You do realize that a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US will make the rightwingers currently running things in Iran more popular than they already are? We've heard all of this wishful thinking about "the people will rise up and overthrow the tyrants" once the US applies pressure before. This neocon fantasy has made the world less stable and has gutted the most powerful military in the world and is well on the way to causing World War III. The only thing that might stop these freaks in Washington are the people Pentagon who actually have to do the fighting and dying whenever these chickenhawks get a corporate, or electoral itch they have to scratch. I don't think it is a coincidence that this report surfaced when Bush is under fire for authorizing the Plame leak and lying about the rationale for war with Iraq. I wish the adults would come back and run the country again.
All we need to do is use a tactical nuke (or two) ~ then follow that with a sustained 'shock and awe' conventional bombing campaign. The Iranian people will revolt against their current leaders and welcome us with flowers and tears of joy.
The plan sounds great. It makes a lot of sense. If you bomb a country people will instantly hate their current leaders, and want to emulate you. That is what happens when folks get bombed. They want to do everything they can to be like the folks that are bombing them.
The only plus about using nukes on Iran would be that it would be the end of the American imperialist era and Bush would go down in history with other great international war criminals. George would become as popular a first name as Adolph has become.
Noones using tactical nukes on anyone. this is an ploy by the us to gain the upper hand in there upcoming negotiations with iran over iraq. we live in a civiliazed world, you cant go around nuking people because you feel they " MAY" be making an nuke.
blazer ben, you still havent responded to anything i brought up you havent responded to facts and figures i gave you regarding women in iran you havent responded to the fact that the shah killed 10,000 demonstrators that were peacefully protesting in one day! you keep saying that iran was better under the shah....again, why was there a revolution then? also, you said that cnn and bbc are paid by the iranian government and then you post articles by bbc.....thats hillarious
What a crappy measurement. There is no analysis that the Shah hindered literacy compared to the subsequent regimes, and ignores the Rosie the Riveter effect of the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, it was the Shah that allowed women to vote and moved to get them into the professional workforce. Women's enrollment in universities went up 65% per year during the Shah's reign. Here's a better comparison: "The growth in education for girls and women at all levels has been dramatic, although in large part it continued the growth that began under Reza Shah, which started when there were no government schools and few private schools for girls. Although some parents have been encouraged by the government's policies of no coeducation below university level (there was very little coeducation even before) and by modest dress requirements to send their daughters to school, on the whole educational advance has continued previous trends." Funny. The VP was elected in the Khatami regime, not in the current more conservative one. Many positions? "In June, Iran's Guardian Council, a conservative constitutional watchdog, barred all 81 female presidential candidates on the basis of their sex. Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi lost her job as Iran's first female judge after the revolution, because conservative clerics insisted that Islam forbids the judgments of women...The political scene, however, remains dominated by men. Only 0.1 percent of ministry-level jobs and 4.1 percent of parliament seats are held by women, the U.N. Development Program reported." http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6125 Wow. I don't think you'd find too too many people applauding Iran for their 'progressive measures' lol. You are proving to be a goofball. "Women in Iran can inherit only half as much of their parents' wealth as their brothers. Their husbands can marry more than one woman, and automatically get custody of children after a divorce. Women can be jailed or hanged for defying the dress code, and they can be stoned to death for adultery. Since the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, the fundamentalist governments dominated by clerics have stressed the traditional role of women and restricted their civil rights and participation in political activities." http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6125 "Most of Iran's inegalitarian legal provisions related to the sharia are still in force, including legal marriage at age 9 for girls, the need for a father's permission for a first marriage, polygamy, temporary marriage, and almost free divorce for men and not for women. The achievements of reform should not be exaggerated, and getting an egalitarian interpretation of the sharia enacted at best will take decades and may prove impossible." "In Iran this can involve refraining from expressing some views. A distinct point is that some secularists outside Iran now voice post-modern relativist views, especially regarding non-Western cultures, and refrain from criticizing practices in other cultures that they would denounce in their own. This is tied to complex questions regarding insults to women of the global South arising from past and present imperialism and Eurocentrism. It should, however, be possible to distinguish between words and actions demeaning or insulting to a reasonable person and empathetic criticism of practices in other cultures, as in one's own, that bring suffering to many women. In the Middle East this can mean following the lead of local women in working for change, as is now happening in the case of honor killings publicized first by women in Jordan and Pakistan. It should not mean objecting to such customs' being criticized."
