*music

Adding video to channels (Music) - requested by NetRunner.

Despite the beautiful places, faces, and Persian music in this video, I'm still convinced that Iranians are monsters. Martin Amis says so, and anyone smart enough to write a book can't be wrong, can he? He informs us that:

Islamists "habitually" jump red lights, so as "to show contempt for the law of the land (and contempt for reason)."

and

Iranians, he teaches, are "mystical, volatile and masochistic."

And even though Mr. Amis is outraged by 9/11 (as we all are), it also excites him:

"If Sept. 11 had to happen, then I am not at all sorry that it happened in my lifetime."

And that's why Hillajohn McClinton MUST be elected in November, i.e., so that the brave Neo-con armchair warriors can ejaculate with their 2 inch penises again once thermonuclear righteousness rains fire on all the untermenschen of Greater Swarthistan.
_________________________________

You know, videos like these are summarily dismissed as propaganda by those who hate, unfortunately. Thanks for posting it anyway, for those of use who delight in seeing the beauty and humanity of strangers half a world away.

the surprising thing is there is a western-loving iranian middle class. go figure.

*promote peace

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, April 27th, 2008 8:29pm PDT - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

Okay, I voted for Obama too, but I think the anti-Clinton sentiment on the sift has crossed some threshold of absurdity. There's a huge differience between Clinton and McCain's stances on Iran, but fairly little between Clinton and Obama. Both have said they would engage in direct diplomacy with Iran, both have expressed great concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons, and both have said they would defend Israel against attack from Iran. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Hillary salivates at the notion of murdering millions of Iranians. Much like the rumors that her youthful appearance is maintained by drinking the blood of the innocent, it's yet to be proven conclusively.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm#Iran

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_War_+_Peace.htm#Iran

On the issues doesn't have an organized category for Obama on Iran, but here's one quote.

OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

^Hillary Clinton said she would 'TOTALLY OBLITERATE' Iran. Perhaps she meant that she would totally obliterate them with love and understanding, but somehow I don't think so. Hillary is part of the machine now and she proves it on a daily basis by attempting to tear down our Democratic nominee, while having zero chance of winning herself.

I used to have great respect for the Clintons, a respect that has been obliterated by the disgusting way in which they have behaved over the last month. Hillary's campaign is a sewer that rivals the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. Her spoiled sense of entitlement and gleeful willingness to engage in all manner of deception in order to win lead me to believe that she is no better than McCain.

The backlash she has inspired here on the sift and throughout the nation is entirely of her own making.

^just goes to show that there really is a one-party system in the US, the grand old rich-greedy-buggers party. kinda agree with entr0py on this one but I still find Obama to be a bit of a puzzle to me. maybe with him in the white house there won't be another war. if hillary wins then i'm not so optimistic

^I agree that Obama is an unknown quantity and that there is no way of knowing how a candidate will behave in office, however I believe Obama to be an honest man who has yet to be corrupted by the system.

I understand that McCain and Hillary Clinton were once honest and uncorrupted too, so I know that Obama will be severely tested. He may fail; he may be compromised, but he has lasted longer than most with his integrity still intact.

I'm also happy to say that I'm not just supporting him because he is the only viable choice. I genuinely like the guy. He thinks things through in a way that I've rarely seen in a Presidential hopeful (save Paul and Nader). It's nice to get to root for someone who isn't the lesser of evils for a change.

Call me a hope monger, but I think he may well be the best President of my lifetime.

i agree, he is a likeable guy. still a politician though. which he proved denouncing his pastor

^I agree. I wish he would just say, 'Wright is my pastor and friend. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is my close friend regardless. If saying something rude or stupid was justification for ending a friendship, then no one on earth would have any friends, except for Mother Teresa and mute people.'

OK, maybe leave the mute crack out.

I didn't know about the whole "obliterate" quote. It is worth noting that she was responding to a question asking what she would do if Iran nuked Israel during her presidency. I don't personally think that's a helpful or wise comment to make. But put bluntly that has always been the nature of nuclear deterrents, to make the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable because the ensuing retaliation would be completely devastating. I find the whole idea of mutually assured destruction terrifying, but I also think Iranians know that is the deal they enter into by building a nuclear arsenal.

Here's a clip of the quote you mentioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A

There are many who want to attack Iran for purely economic/political reasons, including the Bush admin, the Neo-cons, The military-industrial-complex, the extreme right wing of the US, the extreme right wing of Israel and the DLC as well as other factions.

These factions often site Iran's nuclear program as justification for attack. In reality, the nuclear program is for energy, not weapons. Creating nuclear weapons is not something you can hide from detection. In other words, if Iran decides to make nukes, we will know from the very outset of the program.

Everyone agrees that Iran shouldn't create nuclear weaponry, but it seems that all candidates must court the bloodthirsty factions I listed in the first paragraph. The trick is to determine the intent of the candidates based on their brief, vague statements.

I would interpret Obama's measured quote to mean, 'I would not allow Iran to create a nuclear weapons program if they were dumb enough to do so, but it will never happen, because covertly creating a nuclear weapons program is an impossibility, not to mention a huge political loser for the country.'

