'
Iran
Sun, 2009-12-27 15:06
#1
Iran
Sun, 2009-12-27 21:07
#2
The struggle for reform is definitely on again. A good blog discussing what's going on is here: http://reroad.blogspot.com/
Sun, 2009-12-27 21:34
#3
better then we can say for here!
Sun, 2009-12-27 23:14
#4
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16644]Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War[/url] by Rep. Ron Paul
We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA's involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.
With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world.
Sun, 2009-12-27 23:31
#5
Frustrated Mess
Ron Paul is amazing in some respects, isn't he? Iranian politics are way too complicated for me to fully comprehend from the outside, and the only image we're ever presented by the MSM is one dimensional and cartoonish.
Sun, 2009-12-27 23:38
#6
better then we can say for here!
I'll second that, Sandstone.
Mon, 2009-12-28 14:06
#7
Yes, we must not speculate. (Freedom of speech under the new Supreme Court ruling must have limits).
Mon, 2009-12-28 14:35
#8
And so Murder Incorporated are all set to go with brand new bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and menacing oil-rich Iran next door. The chess pieces are in place. The military muscle is primed and ready to go to work.
Will it be another Al-CIA'da pretext for a good shallacking of Iran? Or another ghost attack a la Tonkin prior to shock and awe part two? We can be sure there no credible leftwing militants would dare try to make war with the beast or provide another pretext for randomized counter-attack on targets of the vicious empire's choosing. Perhaps another sword operation spit out from a pre-programmed random pretext generator. What will non-truthers for ongoing 9/11 coverup have to say when another Middle Eastern country suffers the wrath of the same vicious empire they tell us are simply prone to human error over and over with their bomb first and produce evidence later stratagem? Oops, they did it again? Is Iran just another oil-rich country nearer Russia, China and cruisin' for a bruisin'?
Mon, 2009-12-28 14:54
#9
Boom Boom
A U of T alumnus writes: Prisoners in Tehran
excerpt:
Iran has been caught in a terrible cycle of revenge, torture, intolerance and hatred for many years. The only way for us to break free from it is to understand and study our past and present with an open mind. Survivors need to be encouraged to speak out. Throughout history, victims have turned into torturers and torturers into victims. Enough is enough.
Mon, 2009-12-28 15:18
#10
What the US would prefer is a US-backed military dictatorship for Iran, like Pakistan has been since the 1970's and leaning that way today with the US heaping laurels on Pakistan's military and ISI and threatening Zelaya, and probably had something to do with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Our corporate newzies would proceeed to ignore Iran for decades at a time regardless of the torture if NATO gangsters are able to create a US-friendly regime in Iran. The Yanks have actually worked to make Iran a dominant country in the region with creating chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq and having murdered so many clerical leaders in those countries. And Iran has fully cooperated with the US in waging illegal wars against desperately poor countries Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States has guided Iran, too, over the years away from social democracy and democracy in general, and pushed them toward militant Islam. They've done this in Pakistan and Palestine and Afghanistan. But the end goals are never democracy. Democracy is a worst case scenario for the vicious empire wherever they've stuck their big noses in.
Mon, 2009-12-28 15:59
#11
The U.S. didn't "guide Iran", it destroyed democracy there and imposed a dictator, Fidel. Then came the revolution - but as we see on the death of a deposed Imam, the one who was slated for leadership, not all think the revolution was best for Iran and Iranians. But we must not endanger the delicate balance of theocracy and police state there now, right? Or the "Green Movement" will, in overturning the "crony capitalism" that now pays for the police, extend U.S. hegemony there again?
In the name of freedom of speech, what evidence is there that that would happen?
Mon, 2009-12-28 16:07
#12
The U.S. didn't "guide Iran", it destroyed democracy there and imposed a dictator, Fidel. Then came the revolution - but as we see on the death of a deposed Imam, the one who was slated for leadership, not all think the revolution was best for Iran and Iranians.