This is not any other administration you're talking about though... in a civilized world, we don't imprison people for no reason, deny them due process, and torture them. If this administration was civilized, they wouldn't have lied about WMDs, Iraqi-Al Qaeda ties, or the receptions our troops would receive. They also wouldn't have replaced professionals with Young Republicans in the CPA staff. I could go on. And on. Just the language of this stuff is scary because you have Bush, a man with a boy's understanding of the world, sitting there thinking "If they believe I'm just using this as a ploy, I'll show them." We're on the brink folks. By the way, here's Bush today... Since both Bush and Hersh have a record where the truth is involved, and since this isn't exactly a definitive statement, I'm inclined to go with Hersh's version.
What did I say that wasn't true? Where have I said that the Shah was a "good guy?" He was a ruthless b*stard. So? "despite some of the rhetoric you might hear coming out of tehran, the actions of the regime tell a different story, the iranian government has liberalized tremendously since the revolution and looks like it will continue to do so no matter who the president or leader is" "i dont think protests in iran are met with bullets and electric battons or else the us media would be all over it and use it to demonize iran...." "There are protests, sometimes violent ones, in Iran and the police are deployed to protect the rights of the protestors to assemble and demonstrate from vigilantes...I've spoken to many Iranians within Iran that aren't supporters of the government and they say the same thing" - Creepy So, according to you, the Iranian government has been "liberalized tremendously since the revolution," (oh, really?? have you checked the news lately, at all? Iran is going in the opposite direction it appeared to be on during the brief period of liberalization that occurred) "and looks like it will continue to do so no matter who the president or leader is" (based on what??) "i dont think protests in iran are met with bullets and electric battons or else the us media would be all over it and use it to demonize iran...." (based on what? protests have been crushed on numerous occasions, and you make it sound like the government is helping them take place and protecting the demonstraters), and then you top it off with, "the police are deployed to protect the rights of the protestors to assemble and demonstrate from vigilantes..." Oh, really? Based on what? So the theocracy is enabling demonstrations against their rule, and everyone in Iran is singing kumbaya? That is your implication, as well as that the real problem in Iran today is the United States. How long do you give the theocracy of Iran a pass, based on the fact that the United States installed the Shah? Forever, until next week? Until international organizations can give an exact number of the thousands killed, injured, and "disappeared," by the theocracy? Are they going to give them the same access they have given international inspectors to examine their atomics program? Wow. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, with all due respect. Keep D&D Civil.
Deckard, if you look at Creepy's exact words - it might not be too far off the truth, although I think its either purposefully misleading or a product of his worldview. 'Since the revolution' - when the Revolution happened in Iran the Ayatollah engaged in an almost across the board drawback of rights. So if the apex of repression is the revolution, by definition its been getting better since then. Of course, that isn't the impression you get from his rhetoric, which comes out as 'since the revolution things are getting better than when the Shah was in power.'
Stop it Mr. President... you're just too funny. And your language is sure to give added sway to the diplomatic solution. One issue though... if we don't want Iran to have the knowledge of nuclear weapons, we'll have to assassinate every 18 yo who is interested in physics or engineering, but hey, all you need is an MBA in today's world, right?
