-

The video of the girl. It's been on my mind all day and going to affect me for a long time to come.

I've never seen anything so horrific in my life. No one deserves that.

May her soul rest in peace.
 
and you need to understand he has NO POWER in policy making. He is only essentially the face of the parliament or government of Iran. He takes orders and serves as a distraction.


He must have some influence in policy making. It's unfair to disregard his success in dealing with America by stating he has no impact in policy making,then blame him for domestic atrocities. If he is really just some sort of apparition, him being elected would not cause such wide protest in the country.

What kills me is how these idiots question the Holocaust which just happened 60 years ago. Where we have videos and first-hand accounts from survivors and countless witnesses. They questions a catastrophic event that recently happened.


They don't doubt the occurrence of the Holocaust, they question the numbers and figures associated with it. And they are by no means the first to do so.

Actually, there are probably some people who doubt the holocaust from occurring altogether; but it is unfair to clump those people with Ahmadinejad.
 
Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

The Shah was moving towards secularism and the clerics were losing power. Khomeini spoke to the religious uneducated villagers and he brainwashed them with his empty promises of total freedom, a monthly allowance from oil revenues, and many other lies. The people thought anything would be better better than the Shah, and they were absolutely WRONG.
I completely agree with you on the part how the Islamic revolutionaries misled the Iranian people because when they took over. They only replacedthe Shah with a theocracy. However, the revolution against the Shah was not an Islamic revolution only led by Islamic radicals, but a revolution by the Iranianpeople from all backgrounds. As I mentioned, the working class and the poor played a major part in the revolution. It is just that they followed the Islamiststo lead the revolution because they were the strongest opposition to the Shah rather than the other Leftist movements that were taking place which had no steamto lead the revolution.

Khomeini instituted Sharia law and extreme fundamentalism that repressed the people for 3 decades. The revolution promised heaven but created hell on earth.

Nothing to disagree about right there.

he Shia uprising and Western backlash and resentment towards the Pro-West Shah led to the revolution.

Nope. The revolution took place due to the lack of freedoms, and the brutality the Iranians suffered under the Shah. It was only before a matter of time thatthe people of Iran were going to rise up against the injustice and oppression they were suffering under the brutal regime of the Shah. No big backlash from theWest to the Shah. President Carter asked the Shah to be re-instated after the 1979 Revolution and of course that did not work.

Like I said, he had many faults. But they pale in comparison to the Islamic Republic and the brutalities they have committed in the name of their peaceful religion.

Disagree about how they pale in comparison. I think there were a lot more killings under the Shah. You cannot deny the torture and execution that happenedunder the Shah. The Savak secret police were rampant and killed in cold blood. I think it is estimated that around 20,000 political dissidents were killedunder the Shah. During protests in 1978 and 1979, the Shah's military opened fire on civilan demonstrators, killing 5,000 to 10,000 people.I think he heldaround 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners imprisoned.

You can certainly blame the Shah and the Western allies who funded and supported him for bringing the Islamists out of their ashes. As it is known, Iran turnedinto a fundamentalist muslim theocracy, and the U.S. with the help of the British and their overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1953, as well asits continued support of a brutal tyrant (the Shah)for 25 years, was what radicalized the country to fundamentalism, extremism. It also brought upon a severehatred toward the West and brought upon the revolution.
 
This article was written before the elections. Quick summary on Mousavi's past policies and stance on certain issues.
[h1]Profile: Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's Radical Turned Reformist[/h1]
By Pierre Tristam, About.com

0608-moussavi.jpg


As prime minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989, Mir-Hossein Mousavi was a hard-line radical. As a presidential candidate against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, he's recast himself as a moderate reformer.

