The Leveretts on Why the United States Can’t Have an Effective Iran Policy Without Accepting a Truly Independent Islamic Republic

Earlier this month, Real News Network broadcast a two-part interview that Gareth Porter, the wonderful journalist and historian, did with us.  The interview focuses on our book, Going to Tehran:  Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but also delves into our personal experiences as (former) “insiders in the U.S. national security state.” 

In Part One, see here (or, for those who prefer to use YouTube, here), we talk about our “rough transition” from being insiders to being sharp critics of America’s Middle East policy, especially vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic of Iran.  We also explain why the end of the Cold War (coinciding, of course, with prosecution of the first Persian Gulf War) was such an important turning point in America’s posture toward the Middle East and Iran.   

In Part Two, see here (or, for those who prefer YouTube, here), we explore what’s wrong with American “conventional wisdom” on Iran and what drives U.S. policy on the Iranian nuclear issue.  We also discuss how America’s determined but quixotic pursuit of hegemony over the Middle East means that Washington can’t abide independent power centers—whether that was Nasser’s Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s or the Islamic Republic of Iran today.      

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

 

174 Responses to “The Leveretts on Why the United States Can’t Have an Effective Iran Policy Without Accepting a Truly Independent Islamic Republic”

  1. James Canning says:

    Who are the fools arguing Iran should not be allowed to be independent?

  2. James Canning says:

    We should remember that the US wrecked the Anglo-French effort to overthrow Nasser in 1956.

  3. Richard Steven Hack says:

    A special appearance by yours truly…

    Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of assassination — former CIA analyst
    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/reneged-progressive-promises.html

    As I’ve said all along – he’s owned and operated by rich people who would kill him if he got out of line – like every other President.

  4. Smith says:

    British created, trained, bankrolled, armed to the teeth and supported terrorists behead priests in Syria: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/06/28/311232/usbacked-takfiris-behead-priest-in-homs/

  5. Smith says:

    Sineva says:
    June 28, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    US intentionally shot down flight 655 in order to raise the stakes for Iran. US was fighting to support Saddam in anyways it could. It was not an accident. It was not “criminal negligence”. It was an intentional war crime, sending a message to Mr Khomeini that US can engage in genocide if necessary to make sure that Iran does not win the war. Mr Khomeini accepted the “cup of poison” shortly after this incident in large part due to this war crime.

    Also, there was no comparison with Korean Airliner at all. In the case of the Korean airliner, US had put that airline in jeopardy by flying US airforce E-3’s for months in and out of Soviet airspace in the same area, teasing Soviet air defenses. Then mysteriously an American made airliner flies into the Soviet airspace and gets shot down by a beyond visual range interception. Officially it was the pilot’s navigational error that caused the interception.

    But such navigational error are extremely rare in commercial aviation industry. I would rather bet my money that the American made plane had been rigged to produce that error, fooling the pilot in command. These things are not difficult to do for a country that has manufactured the plane. Soviets had no way of knowing it was a commercial plane. They were under the assumption that US is again violating their airspace by E-3. The Americans are to be blamed for that accident. They went out of their way to cause that accident.

    The Iranian flight was within its flight corridor, was within Iranian air space, was following all normal procedures. The idea that it was a mistake/accident of any kind is only claimed by the war criminals. The criminal mindset is like that. Even the story that they concocted for it is so full holes that it does not stand up to simple engineering scrutiny. US said they “mistook” the airliner with the F-14. But the radar signature of the two is completely different from each other. The F-14 is of no danger to any ship or ground target since the Iranian F-14’s did not have any ground attack capability so the ridiculous American claim that the F-14 was attacking the ship was itself a lie.

    The flight 655 was squawking and identifying itself as a commercial airliner loud and clear on all the radars in range including the American ship. The ridiculous lie that the American ship picked up a squawk from a F-14 in a hangar in Bandarbas Airbase also goes against all engineering and Physics laws since the squawk is sent in UHF which is a line of sight frequency and there is no possibility that the ship could have received it from a hangar so far away. Not only that but fighters on the ground do not squawk at all. It was all lies. They shot it down on purpose. An act of terror. A war crime. A genocide. It was not their first. It will not be their last.

    Iran had nothing to do with Lockerbie. It is all rumors spread by American right wingers and war mongers. There is no substance in it.

  6. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty-jaan:

    Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s “Mafatih-ol Hayat” has taken the country by storm. If you are serious about wanting to translate it, I would recommend that you contact Mr. Khorasani at Esra Publications (the good ayatollah’s publishing house, ably run by his aqa-zadeh) at 011-98-912-752-2320 (that’s his cell #), telling him that you would like to take on this project. I would be surprised if his response isn’t that they already have plans for its translation, or that it is already underway (as it is a best-seller, and in any case they have plans to translate all of his works eventually). But, he is the person to speak to. If it moves beyond the first phone call stage, what you want to try to do is to get them to pay you their standard fee for the translation, plus give you exclusive overseas publication rights for, say, 10 years.

    As far as the Leverettes’ book, I suspect that it is already being translated also. Let me check with my friend Prof. Foad Izadi at the World Studies department of the University of Tehran and get back to you. That department is headed by Dr. Mohammad Marandi, who of course works closely with our hosts, and Foad would know the status of the book quite precisely, as he is a big fan of Flynt and Hillary, as are we all.

  7. kooshy says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    “Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of assassination — former CIA analyst”

    That’s standard BS, like Truman said if you can’t take the heat don’t ask to be the cook, this CS PS (like what they call him in the south side of Chicago ) don’t have a straight bone in his body it’s too late to make him up again he is done and he knows it.

    Best Regards

  8. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Lysander,
    Inshallah the martyrdom of that great man in Egypt will lead to many beautiful things in the world of Islam.

    The takfiris are showing their real face and it is courageous and noble humans such as you that have to stand up to them.

    Recommended reading: Nahjul Balagha, Sahifeyye Sajjadiyye, anything my Imam Khomeini, Tafsir al-Mizan Allamah Tabatabai.

    Keep us in your prayers

  9. Don Bacon says:

    what drives U.S. policy on the Iranian nuclear issue.

    The U.S. sanctions Iran for more than nuclear, although nuclear-related is the most publicized of it. Usually it’s summed up as: Nuclear, state sponsor of terrorism, and human rights.

    Sanctions bases:
    –illicit nuclear activities
    –human rights abuses
    –development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles
    –support for international terrorism
    –deceptive banking
    –computer and network disruption, monitoring, and tracking
    –evading sanctions

  10. James Canning says:

    Smith, Sineva,

    Will Rogers III, in command of the USS Vincennes, blundered badly when the American ship shot down the Iranian civilian airliner in 1988. Capt. David Carlson of the USS Sides (who was in the area at time of incident) said the disaster was the “horrifying climax to Roegers’ aggressiveness.” Wikipedia has good entry on this.

  11. Ataune says:

    @Caning

    Even if this was a “blunder”, wasn’t the following act a complete criminal behavior by the state for which Roger III was serving.

    The wikipedia entry to which you refer says:

    Rogers remained in command of the USS Vincennes until May 27, 1989.[13] In 1990, President George H. W. Bush awarded Capt. Rogers the Legion of Merit decoration “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer … from April 1987 to May 1989.” The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[14]

  12. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    June 29, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Nobody care about system malfunction and human error.
    Should the US have made it willingly that would have made 0 difference.

    The issue is the US military presence in the PG.
    The issue is that the US never apologized.
    You fully know what the issue is.
    And the shamefull deflecting of the the real issue on some system malfunction only derserves names.

  13. Smith says:

    Nuremberg is quite clear on war crime.

  14. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    US was keeping shipping lanes open in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War. Something wrong with that, in your view?

  15. James Canning says:

    Lord Lamont of Lerwick, chairman of the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce, has called for the UK to reopen its Embassy in Tehran. Good idea.

  16. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Rogers should have been removed from command of the USS Vincennes after the downing of the Iranian aircraft in 1988, in your vview?

  17. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: June 29, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Yaaas, no doubt the LL of L would seek to open an embassy in Tehran, but in a larger sense (and perhaps from vindictive motives), if I were Iranian I would not be so keen to have the British Chamber of Commerce embedded in my country. I’d make the British put up a significant bond for the privilege of a harbored presence on Iranian soil — perhaps the permanent return of the Cyrus Cylinder, and about a billion pounds sterling. The British need Iran more than Iran needs the British.

