Comments on: Obama, Iran and a push for policy change Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jae Gooley Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:36:35 +0000 Info Corp.Is the reason he sends the most important fees the actual national football league, Spending typically $725 million a year for your legal protection under the law to the nation’s hockey management meeting. That get to typically $1.1 thousand single season using the new package. Sibel will pay you distinct because the nation’s nfl achieving is complete with alot of competitors in good trading sells making use of rhode island, Philadelphia, Chi town as well california..

By: jojoly Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:56:34 +0000 MEK are a known terrorist organization and hated by the Iranian people. Everyone remembers how they sided with Iraqis during the war and helped in capturing Iranians to server as prisoners in Iraqi jails. This is not to mention that they follow their extremist (and fanatical) ideology with total disregard for others.
Removing MEK from the terrorist list only proves that not only the US is not serious about war on terror, but also the American politicians use double standards to further their own short-term agenda.
Mr. Obama, removing the MEK from the terror list and supporting them in any shape will send this clear message to the Iranian people: We do not care about you and we shall unleash hell (MEK) upon you.
This will only increase the dislike (and the hatred) of the US amongst the ordinary people of Iran and indeed the international community.
Mr. Obama, it is time to speak up and reject all terrorist organizations including the MEK.

By: homa Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:25:39 +0000 it is time for Obama’s administration to do the right thing and side with the Iranian people and take the name of MEK off the FTO list. Iranian people want regime change; they have shouted this on the streets clearly and loudly during the past two years.

By: Tamino Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:51:26 +0000 Mr.Obama and his administration must understand that the only practical solution is to support the MEK. The Iranian regime is just afraid of MEK. MEK is well organized and can topple the terrorist regime in Iran. God Bless America and those who support the MEK.

By: AmirAm Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:38:43 +0000 Mr. Obama and his administration should have in mind that acting with double standards will only damage our reputation and raise the US hatred..If this is not acting with double standards, then I’m not sure what is!

By: ahuramazda Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:50:38 +0000 We iranians want freedom, but we dont like the Mujahedin khalqh, they are a crazy sect and also traitors to our nation, but ofcourse the usa only changes a dictator with a nother, if U.s cared about freedom of iranians, this regime would have fallen long ago, and now the u.s plans to let loose terror organization to take over iran….that will not happen we iranians will kill them after we are done with islamic republic. Cant you just leave us alone?

By: whistle_blower Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:55:12 +0000 Why is US thinking about ‘regime changes’? Last few decades have shown whoever US supports to bring about regime change, eventually turns against US. Example: Al Qaeda. What’s the guarantee in 10 years MEK doesn’t harm USA or Iranian public?

Why not learn from mistakes? USA needs to stop causing ‘regime changes’.

By: Quest4Truth Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:07:05 +0000 This is how US has always throughout the history backed and nourished terrorists.

“de-listing” means more blasts in Iran; means more assassinations; more aggression; and less peace for Iranian people. This is what MEK wants to do, just like what it did three decades ago.

Is US really looking for peace and democracy?

By: majkmushrm Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:19:20 +0000 Would somebody kindly explain to me who died and made us God? The gall to think that country A should be able to decide that they need to perpetrate “regime change” on country B is pretty imperialistic. The last time we did that in Iran was 1953 when we foisted the Shah on them again. The blowback from that came 25 years later in the form of fuzzface. The US has had a hard on for Iran ever since they kicked our ass out for terminal interference in their country. Can anybody get a clue that meddling in other people’s business might not be appreciated by the meddlee?

And for those of you who will run around waving your arms and shouting Hamas and Hezbollah, let me say I am totally unimpressed. The US supports Israel, a notoriously terroristic country as well as the insurgents in Afghanistan (see Charlie’s war) and subversive groups in a half dozen other countries we want to perpetrate “regime change” on. Hell, we weren’t even willing to recognize that Hamas won the Palestinian election.

By: RobertFrost Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:42:56 +0000 The US followed the same tactic in Afghanistan. It armed, trained and supported a group of ‘Mujaheddin’ from the Arabian Peninsula, to make life difficult for the Soviets. These held a pre-Islamic notion of Islam and perpetrated in the name of Allah murderous forays, which the US labeled as a struggle for freedom.

On 9th September, 2001, they attacked the US.

The Iranian terrorists on the US list have been kept and nourished in Iraq by the occupation authorities since the occupation of Iraq, back in 2003. They were grouped in a camp in which they were fed and nourished, and we do not know if they were even armed and allowed to continue their training that Saddam Hussein started.

In the process, they turned to the US, on the same basis as the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan did – the enemy of my enemy is my friend, with the addition of: ‘for the time being!’

If the US now begins using them to established the Iranian regime they would be a party not to a popular revolt as in Egypt, but to an armed conflict with Iran. This is how the world would understand it, and how the world would react to it.

But the US did rather similar things previously in other places. The iterative steps followed in Vietnam, supporting the rebellious Saigon government against that agreed to in the Geneva Conference in 1954 – which included US, France and Britain, the Soviet Union and China concluded framed the New Vietnam (the US of course refused to sign up). The result was an iterative expansion of the US role in Vietnam, leading to its defeat.

President Obama campaigned on the premise of even “meeting with the leaders of Iran and Cuba” to resolve key international impasses. So far, not even overtures to the Iranian regime were made. Instead, the US began a relentless campaign of persuading unbelieving partners, particularly Russia and China, that Iran is out to produce nuclear weapons. The IAEA, while historically ready to do the US bidding, somewhat, could not in its very last report on Iran, state categorically whether Iran is (or is not) working on a nuclear device.

The nuclear cooperation Iran has with China and Russia obviously reflect their view that such a claim is, in their assessment, invalid.

The US administration, very early on, found itself, like its predecessors, being pushed by that troubled and troubling small state in the Middle East to override its national interests and seek to solve the problems that small state continues to have, since its establishment, with close and far neighbors – the last, of course, is Turkey.