The Iran Conundrum

The New Media Journal ^ | September 20, 2007 | Amil Imani

[NewMediaJournal]

Underneath all conquests and expansions, underneath all the frivolous wars over religious differences, underneath all the oppression and tyranny, underneath all the motives of greed for wealth, underneath all the wars over injustices, lies one single drive: to dominate. The passion to dominate, control and rule over one's fellow humans is an ancient impulse. It goes back to prehistoric times when certain individuals had the desire to force their will upon those around them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not an exception to this rule. They, too, have ruled over defenseless Iranians for nearly 29 years with iron fists and absolute power and are not ready to relinquish this power before taking down millions of innocent lives with them.

The 7th century barbaric ruling of Sharia has caused millions of Iranians to flee their country. Those remaining have been subject to mass slaughtering, thousands upon thousands of fabricated arrests and thousands more torn away from their homes and their families. They have been subjected to tortures, made to confess to crimes they never committed, and then been either exterminated or sent back to medieval Islamic torture chambers where they simply faded away. It is difficult for many people to even talk about these horrible tragedies and genocides, which continue to exist to this date in Iran.

[frithguild]

Great read!

[Mister Da]

Pure rat pucky!

Everybody said the same thing of Saddam Hussein - that attacking him would inflame the ME & muslims. Too dangerous, they said. Could cause WWIII or WWIV or whatever.

And, oh how powerful & dangerous Saddam was. What was it in ‘91? Iraq was the 5th largest army in the world.

Now Iran is the big danger. “It’s gonna be much tougher, attacking Iran!”, the naysayers keep saying. “Could cause the “”muslim world”” to react”.

All BS. IF GWB attacks Iran, it will be Baghdad ‘91 all over again. Only more awesome, more accurate, & more lethal. The Revolutionary guards will be dead/dead, the Iranian Navy sunk, & the Iranian Air force destroyed - in the first 72 hours! After a few weeks of more of the same, our troops will find the mullahs & imanutjob in some dirt hole in the desert, while the Iranian people dance in the streets. In Syria, Assad will try something stupid against Israel, & it will be Baghdad '91 over Damascus from the Israelis, & Assad the victim of a coup or a JDAM.

Oh, there will be some small riots, & much hand wringing from the muzzies & the Left, along with empty threats from bin Laden & Co. But nothing of any consequence - just the standard blather. Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, or Pakistan doing anything other than quietly thanking the USA? Russia & China - loud but vetoed in the Security Council!

Politically & patriotically, GWB can’t lose. If a strong Pub wins in ‘08, he will be in a good position to pursue the WOT, minus Iran & Syria. But if a Rat wins in ‘08, he/she/it will be forced to draw down in shame or continue the WOT, at the expense of their social programs - the same thing that happened to LBJ.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Main Entry: co·nun·drum
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈnən-drəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1645
1: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun
2 a: a question or problem having only a conjectural answer
b: an intricate and difficult problem

02420 chiydah {khee-daw'}
from 02330; TWOT - 616a; n f

AV - riddle 9, dark sayings 3, hard question 2, dark sentence 1, proverb 1, dark speech 1; 17

1) riddle, difficult question, parable, enigmatic saying or question, perplexing saying or question
1a) riddle (dark obscure utterance)
1b) riddle, enigma (to be guessed)
1c) perplexing questions (difficult)
1d) double dealing (with 'havin')