A Letter to My Pal Bush: Congrats On Your Stupidity !

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe this is a joke. Nobody thinks Iran really is pro-western do they? If they do, they are stupid.

 

[LakerGod]

I thought Bush was stupid for bringing up three nations in his quest to write his name in history, while not even mentioning the Taliban or Osama in his speech. A high majority of Iranians are under the age of 30, and they are mostly pro-western. Read up on this and you will find it to be true. As for the "dear bushie" letter, that might not have been the most mature way to bring up a serious topic.

 

[syzygy]

<< I thought Bush was stupid for bringing up three nations in his quest to write his name in history, while not even mentioning
the Taliban or Osama in his speech. A high majority of Iranians are under the age of 30, and they are mostly pro-western. Read
up on this and you will find it to be true. As for the "dear bushie" letter, that might not have been the most mature way to bring
up a serious topic >>



thank you, thank you, thank you.

your points are true and they can be developed further to show just how egregious bush's error was in grouping one of the
more powerful and influential muslim regimes in with basketcases like iraq and north korea.

khatami may not symbolize much to any of the dimwits who posted above, but his acts in seeking to re-establish the 'rule
of law, democracy, civil liberties, and political accountability' are of incredible importance. at least he is doing more for the
common iranian, who as you state is more likely to be young, educated, and western leaning, than any of his predecessors.
we call this progress. indeed, momentous progress. but all of this now has been jeopardized because in iran the president's
office is beholden to the dictates of the theocrats.

granted, iran is not the most law abiding nation in terms of international norms of expected behavior, but no one should
demean the political progress that has been achieved at their grassroots level, especially not our elected leaders. khatami
has a huge uphill to climb. iran's supreme religious leader happens to be his arch nemesis - and ours too. ayatollah ali
khameini is the true holder of power and the one person who decides, for example, if the palestinians receive illicit arms
shipments or not. his fanatical minions have harrassed khatami's reformist friends, including the former mayor of tehran
who was imprisoned for espousing the wrong political views, and have even resorted to murdering intellectuals sympathetic
to the reformist cause.

that baboon bush should have respected this critical distinction. the setback may be irreparable.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< the setback may be irreparable. >>


And your point would be?????? The "hardcore" whom hold the power in Iran are never going to give in to these new moderates and it is very clear whom actually wields the power................it's only a matter of time and was only a matter of time before this "puppet" government in Iran is replaced by the hardliners and they are back to "status quoe"!

 

[etech]

Hell, if the US threw a snit fit every time someone overseas said something we didn't like the whole world would be gone by now.

Iran will be nuclear capable in just a few years. The people in control of the military are not moderates and will still be there in charge then Bush?s speech was obviously based on information that we are not able to be made aware of.

If Iran was seriously wanting better relations with the US would they now be organizing demonstrations against the Great Satan or trying to find out why Bush characterized them with Iraq and N. Korea and either prove it wrong or change what they are doing.

 

[glenn1]

I think the Wall Street Journal has it much more correct than you, syzygy

WSJ Article

WSJ article 2



<< sincerely,
loving fan, future anarchist, and devoted geek. >>



Anarchist, eh? Good luck in your life, loser. Say hello to your moronic anti-globalization co-conspirators next time the World Economic Forum comes to town and you're out protesting.

 

[Rison]

syzygy, it's apologists like you that really sicken me. What's ironic is that you should be for Bush all the way cause he's the leader of this country and the free world. If Iran took over the world, gays like you wouldn't be able to practice your questionable lifestyle.


think the Wall Street Journal has it much more correct than you, syzygy

Excellent link Glenn1

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Bush?s speech was obviously based on information that we are not able to be made aware of. >>

One wonders if Clinton's regmine had all the facts but wouldn't act because they couldn't get poll numbers. Seems it took 9/11 to create some politicial will to do the right thing. If Bush's regmine has information leading to Iran becoming, if it's not already there, another Afghanistan what's the best course of action?

