I agree totally. How do they do it though? Even though I don't think invading them is the right choice, how do we keep them from continuing to enrich the uranium? An invasion will only cause the population to side with the gubmint, but the population is too chicken shit to do anything about it. Maybe global sanctions will cause the non-hardliner Iranians to step forward and raise the shenanigans flag.
Well they are not going to believe in the Quran as someone else interprets it are they? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Iranians have been under sanctions since 1970. All it has done is make them feel more victimised/ Besides, the same strategy did not work in Iraq and resulted in the death of 500,000 children As the dog returns to his vomit, so the fool repeats his folly. Provebs 26:11
S.A.M. own vomit, its the west's fault, if Saddam had followed through with the Cease Fire, and had used the Oil for Food Program, for food and medical care for his people as it was intended instead of buying weapons and building more Palaces, and filling Swiss Bank accounts, would 500,000 children have died? so who is responsible for the death of 500,000 children? the moneys were available for their care, it was provided for under the U.N. and who kept it for their own pockets, the U.S.? or Saddam and the bribed of the U.N.
Shouldn't have supported him when he was using the chemical weapons you supplied him then; many children died because they could not get medicines under the sanctions.
You wanna back your claims up? Everything I find has the U.S. imposing sanctions on Iran not until the late 70s after the hostage crisis. I guess you're even going to say that Iran was justified in holding our civilians hostage for over a year, aren't you?
I dunno, what do you think they should have done to get rid of the Shah and his Savak, placed there by the US (after they organised the coup to displace the nationalisation of Iranian oil) and killing off Iranians against his regime for 25 years? And the sanctions are since the revolution (that word should tell you how bad it was under the Shah, it was mostly students who revolted). I just gave a general date, it should have read 1970s I think holding people hostage for a year is very civilised compared to American responses to imagined injuries. Compare it to Gitmo for instance
Oh yeah. I forgot you are a political expert on every single Arab country over the past 50 years. My bad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Shah > Amendidjob (or however you spell it) Amendidjad is doing a good job.....of getting his country politically and economically isolated from the rest of the world. Yeah, he's doing such a better job than the Shah. Good call there Spam. It doesn't take the whole population to start a revolution. And the population isn't happy with the current regime either. Arabs don't seem to be happy with anything. Apples and oranges, toots. While I don't condone Gitmo, it's purpose is to hold enemy combatants. All of the hostages in the hostage crisis were all civilians.
Iranians are not Arabs. The rest is more ignorance. There are journalists in Gitmo. I guess the US embassy qualifies as an enemy post. And this guy as an enemy combatant "Abdullah Thani Faris al Anazi has been held at Guantánamo since 2002; he "is a double amputee, having lost both of his legs in a U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan while he was employed as a humanitarian aid worker."" http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/med...7/09/04/Metro/Poetry.From.Gitmo-2948293.shtml
And what has changed as far as SAVAK? same organization, different master, and that master is killing off any who oppose the Regime, people disappear off the streets every day, out of their beds in the middle of the night, from their place of work, just say something against the Regime in Iran a see were it lands you. The stories of rape interrogation, torture, extra judicial murders, beatings, assassinations, all of the excess of SAVAK are still taking place only now they are sanctioned by the Quran' and the Mullahs, and Imams, Ayatollahs, how does doing it under the cover of the Quran and Sharia' make it better? As long as it is done in the name of Islam S.A. M. eats the vomit.
All medicines were available under the sanctions, there was no embargo on medicines, Saddam was just to greedy to keep the money for himself, and he failed to make the buys of the medicines for the health of Iraq's children, Saddam had the money flowing into the coffers of the Iraqi government to buy the food and medicine needed by the Iraqi Children, but were did he spend that money? Bribes? Palaces? Weapons? To fill his own Bank accounts? to buy whores for his sons? for himself? were did all that money go? it has been documented, it went to Saddam and his purposes, and the people be dammed, let them starve, let the Children die, Saddam was eating regular, he was eating high off the HOG, his stomach was full, and his avarice was sated, now tell me who is responsible for the death of those children, the Moneys were available, the Medicines were available, the Food was available, and who failed to buy it for the People and Children of Iraq? SADDAM the PIG.
hey Nick, Mike and Buffalo Have rasied a good point... these fuckwit leaders do fuck things up by interpreting religious texts for their own power and economicgain etc.. and that is half the problem. Humans in power are basically aresholes who just want to screw the rest of us over. however regime change shoudl come from within, butwith such brutal regimes it is hard for the people to take up action. if we can justify regime change in iran we best do Saudi arabia first. And enriching Urnanium is not a crime either, and the IAEA has not find any evidence to support that iran is building a bomb. I do have a real problem with these so called islamic society cos they are not islamic society and their will be no such thing as a proper islamic country or society as the "conditions" are not right for their to be one. it is a tricky one i am afriad ~~~~~~ cheers zak
Buffalo, the Shah was a brutal fuck, a totalatarian dictator equalling if not worse than saddam.. and yes their principle ally was the USA and US the US did give them a hole shit laod of support and actually helped start (provided all the stuff) their Nuclear program ~~ cheers zak
Guess you don't know the Savak was a secular force, huh? Totally trained by Americans (and some Israelis)
And when the change came the Ayatollahs kept SAVAK for their own enforcement arm, all they did was change the name, So tell me what has changed? The fact that the Ayatollahs are now the ones ordering the SAVAK detentions and tortures and justifying it because of their interpretation of the Quran' says they are justified? Yes S.A.M. eat more VOMIT, if it has been justified by, (as Zake said) some FUCK WIT AYATOLLAH, as being in the spirit of Islam and the Quran? Yes the Shah was brutal, but was he any less Brutal than the current Occupiers of the Peacock Throne? were his methods dictated by the Methods of those he opposed, the method of the Ayatollahs are just as brutal, and they wrap it in Holy Justification of the Quran.