The Yanks had no expectations for democracy in Iran after their puppet was overthrown. The revolution and subsequent militant Islamic state that arose was perfectly compatible with US great game goals for the region. Have you ever wondered how the Yanks have never-ever screwed up and accidentally worked to create a democratic outcome anywhere ever? The mullahs themselves in Iran said that they knew nothing of running a country and that it would end badly. The Yanks would much rather deal with militant Islamic states of their creation than democratic ones. Because in a country where the economy is based largely on military-insdutrial complex, they are going to see military solutions everywhere. And this is an established historical pattern. We can't claim ignorance of history anymore than we can the law.
Mon, 2009-12-28 16:24
#13
I'm with you on the ignorance of the U.S. and the pernicious effect of its relations - anywhere - but "In the name of freedom of speech," what evidence is there that victory by the Green Movement would mean the bad guys take control again?
Mon, 2009-12-28 16:37
#14
Frustrated Mess
How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?
Mon, 2009-12-28 16:44
#15
I didn't intend to say that US hawks are ignorant of what they do. They may act crazy on a continuing basis, but they are crazy like foxes.
The CIA doesn't rig elections so much anymore with the exception of Afghanistan and El Salvador and Honduras, Haiti and a few more recently. What they do today is to try to appear legit in regime change methods using CIA and funding "democracy groups", NGO's etc. But when that doesn't work as it doesnt appear to be working in Iran, for example, they tend to resort to the executive death squads, renditions, torture, vicious trade sanctions etc in softening up a country for aerial bombing.
I think the sanctions declared against Iran recently are just as Ron Paul suggests they are - a prelude to bombing and marching into another sovereign country, and whether they have a UNSC rubberstamp or not. Gangsters are needing fewer and fewer justifications for their military actions.
Mon, 2009-12-28 16:57
#16
AS that MSMedia news gatherer, the BBC told us, Sunday, Dec. 27:
"Tensions have risen in Iran since influential dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri died a week ago aged 87.
"Mr Mousavi' supporters have sought to use Shia religious festivals to show continued defiance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.
"Denied the right to protest, the opposition chose the highly significant festival of Ashura when millions of Iranians traditionally take to the streets for ceremonies and parades, BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says.
"The festival mourns the 7th Century death of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.
"Mr Mousavi came second in the June election, and anger at the result saw mass protests in Tehran and other cities that led to thousands of arrests and some deaths.
"Mr Mousavi has said the poll, that returned Mr Ahmadinejad to power, was fraudulent."
And as the veil of silence is pulled down over new events there, we may never know. "Mum's the word" . "Loose lips sink ships, " etc.
Mon, 2009-12-28 20:05
#17
Why do we have to assume that every major political uprising and movement in the Majority world is backed by the yankies. Is the assumption that largely brown societies cannot shape the futures of their respective nations without the help of white people?
That seems to be the vicious empire's long-time assumption, yes. And especially since prominent Yankees like Ron Paul write that the intellience agency for chaos and general mayhem is there and meddling in Iran as we babble.
Mon, 2009-12-28 20:27
#18
How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?
Why do we have to assume that every major political uprising and movement in the Majority world is backed by the yankies. Is the assumption that largely brown societies cannot shape the futures of their respective nations without the help of white people?
You said before that Iranian politics is copmplex and very confusing for outsiders. I would go further and argue that middle eastern politics in general is befuddling and that we should think twice before making shit for brains statements about what people in middle eastern states want
intellectualy arrogant post fucking baboons!
Mon, 2009-12-28 20:45
#19
That seems to be the vicious empire's long-time assumption,
Is it your assumption? Because it strikes me that every single time there is a massive wave of political dissent in a majority world country from Ukraine to Zimbabwe, the immediate response of a fairly sizable number of Babblers is to say "my god the CIA must be behind it!" Now, in times past the American government has been involved in changing governments. They shot the president of Congo in the 1950s, reinstalled the Shah in Iran, etc. but at a certain point shouldn't any good anti-imperialist acknowledge the possibility that a colonized society can organize an opposition movement on their own, and that opposition movements aren't necessarily controlled by Mormons in Virginia?