 

[syzygy]

<< sorry, but iran has a long way to go before diplomatic relations start up again. what? are we supposed to feel all warm
and fuzzy now because iran, for once in the last 20 years, did not call us the "Great Satan" for our involvement in the region? >>



they did make progress but the progress they made did not have the objective of restoring the good graces of united states.
that ofcourse would be desirable but the people - like any people - think local first before they consider the world outside. the
islamic revolution failed and has proven to be as oppresive and uncomprising as the secular regime it overthrew.

i don't think you understand just how important the changes are. the last two elections have proven who the real power
are : the people, specifically the electorate, the majority of which are young, savvy, non-traditionalist, and have had their
perceptions of the world softened by western media influences. these are our constituents too ! these young people who
are politically active, who outnumber the ayatollah's secret armies, who stage rallies to voice their displeasure with the
reign of religious terror, these are the people we should be appealing to. but we can't attract them if we demonise
'iran'.

'iran' is a term without critical distinction. 'iran' says nothing positive when used as an all-encompassing denouncement.
the term 'iran' should be modified to at the very least take into account the important political realities the people of iran
now face. if bush cannot do that, if his speech writers lack the necessary refinement to draw these subtle yet critical
distinctions, then he should shut up. the iranian people are our friends. they are the real power. we don't want to
alienate them. khatami needs their support but he cannot be seen to act against the established religious power
when pushed by our threats to make a choice between his own nation and some airy abstractions as defined by
our drum beating baboon for a president. simple.

 

[etech]

It doesn't seem all that long ago when my ship was placed on alert because these same iranian people took our embassy and people hostage and were burning the American flag and vowing death to all Americans.

It was very recent when Iran denied American planes the right to use their airspace to hunt down the terrorists in Afghanistan. It was only a few weeks ago that they loaded a ship full of weapons to send to the Palestinians to destabilize that part of the Mid. East even further.

The people of Iran may be our friends, I'll wait for the pictures of the demonstrations to come out to decide on that. The government of Iran is definitely not in the "friends" category yet.

 

[ToBeMe]

Perhaps.........just perhaps, the "drum beating baboon"............is you!
What you just tried to legitimize is a "puppet government" at best and although you make yourself feel all rightious by calling the President of the U.S. names............do not be suprised when people look at your drivel and find the many mistakes in your way of thinking............ I find it amusing and hypocritical that you can call names for what someone else does.........but then present an argument which is full of inaccuracies and holes itself..............

 

[Rison]

look who's trying to be on our good side?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

ANARCHIST LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[syzygy]

<< but then present an argument which is full of inaccuracies and holes itself >>


care to point out one ?

as for your claims of 'puppet government', do you know what one is ? would you call a popularly elected leader who
mustered 75% of the vote a puppet ? if he is a puppet, then whose puupet is he ? perhaps you meant by 'puppet
govcernment' puppet of the people, a fanciful way of trying to desrcibe an elected form of governemnt. doubtful, right ?

your efforts at poetry failed. your descritpion of fact is false unless you can produce election results that deny the
reality that khatami was elected by an overwhelming majority of the populace, humiliated his hard line theological
opponents - who did parade their own figurehead representatives out (maybe these are the puppets you allude
to ?) and failed miserably to seat a single prominent soul in their representative assembly.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Look who's trying to be on our good side
syzygy--- So who's the baboon now, asshat. I'll repeat what I said earlier- "irrelevant drivel by an ignorant child"

Rison--great post.

 

[jjones]

<< in iran the president's office is beholden to the dictates of the theocrats. >>




<< khatami needs their support but he cannot be seen to act against the established religious power >>


two of your own quotes. again, tell me why we should be feeling all warm and fuzzy about iran now. not too long ago, at least for me although you were probably either in diapers or just a twinkle in your mother's eye, the wonderful iran that you speak of held about 70 hostages for more than a year; 444 days to be exact. not all of us ignore the past nor do we forget about who really controls that country.

 

[ToBeMe]

<<

<< but then present an argument which is full of inaccuracies and holes itself >>


care to point out one ?

as for your claims of 'puppet government', do you know what one is ? would you call a popularly elected leader who
mustered 75% of the vote a puppet ? if he is a puppet, then whose puupet is he ? perhaps you meant by 'puppet
govcernment' puppet of the people, a fanciful way of trying to desrcibe an elected form of governemnt. doubtful, right ?

your efforts at poetry failed. your descritpion of fact is false unless you can produce election results that deny the
reality that khatami was elected by an overwhelming majority of the populace, humiliated his hard line theological
opponents - who did parade their own figurehead representatives out (maybe these are the puppets you allude
to ?) and failed miserably to seat a single prominent soul in their representative assembly. >>


Yes, sonny, I know what a puppet government is and I tell you what................I'll even use YOUR own words to prove my point! I said all along that khatami is a puppet in a puppet government whom has to answer to others...............well it's the truth and here are your words to prove it!

