Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

"When Negotiations get tough, the Negotiators get going"! Well, didn't we see it happen in Iraq four years ago? ... The US, the Middle-East and the other 'powerful' nations of the world need to be very careful and patient in handling this increasingly heating Iran issue. The world certainly cannot afford another men-made crisis. ... If dealt with deftness, there is no problem in this world to which solution cannot be found.

You and other are part of the problem in this country. You like to show our enemies as a good people. We don't need to deal with a guy in Iran who was one of the masterminds years ago taking american hostages. That's the problem they look to us as very soft people. You belong to the Jimmy Carter crew.

Well, I think Bashir is right when he says still diplomacy can win.But it needs a major or let me say a huge shift in U.S diplomacy toward Iran.
But when Bashir compares Iran to Pakistan he makes a mistake .Pakistan imposes no hegamonc threat to U.S and West at all But
the truth is that Iran is a totlay different case.Iran 100% is an independent
nation politically, though no one doubts "diplomacy never operates in vacuum" so the price Iranians are paying now and at least the last three decades both economically and politically and ofcourse it paid a huge price when she fought 8 years with Bathofacist Saddam
shows how resolute they are .
( All people of the world remember Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Husseins grotesquely Smiles and Handshakes)
But,truth here is that what westerners could understood completely is Iran's quest to become a powerful nation.Actually Iran follows its own hegamonic Interests and it doesn't pay towpence attention what U.S and allies will do with them and ofcourse ayattollahs know to deal with such a big lion like America.
I think Henry Kissinger indicated the same hubson's choice in WashingtonPost when
he invited Ayatoollahs to calculate all possiblities and then chose the way,he also invited world powers to cooperate with each other to force Iran to abandon their Nuclear enrichment but he didn't offer something valuable for exchange .Iran needs to be strong while the most powerful nations try to bring Iran to his knees though the last quarter of century shows how impotent was those policies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000546.html

But it was the Hubsons' choice of Iran for three decaeds and as far as U.S grants no valuable sweets Iran will pursue its goals uncarefull of what threats U.S poses to him.

Having worked in the middle east for many years, i always thought if we were not so rigid when it comes to supporting israel, then we would not be fighting their war with our soldiers.

in my view:
we need to get out of the middle east now.
we need to stop supporting israel every time.
we need to recognize that israel is not completely innocent.
we need to recognize that the palestinian people have a right to live in palestine.
we need to recognize that iran -which helped us to overthrow the taliban in afghanisthan, can help us in iraq.
we need to put america before israel.

every american should ask himself, if i have to choose between doing what's right for america and doing what good for israel, what will i choose?
i did, and i chose america.

i know not every american will agree with me, but hey an american is someone who puts american lives first.

Ab Melone.

Mr Bashir Goth:

The question of who runs Iran is easily answered when you understand that no one who the "Council of Guardians" will not approve is allowed to run for national office. The Council of Guardians also controls the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, their Al Quds Special Ops groups, the Basiji "Militia", and vast funding for patronage from the oil revenues of the Iranian state.

That Council runs the people who run Iran. In doing so, the Council ultimately runs Iran.

It is in no way democratic, or representative of any but the clerical khomeinists. These are a distinct minority in an Iran tired of 3 decades of growing corruption and suppression of the intellectual freedoms needed for a prosperous industrial society. The Council holds elections for its approved governmental candidates, where the choice is limited to those who will more quietly push for a nuclear deterrent for their hoped for Caliphate, or will do so less quietly, while promising prosperity through "reform" which never appears, as at present.

You ask why we should deal with Musharraf, and not Ahmadinejad, without stating the important differences between them.

Musharraf is not a khomeinist, and Ahmadinejad is.
That is to say that Musharraf's world-view does not exclude a prosperous and powerful industrial world that need not be moslem, while Ahmadinejad's does.

Musharraf shows no interest in building up a nuclear-protected Caliphate, from which "the lost lands of Islam" can be reconquered, and Sharia spread to the entire world, while Ahmadinejad does.

Musharraf does not appoint to high office hojatieh believers who think the Mahdi will come to bring peace and Islam to the world more quickly, if the world is more in chaos because of their efforts, and Ahmadinejad does.