    Is Iran supposed to be the Jesus figure that turn’s the other cheek to Britain’s decades of predation and punishment of the Iranian people?

  18. Ataune says:

    What is your view?

    Isn’t it a state crime to decorate a captain who had “blundered” and killed 290 innocent people “for exceptionally meritorious conduct” ?

    Isn’t it heinous ?

  19. Dan Cooper says:

    Building for Armageddon?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35450.htm

    By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

  20. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    June 29, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    More than a billion Pounds of Iran has been frozen in UK since Iranian revolution. It has been devalued many times over by now in value, but it goes to show that England is not to be trusted.

  21. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    June 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    The US (under UK guidance as usual) engineered the Iran-Irak conflict in a typical divide and rule policy.
    The US sold are to both countries in order for them to destroy each other.

    Now you have the nerve hereto speak about the US to keep the shipping lanes open.

    Well, no need to say that it could not be done anymore, with Iran antiship missiles.
    In addition all your faithless comments only prove the need for Iran to obtain nukes.

    Are you an agent provocateur.
    Or only what seems at first sight meaning a perfidious brit.

  22. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning says: June 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    “US was keeping shipping lanes open in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War. Something wrong with that, in your view?”

    1) Firstly, US-backed Iraq started the Tanker War in the Persian Gulf, not Iran.
    2) Secondly, while the US prevented Iraqi and other ships from being attacked by Iran, it did nothing to prevent Iraqi attacks on Iranian ships.
    3) Thirdly, US carried out black operations against Iranian targets, luring Iranian gunboats away from territorial waters, where they could be destroyed:

    “The Americans often claimed they attacked the Iranian ships only after the Iranians first menaced neutral ships plying the Gulf. In some cases, however, the neutral ships which the Americans claimed to be defending didn’t even exist.”

    So yes, there clearly was something wrong with that.

  23. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    What is your view of the Iraqi attack on the USS stark, in the Perisan Fulf in May 1987?

    Are you arguing the US had no right to keep shipping lanes open, or that the US acted unfairly in exercising its right?

  24. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Why do you think Iraq attacked the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf in May 1987?

    What causes you to believe the UK wanted Iraq to attack Iran? Are you sure the Gulf monarchies were not pushing the scheme?

  25. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    I am not especially familiar with the circumstances surrounding the award to the captain of the USS Vincennes. Are you?

  26. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You tell me what is the issue, regarding US presence in the Persian Gulf?

    Is it a matter of protecting Gulf monarchies from Iran?

  27. Cyrus_2 says:

    James Canning says: June 30, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    Cyrus_2,

    “What is your view of the Iraqi attack on the USS stark, in the Perisan Fulf in May 1987?”

    That US support for Iraq reached such levels that it was willing to ignore the attack, and that the commanders of the USS Stark got reprimanded and degraded, while the commanders of the USS Vincennes received a medal.

    “Are you arguing the US had no right to keep shipping lanes open”

    If it told its attack dog in Baghdad not to attack tankers in the Gulf, it wouldn’t need to intervene to keep the lanes open.
    But I guess allowing Iraq to attack Iranian tankers was all part of the plan anyway.

    “or that the US acted unfairly in exercising its right?”

    That’s quite obvious, isn’t it?

  28. Sineva says:

    Cyrus_2 says:
    June 30, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    Well said!

  29. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2, Sineva,

    You claim the US urged Iraq to attack Iranian oil tankers?

  30. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2, Sineva,

    I take it you both agree the US has the right to keep PG shipping lanes open?

  31. Karl.. says:

    This is getting ridiculous.
    Fmr. US general accuse Iran on attacking holy shia sites!

    http://presstv.com/detail/2013/06/30/311594/iran-rejects-exus-cmdr-allegations/

    All made to pit sunni jihadists against shia.

  32. Cyrus_2 says:

    James Canning says: June 30, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    “You claim the US urged Iraq to attack Iranian oil tankers?”

    Who knows?
    After all, the US did give Iraq the green light to attack Iran.
    And by starting the Tanker War, Iraq gave the US a perfect excuse to join in.
    Convenient, wasn’t it?

    “I take it you both agree the US has the right to keep PG shipping lanes open?”

    Not in the way it kept the lanes open, by offering no protection for Iranian vessels, by framing and destroying Iranian boats under false pretexts, and by shooting down a commercial airliner in Iranian territorial waters.

    If Iranian army vessels act like that against British ships in the North Sea, do you believe Iran has the right to protect international shipping lanes in the North Sea as well?

  33. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    I cannot say I am currently well-informed about the particulars of hostilities between American ships and Iranian vessels during the Iran-Iraq War.

    I think the primary impetus for the Iraqi attack came from other countries in the PG. You will recall that a good number of threats were emanating from Iran, against PG monarchies.

  34. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    George Casey congratulated the MEK upon its being removed from the list of terrorist organisations.

    What Casey says obviously needs careful scrutiny.

  35. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    June 30, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    James Canning says:
    June 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    The us didnt urge the iraqis to do anything nor did they urge them to show any restraint when it came to the targeting of tankers or the use of chemical weapons.This was one occasion were us actions speak far more loudly and damningly than any official pronouncement
    The us didnt have the right to do anything,it made a choice to escort tankers and it chose to attack iranian naval vessels and assets all the while ignoring that its ally the iraqis were also mining tankers,indeed it was the iraqis who started the tanker war and carried out the bulk of the attacks

  36. Cyrus_2 says:

    James Canning says: June 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    “I think the primary impetus for the Iraqi attack came from other countries in the PG.”

    See point 5: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB394/docs/81-04-00%20Haig%20TPs.pdf
    Carter gave Iraq the green light to attack Iran through Saudi-Arabia.

    Given the importance of the Gulf, it’s hard to believe the US didn’t give Iraq the green light to start the Tanker War as well.

  37. Ataune says:

    Canning said:

    “Ataune,

    I am not especially familiar with the circumstances surrounding the award to the captain of the USS Vincennes. Are you?”

    I quoted from the wikipedia article that yourself refered too as a good read on the subject matter.
    To give an answer an honest observer needn’t to know the exact circumstances. You yourself qualified the downing as a “blunder” and you yourself refered us to the wikipedia article which factually write that the captain received from the US head of state a medal of merit after the “blunder”. Don’t you consider this as a criminal and henous act ?

  38. Karl.. says:

    Well well well..

    Argentina to probe Jewish ex-minister over AMIA bombing

    http://presstv.com/detail/2013/07/01/311728/argentina-exminister-faces-amia-probe/

  39. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Every one knows who did that. At the time, Argentine was transferring nuclear reactor technology to Iran for building power plants after having rebuilt the Tehran Nuclear Reactor. The bombing happens. The western media blames Iran. Argentine is lobbied. The Iran-Argentine nuclear deal is stopped by Argentine. Who benefited? That is obvious.

  40. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Did the Aegis system on the USS Vincennes fail to function properly? Did the manufacturer of that system want this fact concealed, if this is what happened?

  41. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Have you condemned Iraq for its attack on the USS Stark in 1987?

  42. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance, and Zbig Brzezinski, saw the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as part of a programme intended on securing direct access to the Persian Gulf. They were very wrong on this score.

    Were the Saudis threatened by Iran after Khomeini took power? Yes.

    Would the Saudis have reason to want Iran distracted or injured? Yes.

    I have no information on whether any US officials encouraged Iraq to attack Iranian oil tankers in the PG.

  43. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    What role did Bud McFarlane play in the secret programme to provide American arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War?

    You might do well to bear in mind the fact Alexander Haig, Jr., did not want the US to back Britain in Britain’s war with Argentina in 1982.

    Haig even concealed from the American defence secretary, the fact Israel planned to invade Lebanon in 1982.

  44. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    The portion of the secret document you linked underscores the US effort to keep oil prices from rising during Iran-Iraq War. Having Iraq attack Iranian oil tankers obviously would not have helped to keep oil prices from rising.

  45. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    If you are condemning the US for not trying to stop Iraq from using chemical weapons during Iran-Iraq War, I join you.

  46. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “What role did Bud McFarlane play in the secret programme to provide American arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War?”

    Relevance?

    “The portion of the secret document you linked underscores the US effort to keep oil prices from rising during Iran-Iraq War. Having Iraq attack Iranian oil tankers obviously would not have helped to keep oil prices from rising.”

