Iran prepares its children for war by
Kenneth R. Timmerman:
A new study of 115 Iranian school textbooks concludes that Iran is preparing its children for war, and is willing to risk massive casualties for the opportunity to defeat America in a world-wide cataclysmic confrontation.
While this is really scary but the article has a great ending:
The United States and its allies have squandered the opportunity to use the best possible tool to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran: aid to pro-democracy forces inside Iran.
I wish some one in the Bush government could hear us! Help us free our country before it is too late...
12 comments:
Winston, how do you know Western goverments are not aiding the democracy movement in Iran? After all, I don't think they would issue press releases about it. It would have to be kept as quiet and secretive as possible.
Well, you may be partly right my friend! but that'd be great if they publicly support the iranian freedom movement and what we want is that the western governments challenge the awful human rights record of the mullahs more publicly. They must challenge the mullahs more directly and let them know that Iranian people are not left alone to be slaughtered mentally and physically by the thugs
I totally agree.
It looks as if Satan himself and his mullahs have made themselves known huh?
i know, help us!!!! they have the right idea, we just havent seen anything....
I have grown up in a dictatorship and think that it cannot be destroyed from inside, by the oppressed people themselves. After all, effective repression is what a dictatorship is about. How do you imagine the Iranians toppling the Mullah regime?
Maya, remember that Eastern European bloc dictatorships all collapsed through massive aids from the US and other western governments. Don't you agree?
I wrote a comment on my blog but I'll paste it here also, modified and extended (although it became too long anyway).
There was some help by the West to Eastern Europe, such as sheltering asylum seekers, financing Radio Free Europe and making media fuss about the most rampant human rights abuses, but I find all this insignificant.
As far as I know, the only important contribution by the West was when Ronald Reagen stopped all material aid to the Soviet Union and accelerated the arms race. This helped bring the Soviet Union to bankrupcy. Gorbachev attempted reforms, it was felt in Eastern Europe that USSR can no longer keep them in its orbit by force and the end of communism in Eastern Europe ensued. Dictatorships in Eastern Europe were naturally unstable because they were imposed and kept by an outside force (USSR). Russia itself was an "indigenous" dictatorship created and maintained without foreign intervention. Moreover, the presence of oil and other resources prevented it from total bankrupcy and the need to build true market economy. Therefore, although Russia is no longer communist, it hasn't become democratic either.
The possession of oil and the fact that the Islamic revolution was done by Iranians themselves makes Iran more similar to Russia than to the East European countries. Therefore, I don't think that democracy could come to Iran the way it came to Eastern Europe. I don't think we are likely to see even half-democratic reforms of Russian type. Even if all democratic countries stop bying oil from Iran (which is unlikely), China alone will be willing to buy enough to keep the regime prosperous.
There was a difference between individual Eastern European countries. Those that were industrialized when communism was imposed never accepted it fully and had strong opposition movements(Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland). Those with weak industry and majority of peasants by 1945 succumbed easily (Bulgaria, Romania). Iran seems to me more like the second group.
It is believed that most Iranians are unhappy under the Mullahs, but to what degree? The same was believed for the Iraqis under Saddam, but it seems now that they were not so unhappy after all, they hate the West and its values more than they have ever hated Saddam. Big Pharaoh once wrote that the Iranians enjoy the pieces of freedom given to them by the regime, feel pride that Iran is likely to become a nuclear power and is important regional force (i.e. poisoning and terminating lives of people outside its borders) and will stand behind Ahmadinejad "to defend the country" if attacked. You seem to agree at least with the last - you wrote that the Mullahs are looking forward to an attack which will strenghten their power. Eh well, this is a good indicator of the degree of dissent. The French surely suffered and gave many victims after the D-day but it didn't make them stand behind Vichy!
You wrote that the ban on satelite dishes shows how much the regime is afraid of its people. I disagree; I think this is a purely preventive measure. I suppose that your blog name is inspired by Winston Smith, the central character in Orwell's "1984". Remember, there the regime was all the time banning this and that but never had reason to be afraid. Winston himself realized at the end that the masses would never rise up.
Until recently, I hesitated whether Iran must be liberated Iraq-style. I was trying to balance the apocalyptic yet hypothetical consequences of Mr. Ahmadinejad having and using nuclear weapons and the sure deaths of innocent Iranians in a case of war. Now, after the destruction of Lebanon, I think Iran should be attacked. I side with those anti-Hezbollah Lebanese who find it unfair that their bridges are destroyed while those in Iran remain. God knows how much doom and gloom the Mullahs will bring while the democratic world is sitting idle, hoping for a miracle. I wonder what you think of my opinion. I'll accept from you many words as a reaction to it, the kindest of them something like "How easy it is for you, it's not your people".
Aid from the West or not - Iranians must do something soon in order to save their children.
The fascists in charge of Iran seek death and destruction, there's no question about that because that is what they keep saying.
The free countries cannot allow them to pursue this agenda with nuclear weapons - even if it takes nuclear weapons to stop them.
Have I let the jin out of the bottle? Next, someone will propose hydrogen bombs for Iran.
I think, this is because the all-talk-no-walk Western leaders don't seem to intend to do ANYTHING against the Iranian regime. So people fear and think of radical solutions.
I don't think the Mullahs have such military might that nuclear weapons are needed to defeat them. So I am for the "good old" conventional weapons. Because if nuclear bombs are dropped, innocent people will not only die at the moment, but the survivors' children may get leukemia 10 years later.
Maya, no body is talking about nuking Iran
I was meaning the anonimous comment.
In fact, possibly I am panicking and Mr. Mad-in-hijab doesn't actually intend to attack any other country - if he did, he would probably talk less. But I agree with you that the chance of Iranians to overthrow the regime, however small it is now, will be close to zero once the Mullahs become nuclear.
Post a Comment