he may not be the mouth of sauron but he is a regime apologist.
and i am just appalled at his circular logic and his feeble attempts at conflation.
an academic?
he should hang his head in shame,that was pitiful.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That was awesome. My opinion of CNN just went up a notch. *promote.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 12:37pm PDT - promote requested by dag.

Good vid; upvote.
Unrelated question: Isn't owns/pwons/pwns worn out by now? I thought that died with "fail.".

>> ^Truckchase:
Good vid; upvote.
Unrelated question: Isn't owns/pwons/pwns worn out by now? I thought that died with "fail.".


I dont know. I see your point. But i think its still amusing when used in situations where it is kind of innapropriate... i.e. serious journalism.

In fairness to the apologist, the guy works at Tehran University. If the camera were to pan down we'd probably see the set of electrodes hooked to his testicles.

Are all you guys kidding? The only interesting thing here was how Zakaria managed to keep a straight face while denying America had sold weapons to Iraq.

Bill Hicks talks about exactly this

What a fool and you are all fools to for patting this propaganda regurgitating hack on the back over such a nothing interview.

>> ^acidSpine:
Are all you guys kidding? The only interesting thing here was how Zakaria managed to keep a straight face while denying America had sold weapons to Iraq.
Bill Hicks talks about exactly this
What a fool and you are all fools to for patting this propaganda regurgitating hack on the back over such a nothing interview.


If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html

It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.

I wouldn't call this pwnage.. but it was pretty low to try to justify Iran's injustices by pointing to American ones. It seemed like he was hinting at knowledge they both knew but couldn't openly discuss on air. Perhaps related to the claims of CIA funding the riots in Iran.

If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html
It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.


Ba baw! United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. But hey, nice try. Oh, also interesting, the Iran-Contra Affair.

>> ^ledpup:
If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html
It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.

Ba baw! United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. But hey, nice try. Oh, also interesting, the Iran-Contra Affair.


Are you really trying to put this to bed with a WIKIPEDIA article? Yeesh.

I mean, I am no apologist for US foreign policy, and Zakaria has indeed been accused of being one in the past, so I am not surprised this is a 'thing.' Still, all the items listed in the above article would be categorized as dual-use. And I mean, yeah, its pretty ugly what we did, even if we didn't directly provide them with weapons. But I think the original point was how idiotic is was for this guy to pull that shit out when we're talking about the current wrongs of the iranian regime.

GQ,
the US not only supplied iraq with weapons and intell,but they covertly sold weapons and arms to iran also.the dual-use chemicals under the guise of agriculture has never been proven to be nefarious,but i dont think its a leap to assume it bode for the interests of america to have that region in turmoil.
it's kind of been america's modum operandi in the middle east since just after WW2.

ledpup is correct..and without the "bapbaw" may have made you actually inclined to check his links.
bad ledpup..baaaad..
taken in this context it may re easier for people in america to understand why iran is so conflicted concerning america,there is a long history of interference from the west,america was not the only country..im looking at YOU england.
lets also remember that achmedhinjad(sp?) is just a figurehead with little power.the supreme leader and the mullah councils reign supreme.
ironically it was america's bogus war in iraq that actually strengthened the states posture and weakened a very democratic progressive movement in iran.
that..to me..is the true tragedy.

Interesting. And I DID look at Ledpups links. I am aware of the iran-contra debacle, but need some sprucing up on my info. So thanks to both of you.

You are correct that it is not a big leap to assume that those chems were used as weapons. America has made some pretty egregious errors in the past with regards to foreign policy. But isn't there a way in which the figures like Ahmed. are living in the past? Especially with the new rhetoric coming out of the Obama white house? And its funny that Iran is STILL making this about us while the white house is being careful and distant, and not about themselves and the iranians who are dying in the streets!

I think the interesting thing about this video is that both the interviewer and interviewee are lying through their teeth. One is pro-US, pro-Iranian regime change (for a more US friendly regime); the other is pro-status quo Iran. If you have those compromised limitations, I guess you don't have much choice but to spin. However, are they really the only options?

