The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Iranians Love America
Although written by a Liberal scholar from Chicago, the article has lots of great things about Iranian people's love and affection for America:
Iranians don't hate America. On the contrary, many of them envy Americans to an unrealistic degree and think of the US as a paradise, a land where no problems exist.
I personally disagree with some parts of it about the Iranians defending the Islamic regime in case of a foreign attack to liberate Iran, but you can definitely find positive things in the article too. It is a must read for those who want to know more about what is going on in a country where the next conflict may take place in a very near future.
Also an excellent interview with Iranian student leader on how to topple the Mullahs regime
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iranians Love America:
In 1935, Germans liked USA. Many considered USA like a paradise.
That did not prevent the nazis to wage a terrible holocaust.
If Iranians really love their country, they will take that regime down and show that they can implement democracy.
Even if Iranians like America, there still is the intention of wiping off Israel.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-21 12:17:22 PM
"If Iranians really love their country, they will take that regime down and show that they can implement democracy."
Remi your comment is somewhat not fair. Are you ready to sacrifice your life for anything in this World? To love your country. to support democracy, and to be willing to get killed for the ideals are totally different things. Though I agree with you that the motivation of the ME Muslim population to accept the Western values is axaggerated. That's why their culture is disntictive in the first place.
Posted by: Sceptical Observer | 2007-01-21 2:39:17 PM
After reading the interview with the Iranian Student Leader I will once again say, a lot of the problems in the ME may take a different turn with a few well placed and timed cruise missiles in the governing halls of both Tehran and Damascus. An unpredictable outcome and maybe not ideally what you want but could it be worse? No tyrant’s left, No long-term involvement, No ground troops at risk and minimal collateral damage.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2007-01-21 2:45:30 PM
Subject: ATLANTA AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Atlanta ATC: "Tower to Saudi Air 911 -- You are cleared to land eastbound on runway 9R."
Saudi Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. Acknowledge cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R - Allah be Praised.
Atlanta ATC "Tower to Iran Air 711 --You are cleared to land westbound on runway 9R."
Iran Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. We are cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R. - Allah is Great.
Saudi Air: " ATLANTA ATC - ATLANTA ATC"
Atlanta ATC: "Go ahead Saudi Air 911?"
Saudi Air: "YOU HAVE CLEARED BOTH OUR AIRCRAFT FOR THE SAME RUNWAY GOING IN OPPOSITE IRECTIONS. WE ARE ON A COLLISION COURSE. INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE.
Atlanta ATC: Well bless your hearts. And praise Jesus. Y'all be careful now and tell Allah "hey" for us -- ya hear!
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2007-01-21 3:01:01 PM
I'm interested on your take of a book recently released - "The Shia Revival" (2006) written by Vali Nasr.
It seems rather a refreshing look at historical happenings/what currently seems to be happening (in a positive sense) from what we are seeing on CNN/Glen Beck, etc.
Having not been pressed here to know much of anything about the Shia in the ME over the years, it seems that now is the time that attention should be paid to what is happening in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran in terms of just what this revival of Shia is all about and means within the ME.
What is important/happening there is bound to end up being important to the West sooner rather than later.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2007-01-21 4:46:28 PM
"Remi your comment is somewhat not fair. Are you ready to sacrifice your life for anything in this World? To love your country. to support democracy, and to be willing to get killed for the ideals are totally different things. "
While I have some sympathy for your reaction, I would like to remind you that there are numerous British, American, Canadian and other troops sacrificing their lives trying to bring democracy, etc. to someoneelse's country. If we are expected to expend blood and treasure to help them then the least they can do is help us by helping themselves.
Otherwise, there is no reason why we shouldn't just drop ordnance from on high at little risk to ourselves IF it came to exchanging blows.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-21 5:23:28 PM
Calgary Clipper, I have not read that book and cant comment on it but my views of Mr. Vali Nasr is negative.
Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-21 6:46:17 PM
This reminds me of Chalabi, an Iraqi exile, who successfully spread his lies about Iraq's WMD programs. This con-man (though not alone) fooled the Pentagon and the US administration into the Iraq invasion (how difficult is it to fool the fools?).
I guess he too had some story tales about how much Iraqis love Americans.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-21 8:56:53 PM
"This con-man (though not alone) fooled the Pentagon and the US administration into the Iraq invasion ."