    But oil prices doubled when Iraq invaded Iran.
    And Iraq wouldn’t have attacked Iran without green light from the US, which it got through Saudi-Arabia.
    So the risk of rising oil prices didn’t seem to bother the US that much.
    Consequently, the US might have urged Iraq to start the Tanker War as well as an excuse to join in and tilt the momentum towards Iraq.

  47. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You make a good point about the huge cost to the US and the EU, of Iraq’s attack on Iran in 1980.

    Unfortunate “hostage crisis” obviously played a significant role, emotionally. For Americans.

    Iranian threats to the Gulf monarchies played a very large role, from what I understood at the time, and continue to understand.

  48. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You ask why Bud MacFarlane is of any concern. He was Haig’s operative, in seeking Saudi funding of insurgents in Afghanistan?

    Israel was helping train “Contras”, for war in Central America. So was Argentina.

    Was Haig willing to allow Israel to grow illegal colonies in the West Bank?

    Bear in mind Sadat’s assassination in October 1981.

  49. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    The Gulf monarchies offered tens of billions of dollars to Iran, in 1982, in effort to end the war with Iraq.

    Surely you see a possible mistake by Khomeini, in not taking the offer?

  50. Smith says:

    As evidenced here, the white man is shameless. If it was an Iranian military system that had shot down a British Airways flight in English channels, I am sure the white man would NEVER NEVER refer to it as a faulty system. Rather he would invade Iran and kill 5 million Iranians for the fifty killed British. These people are fascists. The only way to put them in their place is to have a thousand nuke tipped ICBM pointed at them. They only understand the language of overwhelming force. They only understand when their culturally fascist country is at the risk of becoming a radiological crater. If a nation does not have nuke tipped ICBM pointed them, then these white men do not consider that nation as humans. As can be seen above the white man is talking about Iranians as if they are animals. What more proof you need?

  51. kooshy says:

    One just can’t believe the amount of nerve this two losers have the same two guys who constantly misread Iran now want to tell us how not to.

    رو که نیست سنگ پای قزوینه

    Why does Washington always get Iran wrong?
    Rouhani’s resounding victory sheds light on at least three factors contributing to a systemic misreading of Iran

    Trita Parsi is President of the National Iranian American Council

    Reza Marashi is Director of Research at the National Iranian American Council.

    “Trying to predict political developments in Iran can be a humbling experience, even for the most seasoned students of Iranian politics. The unexpected electoral victory of centrist Hassan Rouhani serves as a reminder of this stark reality. The Washington Post editorial board boldly proclaimed before the elections that Rouhani “will not be allowed to win”.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2013630111133190971.html

  52. Ataune says:

    Canning said:

    “Did the Aegis system on the USS Vincennes fail to function properly?”

    does it matter for someone who has a clear moral ground ?

    Even if the AEGIS system was the “cause” of the “blunder”, don’t you think that after the death of 290 innocent people, it is a heinous act to award the captain in command of the ship a medal for “exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer … from April 1987 to May 1989.” ?

  53. nico says:

    A long excerpt of Khamenei speech ?
    No, that is from Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard 1978.

    “Very well known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.”

    “How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

    This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

    The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

    However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.”

    “It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

    Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

    If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

    This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

  54. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    How many hundreds of thousands of soldiers died, due to refusal of Khomeini to end the war with Iraq?

    What was the “morality” of prolonging the war for years?

    If Aegis malfunctioned, surely the “morality” of the tragic shooting down of the Iranian plane is different, than obtains if it worked and the captain was simply too eager to fire.

  55. James Canning says:

    Kooshy,

    Bravo. Washington Post gets it wrong, time and time again.

  56. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    You do not think it is relevant whether the billion-dollar Aegis system aboard the USS Vincennes worked properly?

  57. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    Where do you get the idea Iranians are not “white”? Is the population of London “white”?

  58. Ataune says:

    Canning said:

    “If Aegis malfunctioned, surely the “morality” of the tragic shooting down of the Iranian plane is different, than obtains if it worked and the captain was simply too eager to fire.”

    Even if we presume that Khomeiny’s “refusal” caused several thousands additional death in Iranian ranks, my morality question was about awarding the captain, “who was too eager to fire” according to you, 1 or 2 years after his action caused the death of 290 innocent civilian by Bush. don’t you believe this act was heinous ?

  59. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    I simply do not have an understanding of what naval officers were commended, and why, during the Iran-Iraq War.

    The regrettable shooting-down of the Iranian plane should have entered the calculations that were made. I know nothing specifically.

    Didn’t hundreds of thousands of people die in the war, after mid-1982?

  60. Ataune says:

    @canning

    You don’t even need to know the facts to answer the question, although you were the one that brought them up as being “good” in first place.

    Just tell us, if a captain of a US military navy had brought down “by blunder” a civilian airplane and killed 290 innocent civilians, isn’t it a heinous act to decorate him afterward ?

  61. Smith says:

    Ataune says:
    July 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    There was no refusal on part of Iran to end the war. This is just another case of propaganda that western media has spread. There is no evidence for it. West at the time was pushing for Saddam to keep tens of thousands of square kilometers of Iranian territory. Iran was always on defensive. On the other hand, the British pushed to prolong World War II, even when Germany had sent their second in command to England for peace negotiations, the British imprisoned the German General and pushed for war. Iran just wanted victory while the White men was trying its utmost to make Saddam win. Even at the cost of genocide.

  62. Sineva says:

    Ataune says:
    July 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    Exactly,this was a man who had he shot down a saudi or jordanian airliner would have been court marshaled and if he was lucky “only” thrown out of the navy in disgrace,more than likely he would have been sentenced to a long prison term,there would have been no commendation no matter how meritorious his previous conduct might have been

    James Canning says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    There is no comparison between the two events,the attack on the stark was an incident of friendly fire,they were shot by one of their allies,sadly it happens in war

  63. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning says:

    “You ask why Bud MacFarlane is of any concern. He was Haig’s operative, in seeking Saudi funding of insurgents in Afghanistan?”

    I know, but how is that relevant to the Tanker War?

    “The Gulf monarchies offered tens of billions of dollars to Iran, in 1982, in effort to end the war with Iraq. Surely you see a possible mistake by Khomeini, in not taking the offer?”

    I used to think that way but not anymore.

    1) If Iran had accepted a cease-fire in 1982 Saddam would have continued to pose a threat to Iran.
    There would be no reason for Saddam to invade Kuwait to nullify Iraq’s collosal war debt he owed to the Gulf monarchies.
    But because the Iran-Iraq War financially ruined Iraq (and Iran as well of course) Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US intervened, and the Iraqi threat largely evaporated for Iran.
    2) After more than 200 years of military defeats and foreign humiliations, the Iran-Iraq war finally produced something of which Iranians can be proud of.
    The war most definitely defined modern-day Iran as a nation and it strengthened Iran’s leadership.
    Remember that everyone expected Iran to lose quickly, that 80% of its senior officers fled the country prior to the war, that Iran faced huge technical and maintenance problems concerning its military hardware, and that Iraq was supported by the two super powers of that time plus France, UK and Germany and the whole Arab world except Syria.
    3) In 1982 Iran had the upper hand in the war.
    How many nations would have accepted a cease-fire under these circumstances?
    Would the UK have accepted a cease-fire and billions of dollars in war reparations in 1943?

  64. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You appear to argue Iran had reason to expect success, in its demand that the regime of Saddam Hussein abandon power in Iraq. Was this “pie in the sky”?

    If Gulf monarchies had paid Iran 60 or 70 billion dollars, as reparations for Iraq’s invasion, would they not have written this sum off, and not demanded repayment by Iraq?

  65. James Canning says:

    John McCain this week claimed that if Bashar al-Assad is not overthrown in Syria, he will encourage Iran to build nukes. Rubbish, in my view.

  66. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Iran would easily have been able to congratulate itself for defeating Iraq, if it had ended the war in 1982.

  67. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    Was the Iraqi attack an accident? (On USS Stark, in 1987). But the shooting-down of Iranian plane was not?

  68. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    “The West” was pushing for Iraq to insist on annexing part of Iran, in 1982? You think the offer of up to $70 billion in reparations was a trick?

  69. Ataune says:

    Caning said

    “Was the Iraqi attack an accident? (On USS Stark, in 1987). But the shooting-down of Iranian plane was not?”