From the moment the interview/debate started and seeing Zakaria's eyes you could tell he was out for ownage.
Great video. I thought that Fareed Zakaria did a great job of Foreign Exchange on PBS. But when he went to CNN he became a bit like another pundit by pushing mainstream ideologies and not giving much insight into what he's covering.
Mohammad Marandi has been doing talk shows for at least a few years now that I've noticed, and there is no question in my mind that he will try and justify any action, policy, or public statement of the Iranian government. He's constantly on Al Jazeera's Inside Story when an Iranian story comes up.

>> ^geo321:
From the moment the interview/debate started and seeing Zakaria's eyes you could tell he was out for ownage.
Great video. I thought that Fareed Zakaria did a great job of Foreign Exchange on PBS. But when he went to CNN he became a bit like another pundit by pushing mainstream ideologies and not giving much insight into what he's covering.
Mohammad Marandi has been doing talk shows for at least a few years now that I've noticed, and there is no question in my mind that he will try and justify any action, policy, or public statement of the Iranian government. He's constantly on Al Jazeera's Inside Story when an Iranian story comes up.


You're too right. I agree. I liked the Foreign Exchange days a lot. But he is one of the only redeeming factors cnn has nowadays. Him and Amanpour, in my opinion. He is a great interviewer, though, and he does choose exceptionally interesting guests. I am also thankful, as it doesn't appear CNN has even tried to usurp control over the content of his program (yet). Despite his flaws, in my eyes, he is a the silver lining on the dark cloud of corporate journalism.

the white house keeping its distance is the best foreign policy move i have seen from the white house in?..god,feels like forever.Iran has many pro-american constituents,but not from the mullahs.right now islam is so incredibly fractured it is a powder keg.i know i am just stating the obvious,but something has to be done and it wont help if its from an outside source,it has to come from within.

thats why i was cheering the protesters when they bogus election blew up in the mullahs faces.they may have restored some order after many deaths (nede being the most prominent)and many imprisonments but the word is out.now its just a matter of time.my hope is that the west stays out of it.there is a time to offer the hand of assistance,now is NOT that time.it would be too easy for iranian leaders to pounce on that and propagandize it to their own machinations.

if i had to point to a group to blame it would be the neo-liberals,now known as neo-conservatives.mrFisk posted an amazing doc today concerning just that topic so its fresh in my mind.i started paying attention to these guys around 2002,did some research and found an almost hidden group of empirialists who were pretty upfront about their goals.PNAC is a document i have posted about ever since.these guys mean business.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-American-Century

one more point.
while much is addressed in this documentary.it's prudent to know why Iran has a problem with the US.it was not just ONE thing,it was many.
but the two biggest,i feel anyways.
was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields).
the second of course was the espionage game played with both iran and iraq to keep the region unstable and therefore unlikely to consolidate and take over oil production,THEIR oil production.that war lasted NINE years and the US played both sides.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called the grand chessboard.its an eye-opener on foreign policy,and explains many of the reasons why the US what they did.they were not exactly altruistic reasons.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
the consequences of such actions?
chalmers johnson has the amswer:blowback
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson
interviews here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=chalmers+johnson
brzinzski here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=Zbigniew+Brzezinski

>>^griefer_queafer
Yeah I agree Zakaria is a talented interviewer. And quite smart. He can actually pronounce names of people overseas properly. But I think you might be giving CNN too much credit in giving him leeway on CNN. I'm thinking they hired him because his ideology is within the spectrum of what they want to broadcast. Because if they actually gave a real voice to the best academics on foreign policy in the US then it would be like CNN stabbing itself in the heart. The amount of so called "official sources say" reports and interviews they depend on is pitiful. CNN is pretty much irrelevant to me. For them to have any credibility to represent reality they have to challenge those in power, take the hit of losing interviews with politicians, then do investigative work rather than he said she said tabloid style what do you think of what that person said about this or that person coverage. I used the word coverage purposely in that I have a hard time calling the vast majority of CNN journalism, more like a 24 hour politician versus politician reality show. If you have one self serving propaganda group versus another self serving propaganda group constantly fighting for power then it's seems obvious to me that the media should be a referee of facts and analysis. But rather than investigate and giving cold hard facts on social issues now you've got networks (generally) representing political parties instead. CNN, took a slightly different path, instead of doing good investigative journalism has opted for getting a wide variety of political ideologues. But they're still mostly political hacks and their viewers aren't given the historical context of current events because of that. OK. I've gone a bit off topic ranting. anyway.

