Jerome R. Corsi, PhD, Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians, WND/Cumberland, 2005.
"Death to America! Death to Israel!"--Iranian parliament, October 31, 2004
Posted on 07/03/2005 7:20:48 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
At Friday prayers this week, Hashemi Rafsanjani appeared for the first time since his defeat and announced: "we have serious problems and we're faced with serious danger." His statement came amid the excited speculation about the part Ahmadinejad played in the U.S. hostage taking, and the hoopla surrounding Iran's head of parliament's first visit to Belgium and a cancelled reception. It seems Scott Ritter was right when he said recently: "The war against the Islamic Republic has begun."
Western Media Against Iran
In the nine days since the annoucement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the sixth president of the Islamic Republic, major world media have tried to paint a picture of Iran reminiscent of the early days of the Revolution. With references and quotes to Ahmadinejad inaugurating "a second Islamic revolution" and "establishing an Islamic administration," they have tried to create a harsh and extremist image of Iran.
Building Cases Against Ahamadinejad
Two cases are being built against Iran's president-elect in the international courts of opinion. The first involves Ahmadinejad's role in the U.S. hostage crisis. In recent days some former hostages have pointed to Ahmadinejad as one of their interrogators. These charges were immediately and strongly denied by Iranians who were themselves involved, but that didn't stop the Western media from repeatedly showing footage of the hostage situation and believing the hostages' side of the story. Iranian analysts say, "the U.S. was looking for an excuse and it seems they may have found one."
3. New Charges
Before this first case against Mr. Ahmadinejad had been put to rest, another one started. A member of Europe's Green party has plans to ask the judge to issue orders for the immediate arrest of Mr. Ahmadinejad based on information about his role in the political assassinations of Kurdish democratic leaders that took place in Austria.
4. America's New
The U.S. called the Iranian elections undemocratic and declared the election of Ahmadinejad a joke, and it also published a letter written by imprisoned dissident writer Akbar Ganji and demanded his immediate and unconditional release. The U.S also recently issued a law banning Americans from doing business with eight entities, four of them Iranian, stating that the entities are suspected of supporting activities that they shouldn't support. Moreover, the U.S. congress reintroduced a resolution supported by three hundred of it's members in "support of freeing Iran." The resolution referred to the Islamic regime as an enemy of the American people and and charged Iran with seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
5. Europe's Corroboration
The day after the elections, Germany's foreign minister visited George W. Bush and following the visit issued a strongly worded statement to Iran - the first of its kind. Recently Europeans held a conference on Iran where critics voiced various concerns. In addition, the British government announced that human rights in Iran are one the E.U.'s highest priorities. Perhaps it was this atmosphere that rendered Mr. Hadad's (Iran's head of parliament) visit to Belgium an unmitigated flop.
Are these actions by the U.S. and Europe what Mr. Rafsanjani is referring to when he says that Iran is in danger or does he have other information as well?
whooopppps... forgot the </I>
Damn! I sure hope that reads better in Arabic ... or Farsi ... or even Pig Latin than it does in English.
Persian!
"publicly admitting it will require that action be taken. Now."
We have a really big problem that prevents us from taking action against ANYONE. Actually, there are two problems. The first is that our military is so small that we can't handle it. The other problem is that the members of the Bush adminstration,who yank the chains of the military leaders at the Pentagon, have an extremely inflated perception of the capabilities of our military and, as a result, send in too few troops. And those that they do send in are blindfolded, hands-tied-behind-the-back and have their ankles chained to blocks of concrete. So they CAN'T win.
I can't really say if the problem is the result of the administration touting the incredible capabilities of the tiny military that results in the military brass being afraid to admit that we really need more troops to do a job (and a MUCH larger military in general). Or the problem may be that the military is informing the administration of needs but the adminisitration ignors the input. But there is a huge problem with this administration not allowing for decisive victories in either of the two wars recently undertaken.
Moslems are just defective, period.