    The issue in hand was not that either act was an accident or not. Irak returned the favor more than enough to be excused for its “blunder”. On the other hand the captain that had “blundered” according to you was decorated. Don’t you think this State act, by someone who knew the detailed arcane of the political game in town, who you constantly chastisize his son as a stupid neo-con, was a heinous act ? A yes or a no will suffice.

  70. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “You appear to argue Iran had reason to expect success, in its demand that the regime of Saddam Hussein abandon power in Iraq. Was this “pie in the sky”?

    Iran came very close in capturing Basra, Iraq’s main port.
    If Iran had succeeded, Iraq’s oil exports and weapon shipments would largely have come to a halt.

    “If Gulf monarchies had paid Iran 60 or 70 billion dollars, as reparations for Iraq’s invasion, would they not have written this sum off, and not demanded repayment by Iraq?”

    As if Saddam would have accepted their demands and paid the money back.
    No chance he would have done that.

    “Iran would easily have been able to congratulate itself for defeating Iraq, if it had ended the war in 1982.”

    Maybe, but like I said the Iraqi threat would still exist.
    The US and the oil monarchies would have used him again to attack Iran if the latter became too much of a pain in the ass for them.
    And again, by lengthening the war, Iran’s leadership consolidated its power and gave it an opportunity to finish off the MKO.

    And please answer my questions as well: would the UK have accepted a German cease-fire and billions of dollars in 1943?

  71. Smith says:

    The white man is really a fascist of highest order. There was no offer of any money to Iran. This is another propaganda. UN documents are very clear on this. Britain was supporting Saddam with chemical weapons which he used on Iranians. And Britain should have accepted the Nazi peace offer in 1942. Typical of white men fascism. They compare a billion worthless dollars with lives of Iranians. As I had said above, if an Iranian system downs a British Airways flight in English Channel, then we would have known. The thing is the white men has one rule for himself and another for the rest of human beings (whom they consider as animals). For this reason and many others, Iran needs to have nuke tipped ICBM’s pointed at England. At five minute alert. This is the only way to keep peace in the world. This is the only way to prove that we are human beings too. This is the only way to have dignity. This is the only way to have respect in this world run by white fascists.

  72. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Saddam Hussein expected Arabs in Iran to support his invasion of Iran. Gross miscalculation. And Saddam knew the Iranian gov’t had killed, imprisoned or driven into exile most of the Iranian air force pilots. But Iran gained upper hand anyway, in the air.

    Iraq would have been next to no continuing threat, if Iran had taken the peace offer in 1982.

  73. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Consider Great Britain, in 1814. Very angry that the US had declared war at a time grave menace of Bonaprte and French empire. Yet made a peace deal that was intended to foster permanent good relations with the US, when obviously Britain could have insisted on taking territory.

    Iran had next to no chance of succeeding in its demand Saddam Hussein and his regime abandon power.

  74. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    Had Britain made peace with Germany, Italy, Hungary and other countries in 1942, The Soviet Union would have been crushed. (Assuming US and other allies went along with the deal.)

    Are you familiar with which countries were “fascist” in 1942?

  75. Smith says:

    “Vice President George H. W. Bush declared a month later, “I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don’t care what the facts are.” Vincennes Captain William C. Rogers, who was responsible for taking his ship into Iranian waters to pick a fight with Iranian gunboats, and Anti-Air-Warfare Commander Scott Lustig were awarded Navy Commendation medals in 1990.”

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/01/twih-j01.html

  76. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “Iraq would have been next to no continuing threat, if Iran had taken the peace offer in 1982.”

    Saddam would have attacked Iran again at the next opportunity.
    In the meantime he would have bought even more military hardware from the Sovjet-Union and the West.
    Didn’t he have the credo that God better had not invented three species, namely flies, Jews and Persians?

  77. Smith says:

    Look at human beings capable of protecting their Namoos and learn from them so that we would not have to come here and listen to fascists and rationalization for their genocidal tendencies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmuyxY5Ev54

    There is only one dignified way to go. And that is the above way.

  78. James Canning says:

    “A recent survey of 20,000 people in 14 countries by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Doha found that Israel and the US were seen as the top security threats.”
    – – New York Times, July 2, 2013.

    What a surprise.

  79. James Canning says:

    Matthew Parris, writing in The Times (London) June 22nd: “‘We’ are not the West; ‘we’ shouldn’t intervene in Syria”.

  80. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Saddam Hussein only invaded Iran because he convinced himself Iran was in too much chaos to resist effectively, and he counted on Sunni Arabs within Iran to fight on behalf of Iraq or at least to be hostile toward Iranian gov’t. Instead, hundreds of thousands of them fought for Iran against Iraq.

    I highly doubt Saddam would have attacked Iran a second time.

  81. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    I have a high opinion of G H W Bush but his “never apologise” stance was wrong, in my view.

  82. Smith says:

    BBC making fun of Syrians, Islam etc while supporting the heinous crimes of terrorist rebels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784

    Previously BBC was making fun of 13 year old Syrian girls being sold for sexual slavery and other instances of English supported rebel terrorist crimes.

    Imagine if Syria had nuke tipped ICBM’s pointed at England. Their Namoos would be safe today and BBC would think a million times before opening its big mouth.

    Iran must learn its lesson. Only nuke tipped ICBMs’ pointed at England on 5 minute alert can protect the Namoos of Iranians.

  83. Smith says:

    The first of four Aframax oil tankers built for Venezuela by Iran is ready for delivery: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/02/311902/iran-to-deliver-oil-tanker-to-venezuela/

  84. Smith says:

    موج زنده

    روایت هنرمندان ایرانی از حمله ناو آمریکایی به ایرباس ایران+فیلم

    http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13920411001155

  85. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning says:

    “Saddam Hussein only invaded Iran because he convinced himself Iran was in too much chaos to resist effectively, and he counted on Sunni Arabs within Iran to fight on behalf of Iraq or at least to be hostile toward Iranian gov’t. Instead, hundreds of thousands of them fought for Iran against Iraq.”

    You are wrong, at least partially.
    Saddam wanted to attack Iran since at least 1975, when the Shah renegotiated control over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in Iran’s favour.
    He also wanted to annex Iran’s oil-rich province of Khuzestan, which is predominantly Arab.
    Combine this with his fierce hatred of Persians, then you know he would have used every opportunity to attack Iran again.
    The turmoil of 1979-1980 provided him with such an opportunity.
    And bear in mind that the Shah, during his reign, feared that sooner or later war between Iran and Iraq would break out.

  86. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    July 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    The term “accident” implies that no one was to blame when in fact the blame is clear.The only common factor between the 2 is that both captains were guilty of gross negligence,the captain of the stark was reprimanded while the captain of the Vincennes whose negligence was far greater was given a medal,truly disgusting.

  87. Ataune says:

    When one is participating in a forum for debate which has the truth as its goal and when one is repeatedly asked to give his opinion on events as clear as water, that he himself brought up, what conclusion should be drawn after his refusal to do so: that he lacks moral compass and his judgements are not worthy of trust.

  88. Kathleen says:

    Kerry’s 3 a.m. diplomacy is greeted with skepticism, scorn, ridicule
    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/diplomacy-skepticism-ridicule.html/comment-page-1#comment-574869

    Keep contacting your Reps. Let them know that there are many American citizens who want U.S. foreign policy to reflect what is best for the U.S.

  89. kooshy says:

    As said before Europe has no sovereignty, no world leader can be safe anywhere in northern Atlantic, the US and her lapdogs in Western Europe due to their loss of power desperation are putting every international treaty they created to cabbage basket, if they think they can continue in this trajectory and overcome, they must be living in a fantasy land. I suspect from now on, like the case of western sanctions many of world leaders movements and traffic will need to be rerouted over safe countries, just like some of past world leaders like Gorge Bush can’t travel everywhere in the world freely. The world will be waiting to see where the west is heading I can’t see much good coming out of their current posture.

    Austrian plane search for leaker Snowden enrages Bolivia

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE9610C520130703

  90. yemi says:

    Ataune says:
    July 3, 2013 at 10:11 am

    That is it!
    When i warned many of our good people here
    not to engage him on crucial issues again.
    To me, he exhibits alot of fraudulent ways concerning analyses.

    At times he tells you telling the truth is unfortunate!

    I have been saying this guy is no different from others who
    tends to disrupt the truth about anything concerning IRAN.