I would interpret Hillary's extremely aggressive quote to mean, 'If I get an intelligence report (wink) about yellow cake, WMD's, or (wink) nuclear weapons (wink), I will act on it.'

I have no reason to believe she would be any better on Iran than she was on Iraq. For the record, I don't think Hillary was duped by Bush on Iraq. I think she knew exactly what she was doing.

Of course, this is just one persons opinion. I could be wrong.

Iran creating 'nuclear weapons' is a created narrative by the GOP and warhawks in Washington.

When the Iraq war was at its worst, the blame was not laid at the Whitehouse burdening the military with unrealistic political objectives while not providing the necessary manpower.

No the blame was laid at insurgents, Al Qaeda but most of all at the influence of Iran and it's Revolutionary Guard. Everything from providing arms to training.

So much so that a resolution was passed declaring the Revolutionary Guards as 'terrorist' organization, weak links were pulled claiming Iran's president was involved in the American embassy hostage crisis back in the 80s.

This narrative was present on and off for several years, because who better to blame for the quagmire of Iraq then America hating Iran? But the story wasn't solid because there was hardly any proof, the EFPs found bearing Iranian marking are only indicative of lucrative arms trade that is occurring now in Iraq not of a policy of sabotaging America by Iran's government.

But this was not enough so the case for Iran creating Nuclear weapons was pushed forward, "Surely" the Neocons thought "It worked with Iraq 'smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud' it will probably work here".

The reason being such a narrative would facilitate expansion of the war into another sovereign nation that happens to possess oil reserves and more importantly lie in a strategic location that would allow oil and gas pipelines to run from Central Asia (one of the last untapped through Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf).

Not because it would benefit America as a whole but because it would benefit the interests of those who possess power, politically it would justify scaling and prolonging the war as much they wish, it would also allow for long term control of strategic reserves and routes for years to come not because its a good idea but because people who are Neocons are already playing a fantasy military standoff between the US, Russia and China some 50 years ahead.

Not to mention it would be to Israeli wishes.

Remember a few months ago they tried to pull a Gulf of Tonkin scenario in the Persian Gulf. Notice how that story got promptly buried.

Iran is not stupid, its military and army cannot handle an American air assault, they will be destroyed. They know the Bush Administration wants them to make a stupid move to justify and invasion or rather a air strike assault, why else would they just isolate them and not even talk to them in diplomatic terms. The carrier groups are ready stationed in the Persian Gulf to strike at any time.

This policy is disastrous, because the current sanctions and political isolation is only worsening the situation in Iran, justifying the centralization of power under the current president due to the possibility of war. It also solidifies Arab distrust of the US and plays right into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda.

iran would be well on it's way to become a democracy by now were there no interventions by the US and Israel, which won't give up it's strategic control of mid-East. like 1980-88 iran-iraq war, sponsored and instigated by the US. thus the clerics are still in power. there's a lot of well educated young people in Iran that want to establish normal relations with the west. my ex-girlfriend was in Iran in 1989, had trouble with the "ethics police" in Teheran, a bunch of armed youth and old war veterans that patroled the streets. apparently her feet were to "exposed" (she wore sandals and huge sunglasses) also her long blond hair peeked a bit from under all that disguise, so she was an easy target. she was with another guy and they had to pretend they're married to get a hotel room. they were pushing it a bit when they went skinny dipping in the Caspian sea (they entered from north, through Turkey) but they both came home with good impressions. they met a dozen educated mid-class iranians who were very eager to welcome them in their homes and talk to them about politics, life in Europe and the stuff that was bothering them like strict religious laws and the double lives they lived - out on the street or at work they always have to be careful about what they say, how they behave or what they wear. when at home they're much more relaxed and openly talk about life in Iran.
we shouldn't bomb them, we should help them make a better country for themselves or at least just leave them the fuck alone so they can get their shit together on their own. the US policy for the last few decades certainly didn't do any good to the evolutionary process in that part of the world.

Funny you should mention " holocaust " when speaking about Iran.

The Holocaust of the Jews during WWII is something that is omitted from Iranian text books. Leaders in Iran, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, say the fact that a Holocaust happened is debatable and that Jews are responsible for every major war in modern and ancient history.

What about THAT Iran?



Or THIS Iran?


I grew up with an Iranian family next door to us. They were very smart, friendly, loving people. I know that there are many, many good people in that part of the world and in that country. But, the fact of the matter is that the leaders in Iran are Bat Crazy!!! They just make it a little hard for some of us to ignore them.

...and forget about Obama. Ron Paul has more wisdom, courage, and plain 'ol common sense in his little finger than Sen Obama will ever have.

^Even if that were true, it wouldn't make the mass murder of Iranians any less of a holocaust.

The 'wipe Israel off the face of the map' canard this is pure propaganda.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

I'm going to check on the text book thing and get back to you. Just keep in mind that there is a major propaganda campaign underway to dehumanize Iran and justify an attack. I'd suggest you be more skeptical about government/corporate media claims about Iran.

Reality check. Did you fall for WMD's and yellow cake?

Where's that joke video someone made about Steve Jobs unveiling the iRack and the iRan. That was funny.