Mardetanha/Wikimedia Commons
[h3]Why Mir-Hossein Mousavi Matters:[/h3]
Mir-Hossein Mousavi is the reformists' leading candidate and challenger to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian presidential election. Mousavi is not well known. But to call him a liberal is likely an overstatement. As Iran's prime minister during the Iranian Revolution's most formative years (1981-1989) he was a hard-liner closely allied with then-president Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, and a "firm radical," as The Economist described him in 1988. Still, Mousavi's 20-year absence from Iranian politics and his recent emphasis on moderation has the West, and young Iranians, beguiled.
[h3]Mousavi's Youth, and American "Student" Days:[/h3]
Mir-Hossein Mousavi was born Sept. 29, 1941, in Khameneh, in the Iranian northwest panhandle province of East Azarbaijan. He was trained as an architect and a town planner. His early years under the shah of Iran are obscure, but he told a New York Times reporter in 1981 that three years earlier, when the shah was still in power, Mousavi had visited the United States on a student visa-to organize opposition to the shah. Mousavi returned to the United States in 1981, as foreign minister (a post he held five months), to address the United Nations General Assembly.
[h3]Defending the Taking of American Hostages:[/h3]
In that 1981 interview, Mousavi defended the taking and holding of American hostages by Iranian militants for 444 days as serving the revolution's purpose. "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution," following the overthrow of the shah, he said. "It was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity. After this, we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years." The seizure also ended for good any pro-American leanings in Iran, he said. He became prime minister in November 1981 at age 39.
[h3]Mousavi, Radical Prime Minister, 1981-1988:[/h3]
In October August 1984, the Iranian parliament voted 163-21 to ratify his nomination as prime minister. He had Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's endorsement. A year later, opposition to his policies increased significantly as reflected in a ratification vote of 162-73.

Mousavi's reputation for radicalism was undiminished. When he introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who'd built his reputation while building Hezbollah, the Party of God, in Lebanon.

Mousavi's parliamentary followers supported continuing terrorist operations in Lebanon.At the end of the Iran-Iraq war in August 1988, when Ali Rafsanjani, the speaker of Iran's parliament at the time (and the current head of the powerful Assembly of Experts) suggested that Iran should accept some western help with reconstruction, Mousavi disagreed, claiming the move would betray the ideals of the revolution.

Mousavi consistently favored state controls over the economy rather than free-market policies. Iran's business class doesn't like him. He had also opposed ending the Iran-Iraq war, claiming that "a large portion of the masses" were indignant over the cease-fire.
[h3]Mousavi and the Iran-Contra Affairs:[/h3]
Mir Hussein Mousavi had a direct role in the arms-for-hostages scandal known as the Iran-Contra affairs that involved secret negotiations between the Reagan administration and the Iranian regime to secure the release of American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. (Read more about the Iran-Contra affairs.) Mousavi worked closely with Khamenei, the president at the time, bargaining for 504 high-powered TOW anti-tank missiles (for use in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the United States supported Iran's enemy) while promising to release hostages in September 1985.
[h3]Mousavi's Anti-Americanism:[/h3]
Mousavi neither liked nor trusted Americans. He led Iran's boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics to protest U.S. foreign policy from Central American to the Middle East. He opposed warming relations with the U.S. The arms-for-hostages dealings soured his impressions further. "Iran has friendly relations with many countries," Mousavi said on Iranian radio on Nov. 5, 1986, "but negotiations with the United States in light of its crimes against the Islamic Revolution will never take place." Of course, Mousavi was covering up (as the Reagan administration did) what had become public.
[h3]Obscurity After 1989, then Resurgence:[/h3]
When Ali Rafsanjani was elected president in 1989, a post he held until 1997, one of his earliest moves was to oust Mousavi and other hard-liners from government (the prime minister's position had been scrapped by a constitutional amendment, but Rafsanjani did not invite Mousavi to be part of his government). From that point on, until 2008, Mousavi was out of the public eye. It's not clear why Mousavi left public life after 1989, the year Khomeini died. But his absence was almost total. He returned to architecture and teaching, and was an adviser to President Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005).
[h3]Mousavi on a Nuclear Iran:[/h3]
Mousavi, like all other major Iranian politicians, is opposed to suspending the country's nuclear-enrichment program. He does not equate nuclear enrichment with a nuclear weapons program, however, and seeks to pursue dialogue with the West from that principle. "I consider détente the principle to build confidence between Iran and other countries," he told the Financial Times. "I think the recent discourse, which differentiates between nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a good one. The more this differentiation is emphasized, the greater the possibility of détente."
[h3]Reformer or Chameleon? :[/h3]
References to Mousavi as a "reformer" and a "moderate" have been oddly reflexive in the Western press, and particularly the American press. The characterizations are at best premature, and likely outright fabrications-unless Mousavi himself has disassembled his ideology and reconstructed it of more moderate parts.