Mon, 2009-12-28 21:04
#20
Frustrated Mess
How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?
Why do we have to assume that every major political uprising and movement in the Majority world is backed by the yankies. Is the assumption that largely brown societies cannot shape the futures of their respective nations without the help of white people?
You said before that Iranian politics is copmplex and very confusing for outsiders. I would go further and argue that middle eastern politics in general is befuddling and that we should think twice before making shit for brains statements about what people in middle eastern states want
intellectualy arrogant post fucking baboons!
Why are you being an arrogant fucking buffoon? GV asked if there was any evidence the US was behind the events in Iran and I suggested the nature of the revolution, a color revolution, might just be the evidence, circumstantial, but nevertheless impressive, of US involvement. For direct evidence, I would suggest George W. Bush dedicating a fair amount of money to destablizing the Iranian government--not a secret to anyone. What would the destablilization program look like? A color revolution?
I would check your own racism. Why do you define Iran as "brown"? They're a fairly diverse looking group to me.
Finally, while I do think Iranian politics are complex too me, the same is not true for US foreign policy which is quite predictable and even transparent in its ruthlessness.
Mon, 2009-12-28 21:40
#21
How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?
People don't go out and get themselves shot just because the CIA paid them.
Mon, 2009-12-28 21:53
#22
... and that opposition movements aren't necessarily controlled by Mormons in Virginia?
Were there not political opposition groups there in Tehran in 1953 when the CIA also happened to be there as "observers"? And did it not result in a brutal US-backed imperialist dictatorship for the next quarter century?
The CIA and democracy are two separate and incompatible institutions as a rule of thumb.
Mon, 2009-12-28 22:03
#23
Frustrated Mess
How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?
People don't go out and get themselves shot just because the CIA paid them.
Very astute of you. And yet how many color revolutions have we witnessed so far? Remember Georgia? Did the CIA pay all those protestors who brought down the government or just the con man who led them into a militarist regime backed by the US and Israel?
Mon, 2009-12-28 22:26
#24
Left Turn
I do not at this point believe that the CIA is behind the protests in Iran. I will stand corrected if concrete evidence comes out to that effect, but I don't buy the idea that it's a US backed movement just because it identifies itself with the colour 'Green'. I support the Iranian people in their fight against the corrupt Islamic regime in Iran.
At the same time, I think we do need to be mindful of potential US involvement in Iran, and not simply call for the overthrow of the Iranian regime without making it clear that we oppose any attacks by US imperialism against Iran. If the US/Israel ect. were to attack Iran tomorrow I would oppose such a move despite what I think of the current Iranian regime. As Malalai Joya says, "No nation can liberate another".
Mon, 2009-12-28 22:33
#25
Frustrated Mess
It is not just the color Green, it is a series of factors that are similar to other color revolutions such as calling into question the legitimacy of the elections before voting even takes place. You say you don't "buy" that the US involved, but you base that on what? Faith?
I don't know that the US is involved, but I don't know that it isn't. What I do know is the the US has systematically surround Iran, engaged in trade war against it, had said it would fund destablization of the government, and has a very long history of mischief making and violence in the region. On the basis of probablities, it is far more likely the protests are orchestrated than not. But, sure, this one time could be different.
Mon, 2009-12-28 23:14
#26
I do not at this point believe that the CIA is behind the protests in Iran.
It's possible, and I'd like to believe it, too. However...
Independent investigative news journalist [url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh]Seymour Hersh[/url] said in 2008:
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.
[url=http://www.infowars.com/kissinger-calls-for-iran-attac-if-color-revoluti... Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails[/url] June '09
Balkanization of Yugoslavia and colour revolutions are the model for destabilizing what Zbiggy Brzezinski insanely refers to as the "arc of crisis" countries. I'm afraid that a large part of the world is being run by a tiny group of megalomaniacal psychopaths who should have been in prison a long time ago.