So if the US administration was fooled by this man and others, as you say,
Bush is head of the US administration
Bush was fooled by this man and other.
Bush did not lie about WMDs. He was a victim of someone else's lies.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-21 9:03:51 PM
that reasoning is fragmentary, to say the least: having been fooled does not exclude having lied.
Notwithstanding the above, I would not state, that Bush was lying, as that presumes, that he had known the facts. I don't think that even if he had been told about the truth, he would have comprehended the difference.
Not as if that would be an important aspect. The head of the executive of any state/country is *required* to lie under circumstances; this is part of the job description. If someone has reservations about that, he is clearly not up to the job.
Example: Eisenhower hated that, but he thought it is better for the US to lie about the U2 spy flights - and he did. (Bad luck, Khrushchev was fooling him.)
Roosevelt most probably not only lied, but he was a traitor in the Pearl Harbor raid issue - but he did it, because he thought that that was the best for the country.
If the ultimate decision maker decides to lie, that may be good or bad, depending on the situation; what is more important, how that will be viewed later. For example most people would probably agree today, that the US *needed to* enter the war, but the majority of the population did not want to (that time), they had to be fooled into it.
However, the "servants" of the decision makers *must not* pre-emt such decisions. Their task is to give enough information to the decision makers. Anything else is high treason.
On the other hand, if the decision makers induce the "servants" to such lies, for example by anticipating certain outcomes of investigations, certain information, etc. then they are guilty on their own. Apparently this is, what happened in the White House; Bush did not say "cook me the intelligence", but everyone knew, that he was desperately looking for some justification to invade Iraq.
State Secretary Powell, on the other hand, does not have this excuse. He was lying to the people of the US, the entire world (through the UN) and, the worse, he was lying to his boss as well.
Though perhaps people will read in a few decades, that Powell told Bush about the cooked intelligence.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-21 10:32:40 PM
What are you going to prove by ranting here?
You know, you are not even qualified to comment on Chalabi when poeple of Iraq (Ask any Iraqi-Canadian fellow) appreciate what Chalabi did for the country. He simply asked for help to liberate his own country. Whats wrong with it?
And guess who helped him? USA did, while liberal gov't of Canada stood aside and did nothing...
Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-21 11:42:46 PM
Cato preaches from the same old tired book of the "bat"/BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) practically verbatim, instantly removing him from any serious debate.
Simply ignore him.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-21 11:58:30 PM
The Chretien government has not done much good for Canada, but staying out of Iraq's invasion made up for much wrongdoing (but not enough to be absolved).
Perhaps you have not noticed it yet: Harper too removed himself from his unconditional support of the Iraq war, with very good reason. It was stupid of him that time to blather unnecessarily. Hope he learned from it.
As to the opinion of Iraqi-Canadians: it is irrelevant, what they think. The only relevant factor is, what those Iraqis think, who face the consequences, not the traitors, who are hiding in safe places, waiting for the destruction of their country (even furthering it), like you.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-22 12:04:36 AM
"On the other hand, if the decision makers induce the "servants" to such lies, for example by anticipating certain outcomes of investigations, certain information, etc. then they are guilty on their own. Apparently this is, what happened in the White House; Bush did not say "cook me the intelligence", but everyone knew, that he was desperately looking for some justification to invade Iraq."
Is this a fabrication on your part? Are you able to back this up with substance.
I always read his actions as a good police detective investigating a prime suspect. He found no evidence of direct involvement in the original crime but in the process of investigating he exercised a previous outstanding warrant for the suspect's arrest.
The left wants to treat terrorism as a criminal matter. He they go. Have at 'er.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-22 5:57:00 AM
Apparently, Cato and his ilk confuse critical thinking with criticism.
The latter, of course, offers no solution ... just constant whining.
Wikipedia's ‘critical thinking' is a must-read for anybody who would be serious about searching for answers.
Activists like Cato never come up with better alternatives because their methodology is fundamentally flawed.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-22 10:05:57 AM
Is that Cato still whinning away?
Sounds to me, more and more, like a cat in heat!
Reminds me of folks who oppose violence, so they attack Israel, by saying that Israel has no right to respond when terrorists send rockets and kill her citizens, while defending the terrorist actions. They say that Israel should take down the fence, because it violates movement rights, while not considering the fact that the fence has saved more lives than any other action performed by Israel to date!
And, from what I have gathered in the media, some of the Arab lobby appears to have reached the ears of Mr McKay. he cam out with that age old concern, that the fence, the security fence, will one day become an Israeli border.