• ayatollah ali
  khameini is the true holder of power and the one person who decides

A "puppet government is a government which is in power........but does not really wield the power or have the final say.............just as you describe.......... Need more?????? Come on back............I have all you want!

 

[syzygy]

i'm going to entertain you. i read the article twice trying to understand your infantile glee, trying hard
to understand just how this article proves moi incorrect, or judging from your entusiams, is embarrassing
to me.

the article simply states that iran expelled ole hekmatyar because he was no longer of political use to them.
indeed, his rhetoric was now at odds with iran's external aims of establishing friendly relations with the
new afghan government. iran did not to cozy up to taliban. the taliban murdered 8 iranian diplomats
in 1998 and murdered a couple thousand shiite hazaras the year before. both these actions brought
iran to the brink of war against the taliban at about the same time that we and our oil interests were
attemtping to conclude a pipe building contract with these same taliban hoodlums. remember any of
that ? no ? hmmm, i didn't think so.

iran has their external interests like we do and have as much, if not more, of a stake in seeing to the
political stability of their adjoined neighbor. hekmatya was of use to them as long as the taliban were
in office. the ignorance of the article's writer seems to have impressed you. i can't say the same though.
cheers.

 

[SuperTool]

Bush speechwriters should stop setting foreign policy just to make Bush sound more Reaganesque. Colin Powell is a big disappointment. Clearly noone is listening to him in this administration. This was a shot across the bow for Iran. Iran right now is somewhat like what the soviet union was in 1988. A repressive state system, with a reformer president trying to change it from the inside. But instead of attacking the repressive regime, Bush attacks the whole country of Iran, leading to more Anti-American sentiment that will in turn hamper democratic reforms in that country. All for a sentence in a speech.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, because a similar line from a speech worked so badly last time....

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<sincerely,
loving fan, future anarchist, and devoted geek. >>

If you actually sent the letter to Bush, then congratulations. You are now on file with the Secret Service. I expect that in the future you will probably show up in CIA and FBI files too.

ZV

 

[killmeplease]

<< Bush speechwriters should stop setting foreign policy just to make Bush sound more Reaganesque. Colin Powell is a big disappointment. Clearly noone is listening to him in this administration. This was a shot across the bow for Iran. Iran right now is somewhat like what the soviet union was in 1988. A repressive state system, with a reformer president trying to change it from the inside. But instead of attacking the repressive regime, Bush attacks the whole country of Iran, leading to more Anti-American sentiment that will in turn hamper democratic reforms in that country. All for a sentence in a speech. >>



Were you wringing your hands when Reagan called the USSR the "evil empire" or were you sucking mom's tit?

History......................Look into it.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< Colin Powell is a big disappointment. Clearly noone is listening to him in this administration. >>


OK........let's listen to Colin Powell..............

• In remarks to a Senate committee in Washington February 5, Secretary
  of State Colin Powell reiterated the importance of U.S. involvement in
  the Middle East conflict, of strengthening international controls on
  Iraq and Iran, and of monitoring the precarious standoff between India and Pakistan.
  
  The Secretary of State appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations
  Committee to seek support for President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget
  request for international affairs. His remarks outlined U.S. policy
  goals in several regions, touching on some of the "vexing problems" of
  the Middle East and describing courses of U.S. action in Iraq, Iran
  and South Asia.
  
  Powell said that U.S. priorities in the Middle East "have been and
  will remain clear: ending the violence and terror through
  establishment of an enduring cease-fire and then movement forward
  along the path outlined in the Tenet Security work plan and the
  Mitchell Report recommendations."
  
  Both he and President Bush share a positive vision for Israelis and
  Palestinians "to live side-by-side in genuine, lasting security and
  peace in two states, Israel and Palestine, with internationally
  recognized borders," he said.
  
  The secretary said the United States "must not become frustrated" and
  must remain involved in "this critical region." He made clear that
  before the political process can be successful, however, Palestinian
  leader Yasser Arafat must do his part to quell sources of terror.
  