Mon, 2009-12-28 23:39
#27
Why are you being an arrogant fucking buffoon?
I apologize, and yes, I will check my racism in future. I will stand by my point however. Third world activists do sometimes act because of their ideals, not just because of the CIA.
The assumption that American power brokers ar ALWAYS involved in acts of majority world rebellion is wrong and imperialist.
Mon, 2009-12-28 23:45
#28
Very astute of you.
How do you tell when a uprising in the global south is NOT funded by the White House?
Tue, 2009-12-29 00:16
#29
Because $400 million earmarked for CIA shit disturbing in Iran might only be what they've admitted to? That kind of money thieved from taxpayers doesn't just grow on trees for things like colour revolutions and all that fancy stationary and personalized water bottles that go with the closed door meetings, renditions, torture workshops for the military, executive death squads, sword ops etc. It must be hard to keep up with how little they know of what's going down in oil-rich countries they are supposed to be destabilizing.
HANDS OFF IRAN!
Tue, 2009-12-29 00:57
#30
HANDS OFF IRAN!
Well would be nice if Mr. Obama stops giving aide and help to the Mullahs. We will finish off the bastards ourselves.
Tue, 2009-12-29 01:04
#31
It is not just the color Green, it is a series of factors that are similar to other color revolutions such as calling into question the legitimacy of the elections before voting even takes place.
On the contrary. Those of us who saw Iran in 1979 and in 2009 know that this movement is gradually becoming a carbon copy of the 1979 Iranian revolution (although in early stages).
Tue, 2009-12-29 02:01
#32
Before we get too carried away with "any enemy of Ahmadinejad is a friend of the people" thinking, I read in Wikipedia -- and it may even be true, perhaps someone here knows -- that Montazeri wanted the official religion of the state to exclude Sunnis and Ismāʿīlī's, and that Shi'a jurists like -- well, like him -- should have a veto over laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.
"When we say humans, it includes both men and women... you see, if people around the world want to say certain things about women for example being equal to men in matters of inheritance or legal testimony, because these issues pertain to the very letter of the Qur'an, we cannot accept them."
I don't doubt that a lot of good people are under attack in Iran at the moment. I just don't claim to understand what underlies this.
Tue, 2009-12-29 03:21
#33
Before we get too carried away with "any enemy of Ahmadinejad is a friend of the people" thinking, I read in Wikipedia -- and it may even be true, perhaps someone here knows -- that Montazeri wanted the official religion of the state to exclude Sunnis and Ismāʿīlī's, and that Shi'a jurists like -- well, like him -- should have a veto over laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.
Montazeri was a follower and top student of Khomeini who first came up with the concept of supreme jurist -pretty much the idea described in the above. In the debate over Iranian constitution in fall 1979, Montazeri and other Islamists successfully pushed the idea into the Iranian constitution. In later years (after his fall out with Khomeini over the execution of political prisoners) he started to move away from the concept, eventually almost completely rejecting it. Just before his death it was announced that he was working on a book on repudiation of the supreme jurist concept. Not only that, but a couple of years ago he was the first Shia mulsim scholar (and could be the first jurist in the whole muslim world, I am not sure) who issued a fatwa to support full civil rights for the persecuted Bahai minority, just short of accepting it as an official religion.
That said, as any other muslim jurist he still restricted himself on the issues explicitly mentioned in the Quran, e.g. discriminatory women's rights. Until the whole islamic view of Sharia and Quran as a static, unchangable set of rules are changed, few muslim jurists would dare contradicting it.
Tue, 2009-12-29 03:27
#34
I should also mention that Montazeri is being celebrated by dissident Iranians not as a religious leader to follow, but as a man of principle and conscience who gave up supreme power (and the chance to rule a country) in defence of the human rights of the Iranian political prisoners who were executed in 1988. His record before then was not spotless and it is not his religious edicts that the Iranian protest movement is looking to.
