Come on Wall Street, don't be slow
Now's the time for war-a-go-go
There's plenty of good money to be made
Supplying the Army with tools of their trade
And we know that peace can only be won
When we blow 'em all to Kingdom Come
And it's one, two, three
What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn . . .
FreeDuck wrote:It's a very old, predictable, and tired formula.
nobody knew about this ??
25 years of iran onder a microscope and nobody knew ??
oh, please.
If this really was unknown until now, I do think, some people in various US departments and agencies should get Farsi lessons to be able to read something like
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's website. (Or learn using 'google' to get a summary from
other - media - pages.)
Can someone explain to me why this matters?
1) Iran has already been put on the list of the "Axis of Evil(tm)". This means the US doesn't approve of their government anyway.
2) Most Iranians don't seem to be big fans of the United States, and being one of the hostage takers is taken as a badge of honor by some.
3) There are much better reasons to fear that Ahmadinejad is not going to be good for US interests, including his anti-democratic statements and his ties to religious hardliners.
4) He had enough support to be elected (whether it was fair or not is irrelevent). It is doubtful if these revelations would have had any effect on these results.
ebrown_p wrote:Can someone explain to me why this matters?
Look at the prices at your local petrol station.
well, at least as of last night, the boys in the backroom haven't been able to confirm that he's the guy. he looks like it to me at first. the nose, cheekbones and eyebrow arches look the same.
but they showed a side angle and the nose looks much different from the side.
oh well. distracted from bush's speech for a couple of days. and that was probably the point anyway.
The government of Iran has supported the hostage taking right from the beginning.
Why should it surprise anyone that one of the hostage takers rose high years later, if indeed he is a hostage taker? The government of Iran has supported the hostage taking right from the get-go.
In another thread on this topic, i wrote:
In 1953, the Persain Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was ousted by Persian monarchists, supported by the CIA. Mossadegh had nationalized the Persian oil industry over the opposition of the Shah, and continued to enjoy wide-spread popular support. The English blockaded Iran, and brought the Persian oil industry to its knees, but after a failed coup attempt by monarchists, Mossadegh ran the Shah out of Iran. This was far too alarming for the West, hence the English and CIA instigation of and support of a monarchist "counter-revolution."
That the Persians would conceive, therefore, an intense and lasting distrust of and contempt for the United States should surprise no one. Dr. Mossadegh died in prison, twelve yeas after the coup. His National Front was outlawed. In January, 1979, Iranian Air Force cadets lead a street battle which culminated in a successful revolution in Iran. Dr. Mossadegh's government had been duly elected and had always operated within the terms of the 1906 constitution. Since the revolution, whether or not American conservatives like it, the government of Iran has been democratically elected. Upon the flight of the Shah and the return of Khomeini, the oil industry was again nationalized, and all of the reforms of the National Front were put back in place. There was a significant difference now, however--the National Front had been replaced by the rule of the Mullahs. The Mullahs have consolidated all economic power into a corporation which they control, of which they form the board, and of which they constitute the majority share holders. The monster American conservatives allege Iran to be was created by American and English arrogance and interference in the internal affairs of an ancient and proud nation which had been bullied by the West for generations before.
Now, as the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad tout their dedication to democracy in the Middle East, it appears that their notion of democracy consists in the right of a people to elect those of whom they approve, and not anyone of whom they disapprove.
Anyone else here gagging from the acrid stench of hypocricy?