Makes the Star Spangled Banner look a lot more lyrical by comparison don't it?
"And that guy was not among the hostage takers, State Dept just confirmed.."
Don't you know that you can't trust diddly that comes out of the State Dept.? Condi is trying to clean it up but it's still stacked with committed socialists and commies appointed by Cahtah and Klintoon.
Jerome R. Corsi, PhD, Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians, WND/Cumberland, 2005.
"Death to America! Death to Israel!"--Iranian parliament, October 31, 2004
LOL, I'd set some bigger firworks off under him!!
Or as a FReeper might put it, they are sooooo $krude.
What do you expect?
The President to wave a magic wand and have a bigger military suddenly?
It's a volunteer system. Offer more pay? - From where?
How did those words sneak in there, I wonder?
I am not meaning to disparage you in any way but if you were or are an f14 pilot then you are surely aware that the U.S. gubmt. and especially the U.S. State Dept has upon occation lied.
I personally wouldn't trust many if not most U.S. gubmt agencies any more then say Iranian gubmnt agencies.
I have asked folks from around the world about politicians from their countries and to a one everyone says their gubmnt lies and politicians are liers.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is indeed independent, and is free of colonial control by another coutry.
Its citizens are obviously not free or independent, but that's not what the lyrics are referring to.
I know that. It was a lame attempt at humor.
I'm having one of those days where I do not feel like being where I am.
Homesick.
No problemo.
Actually, I think the point is an interesting one.
In the movie Braveheart, Wallace leads a revolt for Scottish "freedom" from English rule, but which is still fully compatible with the traditional oppression of most of the Scottish people by their nobility.
A nation can be free when its people are not.
Need to define terms.
"What do you expect? The President to wave a magic wand and have a bigger military suddenly?"
You make it sound like the President has been trying to enlarge the military. There has been NO effort to increase the size of the military.
In addition, the rhetoric that has been coming out of Rumsfeld, et al, is that our military is smaller but it is lighter, faster and smarter. Lets' harken back to the opening days of the Afghan War where our troops were dropped into firefights with their 80+ # of high tech gear strapped to their backs. They were gunned down like animals in canned hunts. And to all of the stories that were coming out of how we had such high tech equipment that we were able to spot Al Qaeda caves with thermal imaging equipment from 20,000 feet. And that with all of our high tech surveillance equipment that there was no way that OBL would be able to hide or escape. And on and on and on about how we would "high tech" our way to defeating terrorism. In essence, we have been trying to fight a swarm of mosquitoes with a laser guided missle.
Add this to the fact that the military is being directed from some level to fight these wars in a PC manner. And we continue to "negotiate" with the enemy, fall for their ruses, ex: Several instances in Afghanistan including Tora Bora, several instances in Iraq including the embarassing fiasco with Al Sadr.
I don't mean to take away from the men and women on the line in our military because they are doing their best, following their instructions. But the way in which these two wars have been fought is a disgrace to our country. You will never defeat an enemy that has an intense hatred for you until you deliver a crushing blow to the enemy. This hasn't happened in either of these wars. In case you haven't realized it, we did not win the Afghan War because it is still going on. Think back to all of the hoopla from Rumsfeld about the "Shock and Awe" that was going to take place in Iraq. I'm still in shock and awe at the audacity of Rumsfeld to use those terms to describe the meager display of fireworks that were put on. While it was truly impressive that our military drove to Baghdad so quickly, it's even more amazing that they did not defeat the enemy on the way. The military has been directed (from some level, be it the White House or the top brass at the Pentagon) to fight these wars with kid gloves. And this is not going to win either of these two wars. The only thing it does is increase our casualties, decrease the signups for the military, lower the perception of our military abilities in the world and play into the hands of the Democrats who claim that the war in Iraq is a disaster.
Sorry to be so negative on Independence Day. But I think it is high time to realize that a "kinder, gentler" military with boatloads of high tech equipment doesn't win wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.