Tue, 2009-12-29 09:59
#35
Frustrated Mess
It is not just the color Green, it is a series of factors that are similar to other color revolutions such as calling into question the legitimacy of the elections before voting even takes place.
On the contrary. Those of us who saw Iran in 1979 and in 2009 know that this movement is gradually becoming a carbon copy of the 1979 Iranian revolution (although in early stages).
I don't think that's what you mean. It may very well be developing into a carbon copy of 79, but that doesn't reduce the similarities to CIA backed color revolutions elsewhere.
Tue, 2009-12-29 10:31
#36
FM, sanizadeh was there a few months ago during the protests and is Iranian. Perhaps we should take those with lived experience a little bit more at their word. It is quite easy to pontificate a half a world away while white and behind a computer.
Tue, 2009-12-29 10:44
#37
I don't think that's what you mean. It may very well be developing into a carbon copy of 79, but that doesn't reduce the similarities to CIA backed color revolutions elsewhere.
Well in that case perhaps we should examine whether those similarities are related to backing by CIA, or they are essential characteristics of any popular upraising against dictatorships. People do borrow ideas from other movements; that does not make it a CIA plot.
And by the way, if you think any CIA money could make people rise up against a dictatorship and risk their lives against bullets, you need a reality check. CIA money buys coups and dictators and wars. People revolutions are never bought.
That's not to say that foreign governments never try to fish in the muddy waters or benefit from instability in other places; however in this particular case and as Iranians, we could not care anymore.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:08
#38
FM: Is there really a need for condescending personal attacks? We have so few posters of colour on babble as it is.
Your post is really offensive - especially when we are lucky to have someone with personal experience (that you do not have!) telling his story.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:13
#39
In this particular case and as Iranians you should care, unless your concern for your nation is only as deep as your bank account
Wow.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:25
#40
Frustrated Mess
I don't think that's what you mean. It may very well be developing into a carbon copy of 79, but that doesn't reduce the similarities to CIA backed color revolutions elsewhere.
Well in that case perhaps we should examine whether those similarities are related to backing by CIA, or they are essential characteristics of any popular upraising against dictatorships. People do borrow ideas from other movements; that does not make it a CIA plot.
And by the way, if you think any CIA money could make people rise up against a dictatorship and risk their lives against bullets, you need a reality check. CIA money buys coups and dictators and wars. People revolutions are never bought.
That's not to say that foreign governments never try to fish in the muddy waters or benefit from instability in other places; however in this particular case and as Iranians, we could not care anymore.
Perhaps we should. I can't think of any popular revolution that followed to the letter a CIA backed color revolution, can you? (ETA: In fact, can you think of a popular democracy movement backed by the US at all?)
It is you my friend who requires a reality check. Like Doug, above, your perception is simplistic. Yes, the CIA stands on the corner and gives dollars to people to revolt. :insert rolly-eyes here:
The CIA has proven methds of creating dissent fomenting revolt. You think that would be obvious to you given Iran's own history from pre-1953 to present. Or did you miss that? What about Chile? Are you aware what happened there? Georgia? Ukraine? Is all of this new to you?
Fidel linked to the Great Satan Himslef, Kissinger, calling for just a color revolution in Iran. This is immaterial?
In this particular case and as Iranians you should care. If you don't think the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel would smash Iran and its population as easily as they have Iraq, you're not paying attention.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:26
#41
Frustrated Mess
FM: Is there really a need for condescending personal attacks? We have so few posters of colour on babble as it is.
Your post is really offensive - especially when we are lucky to have someone with personal experience (that you do not have!) telling his story.
Sorry, what color is he?
I don't consider it a personal attack as I don't accuse him of anything. He did say, "That's not to say that foreign governments never try to fish in the muddy waters or benefit from instability in other places; however in this particular case and as Iranians, we could not care anymore," and that caught my attention.
Does he speak for all Iranians? Would all Iranians agree they don't care if the current violence, bloodshed, and death is being fomented by foreign governments? I think he speaks only for himself and those comments expressing a lack of concern reminded me of the man the CIA picked to lead Iraq in the aftermath of that bloody war and continued occupation.