That seems unlikely.

Mousavi's more patrician tone and sharper intellect distance him from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seduce a young generation that never knew his radicalism and apologies for terror and bloodshed. But his policies and ideology, his faithfulness to the Islamic revolution, his economic policies, and his anti-Americanism are all of a piece with Ahmadinejad's. His election to the Iranian presidency may signal a change in tone, but not a change in policies.
 
Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey


Nope. The revolution took place due to the lack of freedoms, and the brutality the Iranians suffered under the Shah. It was only before a matter of time that the people of Iran were going to rise up against the injustice and oppression they were suffering under the brutal regime of the Shah. No big backlash from the West to the Shah. President Carter asked the Shah to be re-instated after the 1979 Revolution and of course that did not work.

What I meant was the backlash of the Iranian people towards a Shah that was a "western puppet". This resentment had existed since the Mossadegh scandal

There are many different theories on why the revolution happened and what caused it. It was MANY things.
1. The lessening power of the clerics and Shia muslims
2. His increasing extravegance
3. Brutality, of course
4. His increased spending in the last year of his power led to tens of thousands of unskilled workers being laid off, who in turn, flooded the streets and joined demonstrators against the Shah.
5. Khomeini's people burned a movie theatre in Abadan and killed 400 people. Then he claimed this was Savak's doing (which was later found to be untrue). Khomeini killed 400 people and framed the Shah. People were furious.
6. People still resented the shah which was placed by the West in the Mossadegh scandal.
7. The lies of Khomeini

It was a combination of all of these really.


Disagree about how they pale in comparison. I think there were a lot more killings under the Shah. You cannot deny the torture and execution that happened under the Shah. The Savak secret police were rampant and killed in cold blood. I think it is estimated that around 20,000 political dissidents were killed under the Shah. During protests in 1978 and 1979, the Shah's military opened fire on civilan demonstrators, killing 5,000 to 10,000 people.I think he held around 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners imprisoned.

An independed research organization found out that 2,800 people were killed in the late 70's demonstrations. Far less than the 60,000 claimed by Khomeini's propaganda
If you think Shah tortured and killed more people than this current regime, then you are gravely mistaken. You just don't know what goes on in Iran behind the scenes.
The Islamic Republic also assassinated numerous outspoken ex-patriates in other countries.


You can certainly blame the Shah and the Western allies who funded and supported him for bringing the Islamists out of their ashes. As it is known, Iran turned into a fundamentalist muslim theocracy, and the U.S. with the help of the British and their overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1953, as well as its continued support of a brutal tyrant (the Shah)for 25 years, was what radicalized the country to fundamentalism, extremism. It also brought upon a severe hatred toward the West and brought upon the revolution.

The government is fundamental, radical and extreme. The people are not. The people want freedom and do not believe (for the most part) in the ideals of fundamental Islam and sharia law. Women do not want to be married off at age 13. Women want freedom to be judges, to be doctors, to wear what they want, to talk to men in public, etc.

EDIT: check this out if you don't think the Islamic Republic was more brutal than the Shah



1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners refers to the systematic execution of thousands of political prisoners across Iran by the government of Iran, starting on 19 July 1988 and lasting about five months. The main targets were the members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), although a lesser number of political prisoners from other leftist groups were also included such as the Tudeh Party of Iran (Communist Party).

The killings have been called "an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history - unprecedented in form, content, and intensity."[sup][3][/sup] Estimates of the number executed vary from 8,000[sup][4][/sup] to 30,000.


Remember that the Shah didn't even execute his most famous opposition, Mossadegh, who tried to topple him. Khomeini, however, almost immediately executedall military leaders when he seized power.
obviously, Shah executed a lot of people too, but I'm just saying they both were guilty.
 
Originally Posted by kash55

Anonymous (Group) Sends Message to Iranian Government

http://digg.com/world_news/Anonymous_Group_Sends_Message_to_Iranian_Government

im following these events through the media, im not going to pretend like i know more than i do. anywho as far as the link goes
grin.gif
one persons youtube account, trying to be cool doesn't reflect the views ofsome mythical group.

story brougt me back down to earth, can really appreciate living in america and i wish the best for iran.
 