Each of these differences is sufficient to cause us to refuse deals with Ahmadinejad, while dealing with Musharraf as and when it benefits the cause of world-wide industrial society in the midst of World War IV. The hiraba of those who are in opposition to the growing industrial society around the world, will be engrossed by Ahmadinejad's rise, while Musharraf is at worst a neutral interested in personal survival in the struggle.

We may find that a Musharraf who is willing to deal with us cannot survive in a Pakistan where the majority of money for madrassa education is donated by wahhabis from Saudi Arabia. That does not mean we should not buy all the time we can by cooperating with him, instead of getting people like General Ghul (late of the ISI) in power over Pakistan's nukes.

In every case that Ahmadinejad can build up the long-term bandwagon effect for the hiraba activities of either khomeinists or wahhabists,
industrial society will be harmed. Musharraf does not attempt to do so.

Regards,

Tom Billings

I don't understand the time Specificationn of the date of tightning the sanctions and the capture of Brits to make it a story. The britt captives who have changed their tesimoney after landing at London air port are cowards and their selling the detention story reveal the gangester custom of their ancesters who looted the golds of america and india and other countries which had been under the occupation of these thugs.The Queen Elizabeth faught with the Spanish Armada sending men like Gilbert and Raleigh to America in the Search for golds and NEW lands to COLONIZE and now in the 21th century the Queens grandson is having the TAP of IRAQS Black GOLD IN ONE HAND FOR THE BP While WITH THE ONOTHER HAND SEARCHING THE LIQUID AND MINERAL RESOURCES UNDER THE VASTE GROUND OF DARFUR.And Mr. GEORGE is not extending the peaceful intentions to the Iranians because he has not any choice and he is doing now in Middle East,he is doing it under the dictation and is fully paid for that.

Your comments about rules for Iran are correct. They do have rules like the church running the state !Try running anything if you are not a member of their church !

Cayambe is right. No matter who is elected, the Mullahs govern Iran. Khatami was elected, but he couldn't carry out his plans, because the Mullahs objected.

No other country has threatened to destroy the state of Israel. No other leaders denies the realities of history.

Bashir:

To answer your question truthfully I must admit it is a complete mystery to me. Ahmadinejad was elected fair and square within Iran's electoral framework. We might quibble with their method of dynamic control over who gets to run for offices, but we do have rules on that ourselves; just different ones. In his discourse, the fellow provides all kinds of valid things to take issue with......it's hardly useful to question his authority or legitimacy within the Iranian framework.

On another matter you raised, who runs Iran, I would never have named Ahmadinejad despite the legitimacy of his election. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran assigns the greatest authority and power not to the President but to the Supreme Ayatollah. But again, we should admit that the referendum approving that document was as legitimate as western referendums are.

The more interesting question these days is, who runs Somalia? How about tackling that one?

Best Regards....

Bashir who?

This uneducated wiseacre has absolutely no idea what's going on! He doesn't know who governs Iran, he believes that elections in Iran are democratic, he compares an Islamofascists with an American president, he believes the private meeting between Boobylosi and the Syrian Nazi was a 'breath of fresh air in American diplomacy', and last not least, he tries to speak German. Indeed, he uses the language of German RAF terrorists.

The unspeakable however is that he calls the release of the Brits a gift! Should we now say thank you to the Islamofascists in Teheran? Well, some people get paid for spreading such blasphemy! Agreed, those brown shirts have no culture and no education, they are just brain dead!

No doubt, Newsweek is the American copy of 'Der Stuermer'!

When one reads these comments, with their tendency to replace reason with axiomatic assertions, one is amazed that democracy works at all.

The ascendance of the West, such as it was, was built on the Enlightenment principles of reason and information. These led to the science and technology on which whatever ascendance we have enjoyed is based.

Most of these comments are didainful of information, and completely reject the use of reason. Keep it up gang. Maybe you can create the Christian flavor of the Middle East. Maybe we can declare Crusades, and burn ghettos before we go.

This is a sorry state of discourse.

--elected with 61.7 percent of his peoples’ votes--
You hit it on the head, Mr Goth. Ahmadinejad has a political party (which strangely enough has it's own news network, I know the parallel is chilling).
With the UN sanctions a forgone conclusion, which do you think he preferred as the days headline, Powerful Iranian Navy Apprehend British Saboteurs or the UN Sanctions?
He is a politician, his primary concern was likely playing to his base and insuring that he extends his tenure in his new, cool, job.