ETA: Nevertheless, I have removed from my comments the part I assume you consider to be offensive.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:33
#42
It really doesn't wash to see Uncle Sam under every bed when there's the much simpler explanation that a substantial number of people in Iran (though they be younger, more urban and more middle class than average) are fed up with being told what to do by theocrats.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:44
#43
Frustrated Mess
That may be true, but should you choose to investigate the color revolutions that have occured so far you will discover university campuses and student protest formed a fundamental aspect of all of them. To be honest I find it remarkable that the
- US can surround Iran
- that the US and Israel will direct war-like belligerance at Iran
- that the US would commit hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilizing the government, openly
- that the opposition will follow, almost to a T, the anatomy of a color revolution
- that Satan Himself, Kissinger, will publicy call for a color revolution
But over here people will say, "no, I don't believe it" and close their eyes to it. What more is needed, a "Made in the USA" stamp?
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:46
#44
Doug that is false. I had a conversation about this just the other night. For one the US is known to have started the coup attempt indirectly in Venezuela, had the coup taken hold would we be saying right now that the people were behind it, and not say the business class withamerican money sent for stirring the pot? Lets just look at Haiti and honduras....oh wait they also had coups that we are supporting against democratic elected government. Sometimes ocrams razor just isn't so, or perhaps the truth is too terrible to be considered the easiest solution.
Tue, 2009-12-29 12:59
#45
Frustrated Mess
NED is also active in Iran, granting hundreds of thousands of dollars to Iranian groups. From 2005 to 2007, NED gave $345,000 to the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation (ABF).[11] The group claims “no political affiliation” on its website, but is named for the founder of the National Movement of the Iranian Resistance (NAMIR), an opposition group to the clerical regime founded in 1980. According to the group’s website, Boroumand was murdered by agents of the Iranian government in Paris, France, in 1991.[12] The website is registered to the Boroumand Foundation, listed at Suite 357, 3220 N ST., NW, Washington, D.C.[13]
Another recipient of NED grants is the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which received $25,000 in 2002, $64,000 in 2005, and $107,000 in 2006. The 2002 grant was to carry out a “media training workshop” to train participants representing various civic groups in public relations. The 2005 money was given in part to “strengthen the capacity of civic organizations in Iran”, including by advising Iranian groups on “foreign donor relations.” The 2006 grant was similarly designed to “foster cooperation between Iranian NGOs and the international civil society community and to strengthen the institutional capacity of NGOs in Iran.”[14]
The group’s president is Dr. Trita Parsi, whose parents fled political repression in Iran when he was four. He studied for his Doctoral thesis at the Johns Hopkins’ School for Advanced International Studies under Professor Francis Fukuyama.[15]
There is much more here from Foriegn Policy Journal, all with footnotes and sources, such as this gem:
In February, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested emergency funding from Congress to the amount of $75 million, on top of a previously allocated $10 million, “to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government”, in the words of The Guardian. The money “would be used to broadcast US radio and television programmes into Iran, help pay for Iranians to study in America and support pro-democracy groups inside the country.” The propaganda effort would include “extending the government-run Voice of America’s Farsi service from a few hours a day to round-the-clock coverage.” In announcing the request, Rice said the U.S. “will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country.”[20]
The Christian Science Monitor reported candidly on the “implicit goal” of the requested funds as being “regime change from within”, and similarly noted that “The money will go toward boosting broadcasts in Farsi to Iran, support for opposition groups, and student exchanges.”
Tue, 2009-12-29 13:11
#46
I'm not claiming that the US government is not involved in any shape and form, but it's taking advantage of real issues and political movements rather than instigating the whole thing.