Aye Khoda
smh.gif
So crazy man... my dads been calling all our family members in Tehran and they havent been answering or calling back. We are getting very worried
frown.gif
 
He must have some influence in policy making. It's unfair to disregard his success in dealing with America by stating he has no impact in policy making, then blame him for domestic atrocities. If he is really just some sort of apparition, him being elected would not cause such wide protest in the country.

He has no policy making power. But he is used to distract the public from the failed domestic policies of the people who do have power - supremeleader and guardian council.

They protested his election because of what he represents - the conservative party agenda and the continuation of the hard-line policies. Everyone in Iranknows that he is not the one who makes decisions. But him being elected, means the same policies will be enacted. And the hardline agenda will proliferatefurther.
 
For HazelEyed Honey, Khomeini's executions:

FORMAL STATISTICS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO COME BY AS KILLING OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS OF THE LATE SHAH'S MILITARY AND SECURITY FORCES WERE NOT CENTRALLY ORDERED

We have tried to gather numbers that are as reliable as possible but they are, at best, estimates. Usually very accurate estimates but we believe we have understated actual numbers.


Here are some figures in no particular order, other than as they came in.

144 Air Force Pilots including the Nojeh attempted counter-revolution by the Air Force. (Nojeh is still a not fully told story we will write up as time permits. We have have the facts but not the time).

428 Officers in Khuzestan Province, mostly from armored divisions.

216 Officers from the Shiraz city area also mostly from armored divisions.

27 TOP MILITARY & SECURITY officers from various branches. Note that military officers from the Army also served in police and security organizations.

For instance, 4-star General Nassiri, head of SAVAK , was an army officer.

As was 3-star General Mehdi Rahimi, Head of Tehran Police, who slapped the hanging judge, who loved torturing cats to hear their screams, Ayatollah Khalkhali, when he mocked the general for maintaining his loyalty to the Monarchy and insulted the Shah.

Khalkhali ordered Rahimi's hands and then arms cut off before being shot. Photos of the brave General's body show these appendages laid on his chest and alongside his body.

60 Officers in the city of Mashhad.

Also in Mashhad and an example of civilians who joined the revolution and achieved power by heading some of the vigilante committees, a writer and member of the local liberal writers guild, Ali Asghar Haj Seyed Javadi ORDERED Khomeini followers to kill Major Ali Vojdani and to tear his body to pieces. All based on a personal grudge.

In other Mashhad executions, the heads of the executed officers were cut off and Khomeini followers would play soccer with them in public.

25 in Tabriz city.

17 in the Kurdestan Province.

Because Khomeini feared the Iranian Kurds, he tried not to alienate them. In one case an Air Force General posted to Tehran's Mehrabad Airport (on the military side of it) who would normally have been executed out of hand, was imprisoned but later released on the DEMAND/REQUEST of the Kurdish leader of the tribe from which he was a prominent family member.

24 Officers from the Khorramabad area.

115 Officers from Zahedan, mostly from the armored division

180 Officers in the Isfahan area.

800 Officers and Civilians from Internal Security Section of SAVAK (the National Security Organization).

180 Officers and some Civilians of Anti-Terror Central Command.

300 Police Officers killed, were publicly hanged from city trees in Tehran. With this trend in mind, several hundred more died this way around the country.

Around 9,000 at Lavisan, mostly Royal Guards but also officers from other cities and branches brought in to oppose the revolution from cities like Khoi and Maragheh (Azarbaijan). They reportedly did not die without taking several hundreds of Khomeini-ists with them.

Witnesses of this massacre relate that bodies were piled up high into military trucks and sent out for disposal.

All the above, except Nojeh, happened in a brief time frame of days and weeks after bloody Khomeini/Soviet revolution.

Other indicators point to over 250,000 military officers and non-coms with some lower ranks being executed since the start in 1979 till today.