    Please do not engage him seriously again, methinks he is hypocritical in nature.

  91. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    Are you sure the Iraqi pilots did not intend to attack the USS Stark?

    If Rogers was given a medal for shooting down the Iranian civilian aircraft, obviously I see this as unwise.

  92. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Clear as water? Muddy water?

    Do you think the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark in 1987 was intentional?

    The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967 was itentional.

  93. James Canning says:

    yemi,

    You think Khomeini made the right decision in 1982, to reject perhaps $70 billion in war reparations?

  94. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Chances of Iraq attacking Iran while the Shah was in power were: ZERO.

    Saddam thought he spotted an opportunity to take territory from Iran, counting on Sunni Arabas to favor Iraq over their own country, He was badly mistaken.

    You think Khomeini was realistic in his war aim (of insisting Shia control of a new regime in Iraq)?

  95. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    The BBC broadcast in the US yesterday disturbing footage regarding summary executions of children carried out by rebels in Syria.

  96. James Canning says:

    John Kerry continues to oppose inclusion of Iran in a Syrian peace conference. Very foolish position, in my view.

  97. Ataune says:

    @Canning

    Two facts, clear as mountain source water: US captain downed the Iranian civilian flight killing 290 innocent people in 1988, 25 years ago day for day. The captain was awarded a Legion of Merit based on his conduct from “April 1987 to May 1989” by Bush father.

    You opinied that this was a blunder by the captain. The question was: isn’t it a heinous act to decorate an officer which “inadvertently”, according to you, killed 290 innocents, yes or no. Your only answer so far, indirectly, was: you have respect for Bush father.

    Let’s others be the judge on how your sens of morality is directed.

  98. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “Chances of Iraq attacking Iran while the Shah was in power were: ZERO.”

    I never said Iraq would have attacked Iran while Shah was in power.
    I said the Shah believed that war with Iraq would be inevitable sooner or later, at a time when he was probably terminal.
    1) In the 1970’s Iraq was fastly arming itself, closing the gap with Iran militarily by 1980.
    2) The Algiers Treaty of 1975 stipulated that Iran had to stop its support for the Iraqi Kurds, providing Saddam with an opportunity to focus on Iran instead.
    3) There’s little doubt that Iran quickly concluded that Saddam, when he still was VP, was a bloodthirsty sociopath with an irrational hatred of Persians.

    Add up 1), 2) and 3) and it’s easy to understand why the Shah believed that Iraq would attack Iran sooner or later, which he did.
    Then it’s also easy to understand why Saddam would have jumped on the next opportunity to harm Iran if the latter had accepted a cease-fire in 1982.

    “Saddam thought he spotted an opportunity to take territory from Iran, counting on Sunni Arabas to favor Iraq over their own country, He was badly mistaken.”

    And what makes you think he wouldn’t have jumped on another opportunity to attack Iran after 1982?
    In retrospect, Khomeini was probably right in rejecting this so called peace-offer, as Saddam’s Iraq would have continued to be a threat.

    “You think Khomeini was realistic in his war aim (of insisting Shia control of a new regime in Iraq)?”

    In retrospect it’s easy to say it wasn’t, but in 1982 Iran was winning and almost conquered Basra, Iraq’s lifeline port.
    Because Iran was winning, the US jumped in to support Iraq, turning the tables again.
    Did the British believe that they would win the war in 1941?
    Or did the Germans believe they would lose?

    Simply said, in 1982 Iran was winning and Iran’s leadership then rightly concluded that Saddam had to be crushed or he would contiunue to pose a huge threat to Iran.
    Ultimately, Iran’s leadership reached its goal because the Iran-Iraq war left Saddam with such an enormous debt and an extremely powerful military that he invaded Kuwait, and the rest is history.

  99. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    July 3, 2013 at 1:38 pm
    “John Kerry continues to oppose inclusion of Iran in a Syrian peace conference. Very foolish position, in my view.”

    Ridiculous an laughable statement. As usual.

    The Syria issue is all about Iran and dominance in the ME.
    Should the US let Syria go, then it would be the final blow to their nonsensical and miserable strategic failure in the ME.
    The Syrian issue will never ever be settled amicably.
    One side needs to lose face and be trampled upon.
    At least it is the US strategic course and how they set standard for world management since the end of the cold war.
    The US chose to be immoral and unlawfull criminal unleashed by the lack of power check and balance and balance with USSR.

    That is the US civilizational choice, and obviously the root of their final demise as the uncessary, unjust and tyrannical sole world superpower.

    Truly a civilizational and moral disgusting failure.

  100. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You think it is “ridiculous” for me to think Kerry should not block Iranian participation in a Syrian peace conference?

    Which party was shamed, by the lifting of sanctions against Burma?

    Which party was “humilitated”, when the whites turned over power in South Africa?

  101. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You appear to think Britain and the US would not have allowed Iran to crush Iraq. I think you are correct. And you still think Iran was wise to attempt what you concede was impossible?

  102. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Many hudreds of thousands of people died because Iran refused to make peace with Iraq in 1982. Including, sadly, the 290 people aboard the Iranian civilian aricraft.

    And you think you are on the moral high road?

  103. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    July 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    “Nico,You think it is “ridiculous” for me to think Kerry should not block Iranian participation in a Syrian peace conference?”

    Absolutely.

  104. Ataune says:

    @Canning

    “And you think you are on the moral high road?”

    I never pretended such a thing in this forum. My aim here is to distinguish truth from falshood through discussion. I am not looking to provide moral legitimacy for my political agenda. You displayed yourself as failing in the moral judgement and therefore opinions.

  105. Smith says:

    “India capable of launching a nuclear strike with in MINUTES. India striving to develop capability to launch nuclear strike at ANYWHERE and ANYTIME”: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indias-nuclear-counterstrike-response-time-to-be-in-minutes-drdo-chief/1/286691.html

    This country then judges Iran’s “proliferation” at international arena.

  106. Karl.. says:

    James

    “John Kerry continues to oppose inclusion of Iran in a Syrian peace conference. Very foolish position, in my view.”

    Why would US accept Iran in syrian talk?! Iran is the very reason US are involved in the syrian case!

  107. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Russia thinks Iran shouuld participate. This to me is a very good reason the US should accept Iranian participation in the peace conference.

  108. James Canning says:

    Ataune,

    Tell me, what “falsehood” have I stated. regarding Iran-Iraq war?

  109. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Are you arguing Kerry is quite right to oppose Iranian participation in a Syrian peace conference?

  110. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Morsi calls Shias kafirs…and then next thing you know…

    Qatar pours billions into the Syrian war…gets its ass kicked by Hezbollah and Syrian army…old fatty in Doha abdicates…

    Erdogan…well he’s still around…after neutering the army first…

    Muslim Brotherhood really wishes it had a military wing tonight.

    God bless Imam (r) and Sepah for protecting our revolution.

  111. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Covert United States foreign regime change actions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

    Wikipedia editor “Note to self: Add ‘Egyptian coup d’etat 2013’ to list”.

  112. Smith says:

    A youngish Egyptian man employed by the US controlled Egyptian army was sent to England for “further training” in 1990’s. Then he is posted in sensitive positions until in 2006, he is sent for even “further training” to United States. The guy then is appointed as head of Egyptian intelligence just before “Arab Spring”. After the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mobarak, he becomes the chief of Egyptian army. Then he overthrows the government. Standard US/British textbook example of a coup.

  113. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    July 3, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    James you make some stupid statements but that really takes the cake.The us was iraqs ally in the war why in the name of god would the iraqis attack their own ally?,you seem to be trying to present these events as tho they were morally equivalent in some way,the only similarity is that both captains were guilty of gross negligence,one was punished the other given a medal

  114. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    July 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    And many millions died because the british would not make peace with hitler when he offered it,hows that for moral equivalence.Had iran not bled saddam white and bankrupted him he would still be in power today most probably armed with nuclear,chemical and biological weapons and posing an enormous threat to iran and the region,and lastly why on earth would iran have accepted a peace that would have rewarded saddam for his aggression by leaving him occupying iranian territory

  115. Sineva says:

    Ataune says:
    July 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    Well said!

  116. Ataune says:

    @canning

    When a lad’s moral compass is broken his opinions can rarely drive you to the direction of truth.

  117. Smith says:

    With Morsi gone, the political sunni Islam nears even further to its eventual demise. Watch for a battle between secularists and the wahabis in those lands.