as i've said before the stats prove that the situation of women has improved in iran and is better today than it ever was under the shah the fact that there was a female vp for 8 years, no matter the administration, is a positive development there are high ranking females in the ministry of health and also lots of women in the parliament currently....i dont think the %s that were previously provided are accurate women have also ran for positions in the assembly of experts and have formed their own political parties and civil society organizations and do everything men do in iran and are also the majority in universities and colleges also, all the laws and practices that hayes referred to are on the books, but they're not enforced....for example, the dress code law is hardly enforced and any iranian woman will tell you that i would call all these developments liberal and progressive none of this happened under the shah despite what you may think, a lot of the shah's ideas such as the "white revolution" were never implemented the shah never even had elections! currently, elections are held for every leadership position in the islamic republic and they've had 20 major elections since the revolution of 1979 with high degrees of contestation and participation. if iranians didnt believe in their system they wouldnt participate so much in their elections. go and find another country that's had 20 major elections in the last 27 years i think many of you might be blinded by your contempt for the iranian government that you're not willing to acknowledge anything positive and actually are arguing against the facts what i said about iranians having the right to assemble and peacefully protest is true as well....sometimes vigilantes try to attack the protestors, but the police are there to make sure nothing happens...now if the protests turn violent, which they have in the past, iran, just like any state, puts down the protestors who are causing the trouble also, the situation in rural iran has improved a great deal after the revolution as well....people living in rural iran were largely neglected during the shah's time as well let me give you people one fact: in june 1963 the shah murdered in cold blood 10,000 people protesting on one day! i previously provided a source for this if you examine the domestic situation in iran from the revolution in 1979 to the present then you will see that the regime has gradually liberalized and will continue to do so even though one conservative administration might come into power, although ahmadinejad has embarked on his own reforms such as providing grants and loans to the poor to do things such as get married and start their own businesses as well as his bueracratic (sp?) reforms meant to eliminate corruption, which he was quite successful at doing while he was mayor of tehran if things were so great in iran, how come there was a revolution? if things are so bad right now and given the iranian propensity to rise up and conquer authoritarianism (constitutional revolution, mossadegh era, and iranian revolution), how come there hasnt been another revolution? i'll give you a hint: it has something to do with people trying to reform the current system and not overthrowing it
How about let conquer the world while you still can..... NOW!!! Everyone is turning on you and catching up. Call it pre-emptive and nuke the whole world just to stay on top forever. I prefer "Let impeach the chimp in da house while you still can."
I gave you links that proved there is no such thing as a peacefull protest in the mollahs dictatorship. you choose to ignore. Haystreet showed you the links how much better it was. also the 10 thousend people being killed is hillarious. i rang my uncle who is in and was in the armed forces during the 1960's era ( currently holds a high ranking rank in the regular airforce) and he absloutly laughed it off. typical nonsense. if shah was a coldblooded killer, he would have listened to his generals and opened fire during the revolution . he left saying i can never shed the blood of my countrymen. i truly believe you are connected to the mollahs in one way or another. no imbesile who is objective can be so blind to the crimes of these animals. the thing about the woman VP, go during shah's time and see the education minster was a woman. the woman had a huge role in the police force, airforce and so on. we had many woman pilots and technical staff. i choose to ignore you from here. people in my beloved nation are living below the poverty line while the mnollahs live the good life, atleast shah cared enough to build roads , hospital and unviersities.
This Open election in iran are hillarious. yeah the mollahs pick the candidates and say here is the choices people. choose from the bad and ****.i urge this crappyfloyd moron to go to iran and see the standard of liing. before my last visit, i had a vision of shah being an dictator with claws. but after speaking to my fellow persians in iran, i was convinced of otherwise. interesting how they living in iran talked about there foundness for shah. they refer to him as khodbymoorz. meaning god bless his soul.
i want to know what happend from the 40's until now. at one time this country stayed out of wars until the point now where we have troops everywhere. i wish someone with more knowledge would make a list of countries we have attacked since world war II. from Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, and all of them in between. its getting ridiculous and everyone out there is powerless. all we can do is sit here and talk and gripe about it. make stupid jokes about bush's horrible public speaking or his keen ablity to look like a monkey sometimes. its sad but a lot of the time i want the worst to happen. id be curious to see what would happen if we attacked Iran next. the entire middle east would be sending there children to be the next 911 wannabes. i wonder when this will all stop.