To all this you can add the sudden death by execution of some 30,000 Mojaheddin (MEK) and Marxist Fedayeen in Khomeini's prisons in the1980s as he wanted to remove them as a threat in case their colleagues fighting militarily against his regime from inside Iraq, managed to make headway and release this number of supporters.

At the time, the Marxist-Islamist MEK, numbering abut 100,000 boots on the ground inside Iran, whom the Mullahs have demonized inside Iran out of fear, as the only militarily trained opposition which could be aimed at them, has now sadly turned into a worship Mariam Rajavi cult. She is the wife of former leader Massoud Rajavi.

The MEK is still on the USA TERRORIST list and illegal here but France and then Britain, with clear political interests, have removed the group from their terrorist list. France even returned confiscated funds to Mariam Rajavi.

Over the past decades, the Mullahs have managed to buy up and infiltrate many of the MEK and the group now has two opposed wings, one of which spouts Mullah disinformation and tries to weaken Mariam's hold on the leadership.

And finally Khomeini waged a war that killed around ONE MILLION people on both sides, mostly Iranians. Thousands of these were young boys, as young as ELEVEN years old, brainwashed and conscripted into the Army of God as "volunteers" and sent at Iraqi enemy lines - across minefields - plastic keys to "Islamic Paradise" hanging around their little necks and WOODEN rifles as their weapons!

Yes, eleven. A friend of mine's son inside Iran had to be spirited out of the Islamic country to avoid being conscripted (into the volunteer Army of God, not the regular forces) as he was about to reach that age.

Roughly averaging one per day OFFICIALLY, which fails to count the multitude taken from over 100 "unofficial" prisons run by dozens of militant "security" groups affiliated to various ayatollahs or power groups.

On aggregate, thousands have been taken out into isolated places and murdered. Often sadistically. A favorite execution method of these groups consists of shooting the victims in the feet. then as they writhe on the ground, to put more shots into their ankles, then shins - never in a hurry to place the next shot - gradually working their way up the body. always careful not to hit a vital spot.

Till eventually their captive dies of loss of blood or from shock. Or they tire and grow bored of the game they have so often repeated and finish off the suffering man - OR WOMAN.

If the latter, gang raped till they tired of her body before taking her out to inflict their final act of sadism.

In the formal prisons, where executions mostly require the return of the body to families, signs of prolonged torture that has not healed have recently added insult to injury and been returned encased in a block concrete.

Any lacerations or wounds on the body can be denied as having been inflicted by the family cutting off the concrete or cement block.

And world leaders drag their feet and will allow these same Mullahs and their regime, who make Genghis Khan's Mongols "gentle" by comparison, acquire nuclear weapons.


 
Originally Posted by Essential1

Fede DPT wrote:
I have to correct myself...Eisenhower had a hand in overthrowing Mosaddeq. Carter didnt say a word when the Shah was overthrown, that was the end...
smh.gif
So whenever a president doesn't meddle in every single affair in the world he gets the blame? But if you want to do so every single president Eisenhower on down should get the blame for not acknowledging what we did to that country except the one who had the balls to apologize to try and create a bond (you know who it is so I won't say it.)

Carter presidency not so good. Not the worst by a long shot. But Carter's post-President work
pimp.gif


But my comment on this is everyone should really get involved in this news because it is going to be something HUMONGOUS (in terms of international news) that happened during our lifetime.



Condemning something is not MEDDLING. Meddling means INTERFERING, showing support for people who want freedom is not interfering. Interfering would be whatEisenhower did. You talk about you don't want Obama "meddling" in foreign affairs, but you're ok with him telling Israel to stop buildingsettlements?


Not the worst by a long shot? You're blind, bro. And Jimmy Carter is "
pimp.gif
" post presidential? Carter plagiarized his own book and distorted facts.



So you are telling me that Carter should have done something or said something when the Shah was overthrown? The U.S. government administration were more like shocked at when the Revoluton of 1979 happened. Do you know what the Iranians suffered under the "pro-Western" Shah regime?Then the U.S. government administration wonders why the hell an extremist and more of a religious fundamentalist uprising came up to overthrow the Shah. It is the Shah's brutal regime in Iran which brought out Islamic fundamentalism out of its ashes.


Most of you in here are so in favor of the United Nations, but they didnt say a word, nobody did.