  118. humanist says:

    I wonder why my comment didn’t go through?

  119. Persian Gulf says:

    Guys

    Haven’t you heard of this; that old British guys are dangerous. You won’t get anything positive out of them. Nobody trust them anyway. In almost anything they say there is a trick. Don’t waste your time. Instead of getting angry at him, you can post in many other comment sections and be more effective in spreading your message, if that is your intention. There are sane British people out there too. They are not that many though imho.

  120. Karl.. says:

    Smith

    Demise? They would rather double down on their efforts now when they got illegally unseated in Egypt and who can blame them?

  121. Smith says:

    The Great President Ahmadinejad addressing the nation for the last time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScfWFLsj3gw

    I thank him personally. He is truly one of a kind ruler in long history of Iran. May rulers after him learn and emulate him.

  122. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 4, 2013 at 12:48 am

    I guess then you may not know how military coups in relation to political structure works. This is not a current western society and democracy we are talking about. Right now the entire MB leadership is in prison. In Egypt MB failed to create a political structure based on their ideology capable of delivering to the people. This is a failure. Illegally unseated? Yes. But also failed miserably too. Compare with Iran; not that you can ever compare Imam Khomeini with Morsi, but in Iran, he devised a political structure that has survived and thrived, despite Iran being under much harsher conditions during the years Iran was building its political structure. Did Morsi work to make the security situation better? Did he try to deliver health care to the poorest of Egyptian people? Did he work to bring about a universalist educational policy?

    In the very first year of Iranian revolution, the government clearly set its goals publicly that their aim is to deliver services to rural areas (jehad sazandegi), help to make Iranians buy homes (with subsidized mortgages), spread access to education, etc etc. In the context of a viable modern political structure, the Sunni Islam has failed miserably. Shia Islam has thrived by comparison. This is a critical difference. As for MB and whether they will “double down on their efforts” whether in Egypt or other Arab nations, we will see. In the past one week they were being gunned down. As another poster above noted, they might be regretting that they did not have a military wing to show to the army that any intervention on their part would be going towards a bloody civil war. So they might form military wing now. Would it help Egypt? I do not think so. What a progressive nation needs is a socio-political structure that allows it to advance, not street gun battles.

    The opposition to Morsi is not singularly secularist (though the army is currently on their side). The prominent opposition to Morsi and every one else in Egypt is wahabism that is spreading there. This opposition exists in the poorest part of the society and is going to be the strong. With secularists fighting MB now, the wahabis are going to become even stronger. This is where the argument lies. The Sunni Islam does not have a center of gravity to allow it to make a working political structure. It is either secularism for them (most under dictatorial rule) or the barbaric carnage of wahabism. Let’s see what direction Egypt will move to.

  123. Smith says:

    humanist says:
    July 3, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    Too many bare hyperlinks perhaps. Gone to moderation, I assume.

  124. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “And you still think Iran was wise to attempt what you concede was impossible?”

    Again, in retrospect it’s easy to say this, but in 1982 the situation looked quite differently when Iran was on the winning hand.
    Should the UK have surrendered to the Germans if he US and Sovjet-Union didn’t join in?
    In 1941-1942 you would have said ‘yes’, probably.

    Anyway, Iran took the right decision not to accept the cease-fire because by carrying on the war Saddam eventually got crushed by the US.
    He wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait shortly after 1982 because:
    1) Iraq wasn’t hugely indebted to the oil monarchies, namely Kuwait.
    2) Oil prices were very high in the early 1980’s but very low at the end of that decade, partially because Kuwait sharply increased its oil output.
    3) Saddam’s army was powerful, but not as powerful as in 1990.
    4) If I am not mistaken Iraq was still on the US terror list in 1982.

  125. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “Many hudreds of thousands of people died because Iran refused to make peace with Iraq in 1982. Including, sadly, the 290 people aboard the Iranian civilian aricraft.”

    Many more would have died if someone didn’t crush Saddam permanently.
    After the bombing of Osirak Iraq started its nuclear weapons program.
    If Saddam didn’t make the stupid decision of invading Kuwait, he would be sitting on a nuclear arsenal right now.
    Guess who would be the target?
    He was mad enough to use chemical weapons on a large scale, he would have been mad enough to drop an A-bomb on Tehran as well.

  126. Cyrus_2 says:

    From Irish Times:

    Morsi role at Syria rally seen as tipping point for Egypt army

    Head of state had attended rally with hardline Islamists calling for holy war in war-torn neighbour

    Army concern about the way President Mohamed Morsi was governing Egypt reached tipping point when the head of state attended a rally packed with hardline fellow Islamists calling for holy war in Syria, military sources have said.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/morsi-role-at-syria-rally-seen-as-tipping-point-for-egypt-army-1.1450612

  127. Nasser says:

    “The idea is to ease pressures on Israel by having Turkey clash with Iran and Syria.”

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/07/west-grand-middle-east-strategy.html#ixzz2Y62DJ4RH

    Read the comments for typical Western rationalizations for their continuing oppression

  128. jay says:

    James Canning says:
    July 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    “Many hudreds of thousands of people died because Iran refused to make peace with Iraq in 1982. Including, sadly, the 290 people aboard the Iranian civilian aricraft.”

    I will break my own promise of not engaging you James.

    Your statement is an outrageous! The innocence that perished on that plane did not dies because of Iran-Iraq war. Those children, parents, mothers, died because of agressive and reckless policies practiced by the likes of you who justify death and destruction of the innocent by blaming the victims – the Iranian people.

    Many of innocent died during the war and there is plenty of blame for all sides. Yet, to suggest that shooting down ann unarmed civilian plane by the most sophisticated navy vessel in the world had something to do with Iran and its fight against an imposed war is beyond the pale. I suggest you reconsider this and apologize to yourself!

  129. jay says:

    Correction – outrageous should be outrage.

  130. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    You seem to have missed my point. I said in effect that if the war had ended in 1982, the USS Vincennes would not have been off the coast of Iran in 1988. So, no shooting-down of the Iranian civilian airliner.

    How can this be other than true?

  131. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    What “reckless policies” have I advocated, in your opinion?

  132. Rd. says:

    The Egyption coup is underway.. last year, BIB or UU or perhaps someone else had posted a video of a conference in Tehran between various Egyptions representatives and various IRI think tanks and analysts.. have lost he link. would be nice to review that lecture once more…

    on another note, one would hope the sultan’s head would get cracked once again.. and hope out of this mess, the turkish leadership would get wiser and recognize serving the western interest will not bode well for them and their country..

  133. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You appear to argue that if Iraq had annexed Kuwait due to failure of US and UK to force Saddam Hussein’s forces out of that country, it would have been very bad news for Iran and the entire Middle East. I agree.

    But I do not think Iraq would have been allowed to build nukes.

  134. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You may instead by arguing that Iran needed to wage its eight years of war against Iraq, to cause Iraq to seek to annex Kuwait. To cause, in turn, Gulf War and sanctions against Iraq. Clarification would be useful.

  135. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    I would not have supported any attempt by Britain to make a separate peace with Germany in 1941-42.

    I would have shared Churchill’s concern that the war would bring occupation of much of central Europe by the Red Army.

  136. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941, Churchill knew this meant that Britain would defeat Germany in Europe. I would have viewed the situation the same way. Problem was how to attempt to prevent occupation of Central Europe by the Soviet Union.

  137. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Very interesting report in the Irish Times that you linked. That Egyptian army overthrew Morsi due to concerns he was backing dangerous insurgency in Syria.

  138. James Canning says:

    Nasser,

    The piece you linked makes the excellent point that the neocon warmongers who destroyed Iraq also wanted to take on Syria and Iran.

    Underlines the utter lunacy of the G W Bush administration, in disbanding Iraqi army after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

  139. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    “Jay,You seem to have missed my point.”

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    “Jay,What “reckless policies” have I advocated, in your opinion?”

    Nobody is missing your points.
    You deem the current passed political and geopolitical order as a given which should not be challenged matter hiw immoral. At least as long as it does fit in your british anthropocentric worldview of anglo saxon dominated world order.

    You find every and all excuses to dampen anglo saxon crimes and immoral behaviour.

    The issue is that you are at ease with the current order as it is in your interest.
    You whining is good enough as long as it does not collide with your exceptionalist moral comfort and material benefit.