Tue, 2009-12-29 14:43
#47
Because $400 million earmarked for CIA shit disturbing in Iran might only be what they've admitted to? That kind of money thieved from taxpayers doesn't just grow on trees for things like colour revolutions and all that fancy stationary and personalized water bottles that go with the closed door meetings, renditions, torture workshops for the military, executive death squads, sword ops etc. It must be hard to keep up with how little they know of what's going down in oil-rich countries they are supposed to be destabilizing.
HANDS OFF IRAN!
That didn't Answer my question. Never mind, it was dumb anyway. The Bolivarian revolution is an example of a popular movement that arose without U.S. support.
I do wish however, that we would stop speaking for middle easterners. We did it for Lebanon(the Labanese People want Syria to stay! No! The Lebanese people want Syria to go!)
We do it for the Palestinians( Marwan B. for president. He is the man Palestine really wants!)
and now we do it for Iran. We live thousands of miles away from the cradle of civilization. We don't have a telepathic link to every Iranian Iraqi or Lebanese citizen.
Tue, 2009-12-29 15:27
#48
It is you my friend who requires a reality check. Like Doug, above, your perception is simplistic. Yes, the CIA stands on the corner and gives dollars to people to revolt. :insert rolly-eyes here:
The CIA has proven methds of creating dissent fomenting revolt. You think that would be obvious to you given Iran's own history from pre-1953 to present. Or did you miss that? What about Chile? Are you aware what happened there? Georgia? Ukraine? Is all of this new to you?
Fidel linked to the Great Satan Himslef, Kissinger, calling for just a color revolution in Iran. This is immaterial?
In this particular case and as Iranians you should care. If you don't think the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel would smash Iran and its population as easily as they have Iraq, you're not paying attention.
I don't need to read foreign policy journal or enlighted web sites or read Kissinger to know who is fomenting dissent. I know full well where the dissent comes from; have felt it myself, seen it with my eyes, and heard it from my friends. The Iranian government is THE only cause of dissent among its people. period. I am wondering if you had a chance to check the events, especially the past two weeks. Now If you are not following the news of what is happening in Iran, your ignorance of the situation is really your own fault. You don't have to rely on MSM. Read weblogs; even English versions of local Tehran newspapers are available.
{editted - Thanks for taking the insulting part out, and I removed my response here too}
Regardless of all efforts by the US and other powers, their influence on the events inside Iran has been at a minimum since 1979, and that includes now. That was because the 1979 revolution triumphed with almost unanimous popular support. Then, for decades we were told that if we don't stay quiet and hold our dissatisfaction, the "enemy" would benefit. Well, That's just as much one could take. A government with no popular support will start gving away the nation's rights right and left, as Ahmadinejad's government has started to do so. Only a government based on true popular support can stand against outside threats. So bringing down this tyrannical regime is a prerequisite for protecting Iran against its enemies.
Tue, 2009-12-29 15:29
#49
If you were more familiar with Iranian politics, you would know that Trita Parsi's organization (NIAC) actively pursues restoration of Iran-US relations and removal of US sanctions, and is generally accused in the opposition circles of being an agent of the Iranian government. The other groups allegedly funded by NED are primarily monarchists whose names few have heard in Iran. If any of the current opposition figures in Iran had received aid from the US, would not you think the Islamic government would have used it against them in their trials? The sentences just came out. and not surprisingly, all the hue and cry about "foreign hand" has quietly disappeared from any sentences (except one poor journalist sentenced to nine years because he used to inteview foreign embassy staff). Every other arrested leader has received around six years based on two charges: opposing the government and walking in the June 15, million-man protest in Tehran.
Tue, 2009-12-29 15:59
#50
CMOT, the unmentionable country has just declared trade sanctions against Iran. It's expected that this will have the effect of re-uniting the country under Ahmadinejad against the west. There are a number of ways to interfere and meddle in another country's democratic process, and vicious trade sanctions is but one of them. People should be free to make democratic decisions without undue duress of trade sanctions or any other form of outside meddling. Why can't the unmentionable country just mind its own business?
Tue, 2009-12-29 16:18
#51
The Crisis of the Islamic Republic and the Tasks of the Iranian Working Class