  "The Palestinian people will never see their aspirations achieved
  through violence," he said. "Chairman Arafat must act decisively to
  confront the sources of terror and choose once and for all the option
  of peace over violence. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot engage
  with us and others in pursuit of peace and at the same time permit or
  tolerate continued violence and terror."
  
  Powell underscored that "actions are required, not just words" from
  Chairman Arafat and that the smuggling of arms aboard the Karine A to
  the Palestinian Authority "is absolutely unacceptable." He said that
  Arafat must "ensure that no further activities of this kind ever take
  place and he must take swift action against all Palestinian officials
  who were involved" in the incident.
  
  With regard to Iraq, the secretary said the country "remains a
  significant threat to the region's stability." He cited U.S. efforts
  within the United Nations to strengthen international controls on
  Iraq, including the UNSC 1382 adopted in November, which calls for the
  implementation of "smart sanctions" by May 30. The central element of
  this measure, the Goods Review List, identifies materials that
  Security Council members must approve for export to Iraq and ensures
  continued supervision and control over dual-use goods.
  
  This measure, Powell said, will further strengthen support for U.N.
  controls "by showing the international community that Saddam Hussein,
  not the U.N. and not the U.S., is responsible for the humanitarian
  plight of the Iraqi people."
  
  Regarding Saddam Hussein's regime, Powell said "at the end of the day,
  we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq. We still
  believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and we look forward to the
  day when a democratic, representative government at peace with its
  neighbors leads Iraq to rejoin the family of nations."
  
  On Iran, the secretary said, "we have a very long-standing list of
  grievances," including proliferation of weapons, Iran's continued
  sponsorship of terrorism, and its "unhelpful activities in the
  post-Taliban environment of western Afghanistan."
  
  "I am still hopefull that we may be able to talk to Iran, that we may
  be able to have a reasonable conversation with Iranian leaders. With
  respect to the situation in Afghanistan, for example, I believe we can
  demonstrate to them that it is not in their interest to destabilize
  the government that they helped to create in Bonn," Powell said.
  

 

[syzygy]

<< Yes, sonny, I know what a puppet government is and I tell you what................I'll even use YOUR own words to prove my point! I said all along that khatami is a puppet in a puppet government whom has to answer to others...............well it's the truth and here are your words to prove it >>



ok, ok. my bad. i worked off a few assumptions. the first of which was assuming you knew what a puppet government
was. i know, dumb. if you play fast and loose with political defintions then you could have juggled any of my words around
to make yourself feel good inside. but . . .

whipping out the american heritage definiton (google it) we see puppet government (or political puppet- same thing)
is defined as 'one whose behavior is determined by the will of others'. you need to know something about the powers
of the head of government (khatami) and the chief of state (ali khamenei). this means you need to have read the iranian
constitution (which i know you did, sonny :roll, which was amended in 1998 to expand the powers of the presidency.
among his duties are national planning, budget and state employment affairs, the authority to sign treaties, protocols,
contracts, and agreements concluded with other governments, as well as agreements pertaining to international
organizations, appoints and lead a council of ministers, and determines the programme and policies of the government
and implements the laws. look at all this puppetry, eh ?

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran

ofcourse certain decisions cannot be finalized without the sanction of the supreme council. our constituion is weighed
with a related balance of powers as well and offers a rough analogy against the architecture of the iranian government.
their supreme council does not have any equivalent in our system - obviously - but neither should the iranian government
have a constituion if they proclaim themselves to be an islamic republic. historically speaking, 'islamic republic' is an
oxymoron and there is no precedent among previous caliphates (pre-19th century) of a constitution, written or otherwise.
in short, the republic of iran is a hybrid of western and eastern values that is crumbling under the contradiction.

have you been enlightened, sonny ? can see how this constitutes a puppet government on par with the vichy regime during
the nazi occupation of france or the croatian ustasi. do i need to hold your hand and help you through the sarcasm too ?
next time do your homework, sonny. cheers.

 

[Rison]

syzygy is either an apologist, terrorist, arab, European, pacifist, gay, liberal, sissy, man of fear, or all of the above. No wonder he's shaking in his panties at Iran's response to our accusation.

Syzygy, you need to own up to your manliness drop the estrogen bottle. You need some testerone in you, boy.