"was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields)."

imho, there's a lot more to that story than is often bandied about... this may be seen as nitpicking, but the shah was 'already' in power when mossadeq tried kicking 'him' out -- also, mossadeq wasn't what we would call a 'popularly elected' prime minister - under iran's constitutional monarchy (the democracy you're referring to), the shah 'appointed' a prime minister (who if he already held a popularly elected post, must resign to accept the appointment), and then the iranian parliament (majlis) did a 'pro-forma' ratification

understanding this clearly would have your point being similar to saying that former supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor, was democratically elected

mossadeq's ousting had as much (or more) to do with his farcical referendum to dissolve iran's then-only-democratic governing body: the majlis... as it did with us fears of mossadeq's strengthening alliance with iran's communist party: the tudeh (tpi)... not to mention britain's (admittedly greed-driven) desire for revenge at iran's 'nationalizing' a fortune's worth of british refining equipment

The guy probably feared that he and his family would be tortured and/or killed if he spoke out of line, and there were four men behind the camera aiming AK-47s at his testicles.

All countries are dirty and doing underhand shit , but I dont see how that is relivent to the discusdsoin in this video. the simple facts are

Iran is Ment to be a democracy , It apears more than likely that the election was rigged , protesters are met with violence and jail time.

The Outside influence is the only defence the current rules of iran can use as the iran conservatvies are all to aware of previous outsaide meddling and controlling of the government and thus would be less trusting and are more inclined to believe outside meddling as the catalyst to protest again.

He did try to pull a fox and change the subject, while constantly denying Fareed's accusations. I especially like how fareed keeps his cool while casually pointing out how in his opinion the country is very secretive and isolated!

Fareed used to be host of foreign exchange on pbs, a very good show, He has a very non-biased way of adressing the issues. Basically the guests end up helping or hanging themselves.

I'm surprised that Zakaris is denying that the US provided Iraq with weapons. I thought that was common knowledge.

As a professor of American Studies he doesn't seem to grasp the simple fact that the American government changes every 4/8 years.

"You did this and you did that.."

tsk

It's called democracy stupid. Things change.

I believe the issue of contention was about chemical weapons specifically. And on that it seems Zakaria was right. The chemical weapons were developed by Iraq from materials and technology supplied primarily by West German companies.http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html Also he's right that what we provided during the Iran-Iraq war was financial aid in the form of agricultural credits. Though weapons we had previously provided Iraq in the 60s to fight communists were used in the war as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

But honestly I think we place too much importance on that distinction. Whether someone is conventionally exploded or unconventionally poisoned, the result is the same. Some would argue the difference is in the amount of suffering before death, and that is valid. But my worry is that some people actually think conventional weapons are humane; and always either miss or kill instantly. Obviously they cause a great deal of suffering and often kill slowly or just disfigure and maim a person for life.

I guess what I'm saying is the world should move towards rayguns.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
I'm surprised that Zakaris is denying that the US provided Iraq with weapons. I thought that was common knowledge.


You are mistaking 'common knowledge' for the truth. Zakaria is exactly correct in stating America did not sell Saddam chemical weapons, but instead provided him with agricultural credits. He did not go into greater detail, but the full truth is America also cleared the sale of dual use technology to Saddam. Some of that included unarmed light helicopters and possibly some chemical precursors. Mean while West Germany was Saddam's biggest supplier. And when I say biggest, we mean that America's total aid was less than 10% of what West Germany was providing Saddam.

The bigger point though in the exchange in the interview makes it completely clear that Zakaria has the right of things. America's contributions to Saddam were not even terribly significant to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The significance of that aid to the situation in Iran today is so small it doesn't even make sense to bring it up. As Zakaria points out, why are multiple former Iranian presidents, prime ministers and clerics the ones rallying the reform movement?


Surely it is beyond reason to pretend that it is American satellite channels that has persuaded those internal Iranian leaders to take the actions they have. This is, despite what the Iranian regime wants to be believed, an internal Iranian matter and not one brought upon them by the infidels, imperialists or the Jews.