So you think Iran was better off the past 30 years than pre-revolution? Do you even know how much rights women had pre-revolution as opposed topost-revolution? The economic situation pre-revolution cant even be compared to the oppressive Gov't during the past 30 years. The majority of the Iranianpopulation is under the age of 30, so they were too young to understand what was going on. Now, these kids get a taste of freedom via internet and so forth andsee how far advanced the West is and they want that.

This is no longer about the election. The elections results are being used as an excuse to protest and vent their 30 years of frustrations over lack of liberty and human rights.

Yep.



CIA is causing this trust me.



indifferent.gif
 
i unno I still have doubts on this being a successful political protest. smh at Mousavi he is instigating the government to kill the protesters by telling themto continue. What he is doing I think is moving the country against each other for himself to be seen as a symbol of freedom when he wasnt that great of aleader when in power.
 
Originally Posted by MarTdiZzle23

i unno I still have doubts on this being a successful political protest. smh at Mousavi he is instigating the government to kill the protesters by telling them to continue. What he is doing I think is moving the country against each other for himself to be seen as a symbol of freedom when he wasnt that great of a leader when in power.


This isn't about Mousavi anymore. This election has just given the people the courage to finally be able to go against the regime publicly demand thechange and the human rights they deserve. Fede, can you hook me up with the sig?
 
Shout out to my fellow Persians, stay strong...

RIP to the fallen warriors. That vid of Neda got to me, shot in the heart though?

I hope some progress is made

+*!+ the government
 


GOP lawmakers say Obama needs to step off the sidelines and stand up for Iranian protesters; McCain urges the president tobe 'on the right side of history.'





[h4][/h4][h1]Protester: 'If I go out, I'm going todie'[/h1]
A 19-year-old woman who was wounded by Iranian paramilitary forces with clubs escaped with her camera and shared her photos with CNN -- after tricking a paramilitary soldier into thinking she had given him the images on a disk. full story


[h4]Latest arrests signal split among Iran clerics[/h4]


Bulent Kilic / AFP - Getty Images

As worldwide protests continue, Iran says it arrested daughter and four other relatives of ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Full story | Are you there?
 
It never ceases to amaze me that people really think we care about free people. We care about the resources they stand upon. Do you guys really think we careabout the Iranian people? But who are we to say how the Iranians should be governed. Let the Iranian people decide.

How can Iran modernize their country if we continue to deny them access to technology and expertise, just because we don't like their leadership. Iraniansare strong and proud people. While we continue to create divisions and mistrust, we should work on bridging our differences. Media outlets such as Fox Newsspews hatred on a daily basis.
 
Originally Posted by GhostWriter

It never ceases to amaze me that people really think we care about free people. We care about the resources they stand upon. Do you guys really think we care about the Iranian people? But who are we to say how the Iranians should be governed. Let the Iranian people decide.

How can Iran modernize their country if we continue to deny them access to technology and expertise, just because we don't like their leadership. Iranians are strong and proud people. While we continue to create divisions and mistrust, we should work on bridging our differences. Media outlets such as Fox News spews hatred on a daily basis.


There really isn't anything we can do about how our government decides to handle this situation. All we can do is hope for the best, and hope that thepeople of Iran can handle this situation correctly, and not make the same mistakes they made 30 years ago. Although, I must say, John McCain's statementscompletely disgusted me.
 
Originally Posted by DieselG5

Originally Posted by GhostWriter

It never ceases to amaze me that people really think we care about free people. We care about the resources they stand upon. Do you guys really think we care about the Iranian people? But who are we to say how the Iranians should be governed. Let the Iranian people decide.

How can Iran modernize their country if we continue to deny them access to technology and expertise, just because we don't like their leadership. Iranians are strong and proud people. While we continue to create divisions and mistrust, we should work on bridging our differences. Media outlets such as Fox News spews hatred on a daily basis.


There really isn't anything we can do about how our government decides to handle this situation. All we can do is hope for the best, and hope that the people of Iran can handle this situation correctly, and not make the same mistakes they made 30 years ago. Although, I must say, John McCain's statements completely disgusted me.


Why? What did Senator McCain say?
 
Back
Top Bottom