    All your views are tainted by short views and sophism and fallacies.

    No surprise in it. For you history has no direction.
    You see each event independently and find excuses for each one. While the overall pattern of Anglo saxon, US led policies are antihumanist and materialistic. They are globally immoral, unlawfull and criminal.
    Yes you can say it : fascist.

    the rend is accerating and the last hijacking and airspace barring of Morales jet is another proof and point in case in this overall pattern.

    For you it is certainly a blunder and sad. And that should not be generalized as a judgement of US behaviour.
    While it is another clear stone in the US building their fascist house.

    Your overall position is exceptionalist, at best delusional and at worst perfidious.

  140. James Canning says:

    Simeon Kerr has interesting report in Financial Times today: “Morsi’s fall is blow to Qataris”. Qatar had sent $8 billion to Egypt to support Morsi.

  141. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    I think the civil war in Syria is an appalling tragedy. And unfortunate for the entire Middle East.

    What do you see as “Anglo-centric” about that viewpoint?

  142. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Tell me: what is the “direction of history” seen in the reforms carried out in Burma, that in turn led to accelerated economic growth and the dropping of the sanctions?

  143. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    What is the “direction of history”, in the overthrow of Morsi by Egyptian army?

  144. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “July 4, 2013 at 2:08 pmNico,Tell me: what is the “direction of history” seen in the reforms carried out in Burma, that in turn led to accelerated economic growth and the dropping of the sanctions?”

    Short sighted, sophistic and laughable statement of yours.
    You could as well ask the sense of history of a loaf of bread in your plate. Truly nonsensical

    The US with the neocon drew out a policy of world dominance after the cold war.
    It was clearly stated and supported by ALL the US constituencies.
    Do you understand what world dominance mean ?
    You seem to have some difficulty to gradp it.
    All the US constituencies were and still are dticking to this policy.
    All the US war were unlawfull and all the US actions and behaviours are unilateral as soon as they meet resistance.

    Is that clear enough a hidtorical fascust pattern for you ?

    I guess not.

  145. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “But I do not think Iraq would have been allowed to build nukes.”

    I don’t think so either, but could they have stopped Iraq if Saddam hadn’t invaded Kuwait?
    When the UNSCOM inspectors arrived in Iraq in 1991 they were surprised to see how advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapons program already was.
    Five years later and Iraq may have had nuclear loaded missiles.

    “You may instead by arguing that Iran needed to wage its eight years of war against Iraq, to cause Iraq to seek to annex Kuwait. To cause, in turn, Gulf War and sanctions against Iraq. Clarification would be useful.”

    Yes, that’s what I meant.
    Saddam had to be crushed permanently, therefore Iran could not accept the cease-fire in 1982.
    It’s ironic that he was eventually crushed by the very same country that unleashed him on Iran.

    “I would not have supported any attempt by Britain to make a separate peace with Germany in 1941-42.”

    If you wouldn’t have supported a cease-fire with the Germans at a time when the allied forces were losing, then why should Iran have accepted a cease-fire at a time when it was winning?

    “I would have shared Churchill’s concern that the war would bring occupation of much of central Europe by the Red Army.”

    When did he express this concern?
    Everyone expected a quick German vicory over the Sovjet-Union, wasn’t it?
    So how could the latter occupy much of central Europe?

    “When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941, Churchill knew this meant that Britain would defeat Germany in Europe.”

    Fine, then would you have accepted a German cease-fire prior to Pearl Harbor?

  146. A-B says:

    Imagine an alternative history where there would not be a cursed Island inhabited with extremely violent racists of white complexion that would colonize ‘America’ or add to the existing savagery (among other ‘white’ tribes) in Europe; then there would not be any Iran-Iraq war (or Iraq for that matter) to begin with, and of course, there would not be any ‘US’ navy marauding in Persian Gulf, to later in an act of pure savage terrorism shoot down a civilian airliner. Just imagine … what a wonderful world it would be! Heck, I wouldn’t even need these lines … or this language.

  147. nico says:

    A-B says:
    July 4, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Nice debunking of Mr Canning sophistic stunts.

  148. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “July 4, 2013 at 2:10 pmNico,What is the “direction of history”, in the overthrow of Morsi by Egyptian army?”

    Again that is sophism and fallacious statement.

    Do you grasp the notion of histotical sequence ?

    The humanity historical sequence.
    The western civilization sequence.
    The enlightment sequence.
    The british and then the US empire sequence.
    The colonialudm historical sequence.
    The cold war sequence.
    The US uninateral sequence.
    And on and on and on…

    You have short sesurnced, long ones…
    One may include another or they may overlap or again one may shade into another.

    The issue is that you put all event out of context and you consider it out of any sequence.
    It allows you to remain in your moral comfort and manipulate others with your sophistries.
    Sure you seem educated in history.
    The conclusion is that you do it pupotedly in order to manipulate knowingly.
    The only other possibility is that you have zero analysis capabilities. Wich seems unlikely.

    As for Morsi it means nothing out of context. And it is a small event.
    But it shoukd be seen in the overall arab civilization sequence.
    Begining with the arabian expension, the ottoman empire, the western trampling upon the world and arab states wih the sykes picot agreement. And so on.
    The conclusion is that Morsi failed to its histotical task to give Egypt dignity back and to put Egypt right track of history with right political decision and alliance.
    Morsi is a failure and is included in the right line of arabian leaders failures, because they lacked political skills and vision and were sticking to ideological idiocies but also because they were rightly manipulated by external powers and factors.

  149. James Canning says:

    A-B,

    You think Khomeini was correct, to refuse Iraq’s offer to end Iran-Iraq war in 1982?

  150. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Surely you are aware the Ottoman Empire brought about its own collapse, due to ill-considered decision to attack Russia in late 1914.

    Not Britain’s fault.

  151. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    There are extensive sources on Churchill’s thinking re: best way forward in fighting Germany, after entry of USA.

    Churchill wanted Germany driven out of North Africa, and then he favored Allied campaign in the Balkans. Obviously his concern that the Red Army would occupy central Europe is wake of German defeat, was sound.

    Americans wanted to go straight at Germany. Which could have proved disastrous.

    I think the German annexation of what is now the Czech Republic made war between Britain and Germany inevitable, and that Britain had no no choice but to fight it.

    Your assumption Iran could realistically expect to win the war with Iraq, probably is misplaced.

    I still think Iraq would not have been able to build nukes and deploy them.

  152. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    What specifically is the “manipulation” you think I am trying to accomplish?

  153. jay says:

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    “You seem to have missed my point. I said in effect that if the war had ended in 1982, the USS Vincennes would not have been off the coast of Iran in 1988. So, no shooting-down of the Iranian civilian airliner.”

    Surely you are more learned than this!

    Are you suggesting that had King Edward not met Wallis millions of people had not died in WWII?

    Apologize now! You are on very shaky grounds here. Not a single person with honest intellect buys the argument that war was the cause with the “effect” that resulted in the shooting down a civilian airliner!

  154. Ataune says:

    @caning

    “Surely you are aware the Ottoman Empire brought about its own collapse, due to ill-considered decision to attack Russia in late 1914.”

    Surely you are aware that Churchill was having anti-semite and anti-communist wet dreams at the time, cursing whoever in England was helping the new colonial project for the zionists in the Middle-East. And you surely know that he is a heros for the neo-cons and the kinds of Hague and Bush father. And you surely admit that all these people had their moral compass broken.

  155. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    “Nico,What specifically is the “manipulation” you think I am trying to accomplish?”

    Now through your “innocent” question you try to set a trap by pushing me to have an excessive position in order to taint me as some kind of weird conspiracy therorist.

    Typical scheme of the faithless manipulator.

    My point is that you do not follow logic.
    For you, fallacy is good enough to use as far as it serves your goal and to defend your position.
    This is not honorable way to exchange views.
    Your polite language does not hide and even less excuse the hideous stunt you apply all day long.
    And it rightly deserves my strong words as an answer.

  156. nico says:

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/manipulate

    Control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly or unscrupulously
    Alter or present (data) so as to mislead.

  157. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    “Nico,Surely you are aware the Ottoman Empire brought about its own collapse, due to ill-considered decision to attack Russia in late 1914.Not Britain’s fault.”

    Ridiculous comment.

    Russia, France and UK were salivating and clearly wanted to dismember and colonize the muslim lands.
    The Sykes Picot agreement as well as all UK faithless tricks in the region are only proof of that.