We have use for Musharraf, we have no use for Ahmadinejad.

Its that simple. Our priorities are such that preserving the leader of Pakistan serves American interests far moreso than dealing with the leader of Iran. We have the right to impose a double standard. Power is like that.

Queen Victoria knew how to handle these things. Gordon was killed in a massacre at Khartoum. The Queen sent General Kitchener with 8ooo troops and a whole bunch of the new Maxim machine guns. At the battle of Omdurman, Kitchener's army killed 10,000, wounded 13,000 and captured 5,000 of the muslim warriors. Kitchener had less than 500 killed and was made Lord Kitchener when he returned home. He lived to invent concentration camps in the Boer War.One third of the women and children in the camps died. Those were the days.

let's see how many countries

1. support terrorisim
2. are trying to continue nuclear activities in direct defiance of the U.N.

Answer only Iran

Syria is an active supporter of terrorists with an unstable leader. Pelosi is an embarrassment to the United States for misrepresenting the views of Israel.

After 911 Bush made his position clear when he told the world that they were with him or against him. He was not interested in diplomatic niceties getting in the way of his agenda. His goals are of paramount importance. First was ensuring the oil supply line from Iraq to the US. Second was to humiliate and crush Middle Eastern opposition to the US. Third, he had a personal family vendetta to settle. ... However, Iraq is the biggest lesson for the US and the UK: you can bomb any country of your choosing in the ME but you cannot crush the will of the opposition. You will be forced to leave the ME when your will is extinguished. .... The capture of 15 sailors is little more than embarassment. The UK learned from this that if it treated Iran respectfully by entering into dialogue the UK could achieve concrete results. NOTE: This was done without a shot being fired.

Draft 2 million men, invade Iran denuke Pakistan.

Now is the time. It isn't going to get better. Pakistan is working on a new nuclear plant to make plutonium to go into miniaturized nukes that will fit on cruise missiles on subs.

They will sell those. Why? Because Pakistan lacks the financial capacity to run a missile, nuclear, sub program without selling what it makes. Its not the US or Russia. In fact, the US and Russia both sell a large part of what they make to support their arms industries.

So Pakistan, Iran, NoKo, etc. have no choice but to pool resources and trade and help each other. They are too small to keep their programs going on their own.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/

America has the military power to turn the whole region into a molten lava.
But to think that this American Army has the will or the power to change the lives of people is not true.

History tells us that others have done so with lesser military force.

The British for example achieved much more with very small military force. Just imagine the conquest of India alone with less than 6000 men.
The British rule in India lasted almost 200 yrs.

In the year 710 Mohammad Bin Qasim accomplished a even more lasting feat when he landed with only 6000 Syrian men in his conquest of Sind and Punjab. Two years later in Multan he had over 50,000 troops(although he came with only 6000).
His conquest in contrast to the British however brought what is a "permanent change in the region". By the way it may impress the readers to know that this Military Commander was only 18 yrs old.

Just "shock and awe" is not enough.
No one accepts the American domination because they know they are not there to stay.
George Bush will "cut and run" and blame it on the Democrats. Inspite of overwhelming Military superiority America has nothing to offer to the region.

The author is correct, Iran's hand has been strengthened post crisis. We have to deal with the devil, its that or all out war and I am sick of that. We can't beat a people into submission who don't care whether they live or die, and atually prefer death. Let them kill eachother and we'll help when its all over. While I understand Bush's idealogy, it is unrealistic in this world. Casting your lot in with corrupt or murderous governments (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabi, and Iran) is unpalatable, but necessary to extricate ourselves from the Middle East. On paper, removing a bloodthristy dictator to help its people become free makes sense. What has played out is vastly different from what we expected. We should appease these countries, use them to quell the violence, and leave. The truth is that region of the world is so backward, so different - it can never be saved. Strongmen who use violence and oppression are the only answer to this instability. In America, people can travel to market, school, and work without worry of being killed. We have freedom and we enjoy it, apparantley thats not universal. The Middle East likes death, destruction, explosions, and heads being cut off. The region is filled with animals, there is no hope, we should leave as soon as possible and let the dogs shred eachother to pieces. Perhaps one day they will tire of killing and join the West in peace and prosperity.