unstable environment in Pakistan. I think even Mr. Obama realized he overspoke.

  You say that you don't agree that Iran is prioritizing belligerence. Well, many people in Iran seem to think they are, as you pointed out when you agreed about the population's dissatisfaction. Iran has better things to do then get involved in these kinds of rhetorical sparrings. The Iranian people deserve better.

  Thank you for the interesting discussion.

• 

  kinniku at 05:18 PM JST - 4th July

  adaydream,

  Pssst, Iran won't be the cake walk Iraq was. They actually have weapons and ammo, not like Iraq. We'd bombed Iraq for 10 years and had already destroyed their arsenals. Iran's sitting there with everything, except nukes.

  Before I respond, I want to state categorically that I am against an invasion on Iran. I think it would solve nothing. However, what makes you think the US would not do things they way they did with Iraq? They could bomb Iran and avoid and invasion for quite a long time. Even with their hands in two countries they still outfirepower Iran. They could realistically just keeping up air attacks to wear down Iran's strength.

  As I said, I don't think this would solve anything. It would make a lot of things a lot worse.

• 

  Kijimuna at 02:28 AM JST - 9th July

  Drudge posted this today

  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/former-cia-agent-in-iran-comes-in-from-the-heat/

Register or login to add a comment!