Well, the question that ought to be possed, is "Is it reasonable not to have a fence inbetween people who are being attacked and murdered by a group of terrorists who do not acknowledge your right to exist in the first place?"
The only answer to that is that since the attacks by the terrorist are not legitimate in the first place, that a fence is logical. And, since it works, its existence is a good thing. Saves lives on both sides. Jerks like Cato though, they only see the fence and will not acknowledge that lives have been saved, and that it has been done out of good actions. They are like that because they are plugged into the terrorist lobby, and hooked up to their political love-drugs, or whatever. They have been brainwashed with one side, and could not steer themselves through critical thinking, if their lives depended on it! So, they promulgate the terrorists positions, all the while ignoring the facts and the sheer realities of the situation, that lives must be saved.
My position on the fence is that I am opposed to this line becoming the border of israel. the actuall border of israel should include that which is historical Israel.
I can hear Cato whinning... meeeoooooowwwwrrrrrrggggghhhhhhheeeeeoooorrrggghhh!, like a cat in heat....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-22 1:06:19 PM
Not, not really; that was an understatement.
"Are you able to back this up with substance."
Yes I am. Had you really been looking for relevant information, you too would be able to.
"He found no evidence of direct involvement in the original crime, but in the process of investigating he excercised a previous outstanding warrant for the suspect's arrest"
There are many apologies for Iraq's invasion in circulation. This one is award-worthy among them; it incorporates all important elements in one: ignorance, stupidity, arrogance.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-22 4:16:05 PM
"There are many apologies for Iraq's invasion in circulation. This one is award-worthy among them; it incorporates all important elements in one: ignorance, stupidity, arrogance."
Thanks. I try to make my arguments all-encompassing.
"Yes I am. Had you really been looking for relevant information, you too would be able to."
As I am ignorant, stupid, and arrogant, please fill in the details of your discovery on the evidence that Bush's underlings cooked the books on intelligence for him or that he was desperately seeking an excuse to invade as opposed to compiling an indictment.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-22 4:22:45 PM
I have no intention to be dragged in another of your childish, inconsequential discussion (see for example "as I am ignorant, stupid, and arrogant...").
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-22 6:22:46 PM
"I have no intention to be dragged in another of your childish, inconsequential discussion (see for example "as I am ignorant, stupid, and arrogant...").
That's odd. I thought you were the one to originally use those words. Additionally, you have now added childish to your list of debating points.
Is this all the proof you have that Bush's people phoneyed the intelligence for him? Or is this the proof that Bush was looking for any justification to invade Iraq?
Seems pretty weak to me in either case.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-23 6:15:05 AM
I'm still waiting for the substantive proof that you claim to possess.
And while you are at it, how about proving this?
"Roosevelt most probably not only lied, but he was a traitor in the Pearl Harbor raid issue - but he did it, because he thought that that was the best for the country."
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-23 5:03:52 PM
Looks like the persian kitty-kitty is too busy licking his wounds, to bother responding....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-23 5:22:00 PM
"I'm still waiting for the substantial proof that you claim to possess"
I don't think this forum is a suitable substitute for reading the available information and studying history. There are masses of related writings around, but they are useless for those, whose mind is already set.
Anyway, I give you a jump start, but this is the end of my co-operation in this subject: read first "How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence" (New York Times, 2003-10-03).
"And while you are at it, how about proving this?"
I posted my opinion, which is based on my knowledge of history. I don't give a fig for your agreeing on it. Why don't you post your own opinion on it? Make a search if you lack the necessary knowledge.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-23 6:10:28 PM
Thanks for the reference. I will try to read it although I'm sure I've heard the arguments before from various sources and remain unconvinced.
Perhaps you can point to the specific piece of evidence that conclusively proves your contention.
Additionally, which is your contention, anyway?
That the underlings fixed the intelligence? Or
Bush was looking for justification as opposed to making an indictment?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-23 6:19:02 PM
"I posted my opinion, which is based on my knowledge of history. I don't give a fig for your agreeing on it. Why don't you post your own opinion on it? Make a search if you lack the necessary knowledge."