    It could be said that it was in the western (white man) colonial historical sequence of the 19th and 20th century.
    However some events occured in the 20th century such as 2 world wars and the intellectual creation of UN and all the global framework of laws which were not perfect and were subject to cynism, but they were globally a path and a trend toward a less babaric world.

    The US and as a consequence their lackeys dumped such trend in the trash can of history after the cold war.
    They adopted regressive and backward policies while on the contrary they could have found another path.

    Now tell me that the squandering of trillions in useless and strategically inept wars was a good choice.

    The end result is that the US are financially broken, morally discredited, socially degenerating.

    Would they had spent half the amount in their own infrastructures they would be better off and still the only super power. Not the miserable state we see before our eyes chasing whistleblower like idiot around the world.

  158. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    The Ottoman Empire forced war on Britain and France, and of course Russia. Germany played a large role in causing this to happen.

    Large-scale desertions of Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army was a signfiicant factor in Ottoman thinking. (The Armenians were going over to the Russians.)

    Idiotic wars etc since “9/11” have indeed cost the US fantastic sums.

  159. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    I entirely agree with you that the huge sums squandered by the US on idiotic wars since “9/11” could instead have been used for vital domestic infrastructure investment in the US. And of course the US is considerable weaker today, due to lunacy of policies followed since “9/11”.

  160. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    In Algeria when the Islamists won the elections in 1991 there was a coup and civil war that followed.

    In Gaza, Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood called “Hamas” has a military wing and they were able to prevent Mohammad Dahlan from staging a coup.

    Hugo Chavez was able to flip a coup attempt because of his military background.

    Also Bay of Pigs invasion was a quasi coup attempt

    Nothing new.

  161. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Quote from Wikipedia entry on Dahlan (which is not posting for some reason):

    “In the April 2008 edition of Vanity Fair it was revealed that after the 2006 elections Dahlan had been central in a US plot to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. The Americans provided money and arms to Dahlan, trained his men and ordered him to carry out a military coup against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, the elected Hamas government forestalled the move and itself carried out an armed counter-coup.”

  162. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    SL’s recent speech: TV debates, nuclear file
    http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1806&Itemid=4

    Quote:

    “I have certain things to say about the statements that were made on TV by the esteemed candidates. I am referring to the televised debates before the election. There is not enough time to go into detail in this meeting, but this is one of things that I should discuss. Yes, there are certain weaknesses, but we should see the strengths as well. The incumbent administration enjoys many strengths although it may suffer from certain weaknesses. Which one of us does not suffer from weaknesses in our work? It is necessary to see the strengths as well. Important things have been done in the country. The services that have been rendered, the infrastructure-related work has been done, the development projects that have been carried out – these things must not be ignored. The esteemed candidates often ignored these things in their election campaigns over the two, three weeks leading to the presidential election. It would have been very good if they had acknowledged the efforts that have been made and the work that has been done when discussing economic issues, rising prices and inflation – which are of course true. This attitude is not fair. One should see both the positive points and the negative points. Of course, it goes without saying that a person who is trying to present his capabilities to the people only sees the existing problems and points them out to the people, and nothing is wrong with this. However, it is wrong to adopt an absolutist approach in this regard. It is necessary to point out the positive points as well as the negative points.

    Now I would like to make a point about the nuclear issue. In future, I may discuss the issue in detail if necessary. In my speech on the first day of the year, I said that the opposing camp is mainly composed of a few domineering and greedy countries which are led by America and are incited mainly by the Zionists and which falsely refer to themselves as the international community. The problem with them is that they do not want Iran’s nuclear issue to be resolved. If it had not been for their stubbornness, the nuclear issue would have been easily resolved. On many occasions, we came very close to a solution. They signed the agreements. The International Atomic Energy Agency signed the agreements. It admitted that the problems had been eliminated. The documents exist. These things cannot be denied. Well, the issue should have ended. The nuclear file should have been closed. But the Americans immediately created a new problem. They do not want the nuclear issue to end. There are many examples in this regard. Resolving the nuclear issue with the Islamic Republic is an easy and smooth matter due to the nature of the Islamic Republic. However, when the other side does not want this issue to be resolved, the conditions would be no better than they are.

    Therefore, they should pay attention to this point. In the case of the nuclear issue, the Islamic Republic has acted in a legal and transparent way and it has also been reasonable and logical. However, they believe that the nuclear issue is a good excuse to pressure the Islamic Republic. Even if the nuclear issue were resolved, they would create another issue to pressure the Islamic Republic.

    The goal is to threaten. The goal is to pressure. The goal is to make us tired. They themselves announced that their goal is to change the political system and the political mechanisms. Of course, in the statements they make in private meetings or in the letters that they sometimes write, they say that they are not after a regime change. However, they clearly show the opposite in their statements and actions. They are hostile towards a nation that refuses to surrender to their rule, a nation that refuses to act the way they want, a nation whose actions are against their will. Similarly, if governments submit to them and act in an obedient way, they gain their approval. Neither democracy, nor human rights, nor the nuclear issue are important to them. The issue is that the Islamic Republic is standing on its own feet, is relying on its own power, is standing firm by relying on Allah the Exalted and is making progress in different areas. They do not like this, and so be it. Of course, the experience of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation has shown that on this path it is the Iranian nation that will be victorious and that it is the Iranian nation that will slap its enemies across the face.

    The path of the Islamic Republic is the path of God. Its goals are divine goals. Its source of support is divine willpower. Such a path will never lead to a dead end. Everybody should know this. Everybody should be confident that by Allah’s favor, we will never reach a dead end on our path. I hope that thanks to government officials’ innovation, determined efforts and reliance on God, the Iranian nation continues making progress on a daily basis. I hope that the entire Iranian nation benefits from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) and that the immaculate souls of our Imam (r.a.) and the pure souls of our martyrs are satisfied with all of us.

    Greetings be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings”

  163. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    July 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    If saddam had not launched his war of aggression and been supported and encouraged in that by the west then there would have been no war and the USS Vincennes and its incompetent captain would not have been off the coast of Iran in 1988. So, no shooting-down of the Iranian civilian airliner and the resulting mass murder of the innocents aboard.

    How can this be other than true?

  164. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ James Canning

    “Obviously his concern that the Red Army would occupy central Europe is wake of German defeat, was sound.”

    Again, in the early years of the war everyone expected a quick German victory over the Sovjets.
    So would you have accepted a German cease-fire in 1940-1941, before Pearl Harbour and before the Sovjet push-back of the Germans?

  165. Nasser says:

    Laughter is medicine. Some people prefer to watch stand up comedy to get their laughs, I prefer to observe Arab posturing. LOL

    http://alhayat.com/Details/529625

  166. Smith says:

    BBC pushing a huge propaganda campaign for the Syrian cannibal commander showing him as a hero (with a bit of “bad luck”); turning him to one of the most celebrated man, doing interviews and all : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533

    BBC message: These rapist, cannibal, terrorist wahabis are very good people (as long as they are killing Shias and attacking the Namoos of Syrians). [Note: They are not good for London or Glasgow]. BBC as an official representation of England needs your sympathy for rapists, cannibals and terrorists.

    Pondering: If Syria had nuclear weapons pointed at England, on five minute alert, today Syria would be safe both in terms of their lives and Namoos.

  167. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    You ask whether I would have urged Britain to accept a cease-fire with Germany, prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

    Obviously, a Germany occupying Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, much of France, and half of Poland, would not be an acceptable situation.

    Germany needed to agree to get out of Poland. Germany would not have agreed to get out of Poland. So, even before Germany occupied the Low Countries etc., a cease-fire would have been impossible, in my view.

  168. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to divide Poland, so obviously there was a huge problem for Britain in that the USSR was not keen to get out of Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia, or Lithuania.

  169. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    I agree with you that “the West” should not have encouraged Saddeam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980. Do we have specifics as to what was said, and when, and by whom, to induce Saddam to attack Iran?

    And, of course, Iran should not have threated Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies.

  170. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    The student seizure of the American embassy in Tehran was and still is the source of a good deal of “bad blood” amoung the American people. I continue to blame the Carter administration for its effective ratification of the nonsensical notion of “America held hostage” that was put out by US news media.

  171. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    A British cease-fire with Germany prior to invasion of USSR would have doomed the Soviet Union.