Fair enough. It was an opinion. I, personally, don't believe Roosevelt intentionally left Pearl Harbour open to attack to get the US into the war. Letting your major military assets be destroyed so you can get into a war where you will then need to use them seems a bit daffy.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-23 6:24:23 PM
"Letting your major military assets be destroyed so you can get into a war where you will then need to use them seems a bit daffy"
This is a sound reasoning, at least at the first sight. However, it is not so sound after a closer look:
- the biggest military assets, the aircraft carriers, were ordered away from there,
- Roosevelt and the US military thought the ships were safe, protected in the relative shallow water of the harbor against torpedos dropped from airplanes. They could not know, that the Japs have developed new torpedos (based on new English torpedos), which were very effective in shallow water. These torpedos caused most of the damage to the ships in the harbor. (Plus, the Japs developed new bombs against ships.)
This is a big subject, not for this forum, and anyway, I don't have any information on it, which is not publicly available (i.e. you can inform yourself the same way I did).
For example I have not read the transcripts of telephone conversations between Roosevelt and Churchill, though I wonder, why they are still not released. I have not read the transcripts of the intercepts of Japanese military communications by the English (who were much ahead of the US in decoding them), I only wonder, why they are still not released.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-24 11:33:41 AM
Cato: In your quotes of the NY Times, you failed to quote them saying that Saddam was 1 year away from an active nuke before the U.S. invasion in 2003. He did have WMD's. The NY Times even said so, and they are certainly no friends of GW.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-01-24 12:53:16 PM
Just a thought, but maybe it is not so much the USA they hate but rather their foreign policy?
Or maybe they admire all the riches that (supposedly) everybody in the US has until they realize that they are in some degree paying for it?
Could it be?????
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-24 2:45:32 PM
"Or maybe they admire all the riches that (supposedly) everybody in the US has until they realize that they are in some degree paying for it?"
Could you please elaborate on just how "they are in some degree paying for it"?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-24 3:47:15 PM
"- the biggest military assets, the aircraft carriers, were ordered away from there,"
Was it standard operating procedure so there is no big revelation here?
Were they sent on a patrol mission just in case?
Was it to save them from a possible attack which might suggest Roosevelt was not leaving his fleet open to attack intentionally?
These are but sample questions that imply perfectly reasonable explanations for actions taken during that time frame.
The lack of transcripts being released is not evidence one way or the other. That too could be easily explained with no sinister intentions.
Anyway, that aside, and I mean this question respectfully,
Whom do you believe orchestrated 9/11?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-24 3:54:53 PM
"you failed to quote them saying that Saddam was 1 year away from an active nuke before the U.S. invasion in 2003"
That's right. Actually, I failed to quote *anything* from the NYT, except the *title* of a collection of related events and facts, which you probably did not read.
"He did have WMD's"
Finally; it's good to hear it, that they have been found. I assume you will call the attention of the US President to this fact, as he already gave up looking for them.
Btw, I'm sure you can explain, why the Iraqi army had no used any of their dreaded weapons during or before the invasion (perhaps they were all hidden in Saddam Hussein's bunker and he forgot to take the manual with him?).
"The NY Times even said so, and they are certainly no friends of GW"
That the NYT *said so* is meaningless. If they published *related facts*, then pls point them out to me, I would read them. I am interested to know the truth, so I am happy to see any proofs, no matter in which direction they point.
Note, that the writing I pointed at was published in October 2004. I hope, that the facts you are referring to have become known later.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-24 4:11:27 PM
"Who[m] do you believe orchestrated 9/11?"
As I am not conducting my own genuin researchand I am nit an insider, I have to rely on (or doubt) the generally disseminated information. According to that, it was al Quaeda.
I don't have much patient for theories, that the towers had been blasted from inside (had the Pentagon been too?), as I have not seen any explanation, how the dozens if not hundreds of people, who would have to be involved in this conspiracy, could be kept quiet. Perhaps all of them stayed inside?
(Though I am interested, how much al Queda had been paid for participating in this grand scheme.)
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-24 4:23:58 PM
After having re-read my post above, I realize that one could get the impression, that I doubt al Quaeda's role in the 9/11 attack. No, I don't.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-24 5:50:00 PM
Thx for the response. I am curious though about this
"(Though I am interested, how much al Queda had been paid for participating in this grand scheme.)"
What, if anything, are you implying? Paid by whom?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-24 6:04:03 PM
Nonsense. I was referring to the theory, that the towers had been blown up from inside - then that action would have to be co-ordinated with al Quaeda.
Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-24 6:07:18 PM
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-24 6:10:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.