Comments on: From Kofi Annan: Clear Confirmation that It’s Time for a Military Strike on Iran

By: LSD

LSD — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:40:59 +0000

With his posture and polish, it always seemed he could be effective. Thanks Claudia, for explaining how.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:31:25 +0000

Well said Micheal and even more sadly it is more likely to come to pass.

I wonder if it would not be worth it for the Iranian people to fight for their own freedoms even if it meant tens of thousands dying for that cause as opposed to dying in a mushroom cloud because they felt the could do nothing,,,,,

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:43:27 +0000

I agree with those who say we ought to do something before the Pharaohs of Teheran get their nukes. I also admire the brave Iranian democracy proponents, and am continually disappointed that they have been able to make no progress in the several years that I’ve been observing their struggle from afar. It is very difficult to overthrow a modern authoritarian government, master of the instruments of repression.

However, the Mullahs are in power because the Iranian people put them in power and their consent, active or tacit, continues to let the Mullahs retain power. Short of war there does not seem to be any way of unseating the Pharaohs of Teheran and their chosen face to the world, their sockpuppet Ahmedinejad, or even of restraining their ferocity. There is no stomach in the US for trying to bring liberty to any more Muslims, not after the savage resistance to liberty put up by so many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the American people are sick of liberating Muslims from tyranny or trying to feed them when starving and getting only bullets, EFDs, and IEDs in return. No, there would be no American occupation and presence to help Iranians transition to democracy after almost 30 years of rule by the Pharaohs. But there is little probability that we will act to overthrow the Mullahs either.

Once the Pharaohs of Teheran get their nukes and start throwing them around, overtly or through terrorists, it will be too late. We will not be able to differentiate between those Iranians who favored the Pharaohs and those who opposed them when fighting a major war initiated by the Mullahs. The pro-Pharaoh and anti-Pharaoh Iranians will be fried together. If the democracy movement wants to succeed they had better overthrow their tormenters now, as soon as possible, or they will be doomed to suffer along with the fanatics and corrupt who serve the regime.

The Iranian people must take their fates into their own hands, and not wait for the USA to do something (and there is no one else who would or could do something). Either the Iranians will overthrow the Pharaohs or they will share the fate the Mullahs bring on themselves. Choose.

By: Dark Helmet

Dark Helmet — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:36:09 +0000

The Persian people are not to blame, letting a leader down who we said we would stand up for puts the USA at fault. That falls squarely in the lap of jimmy carter. The UN is useless except for sending tents and rice.

By: Samuel

Samuel — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:19:51 +0000

This man, during his charge as UN Secretary-General, has defended the most hateful and bloody dictatorships and continues to be loyal to his terrorist friends. Kofi Annan’s only goal was and continues to be to sink the World in demoniac sewer of Islamist, fascist, communist and other cannibalist dictatorships. This is the true meaning of his passionate defence of Iranian criminals.

By: Tonto (USA)

Tonto (USA) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:55:23 +0000

Hey, why not wait until they have nukes and start threatening? Then turn the whole frickin’ place into a smokin’ radioactive hole. If they already hate us, they couldn’t hate us more, so smoke ‘em!
The US doesn’t use Irani oil, our competitors do….kills two birds (actually more than just 2) with one stone. Nuke hell out of them.

By: gordo

gordo — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:16:03 +0000

War can be averted, possibly, by assassination of Iran’s leaders. Its illegal, I understand, for the U.S. to assassinate heads of state. But what if the heads of a state are killing our people by proxy? Strikes me that would be a righteous elimination. Otherwise, we will be at war, either right before or right after a nuclear attack on Israel.

By: Vahid

Vahid — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:24:32 +0000

Yeah,Better Stop them, I am an iranian and I know how these mullahs think, you foreigners better be afraid of them as long as you have the power to eliminate them. Later you will not be albe to.

(But notice, if US attacks iran and stays in iran like they did in Iraq,they will be in real Hell, better attack,change the government from islamic autocracy to demovracy,and leave,QUICKLY, people have a real sense of hatred for americans thanks to State Media. and a greater sense of pride for being iranian,they will not let Americans stay here)

By: Farzaneh

Farzaneh — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:19:14 +0000

straight talk by an Iranian woman,
If there will be no Regime Change in Iran
If the nuclear sites in Iran are not destroyed before 2010,
And Islamic Republic in Iran is equipped with atomic bomb
US & International Community should not complain of being a desperate HOSTAGE of a state sponsored terrorism AGAIN.
This time will not be limited to a small facility or embassy.
This will not be anymore a case of bad intelligence.
The International civilized communities, will face over 10 million well trained Jihadist (since their childhood age of 7),with spirit of Martyrdom-seeking in cooperation with special interest groups of old superpowers or the so called “born again leftist”.
This will go on till the rule of Radical Islam victoriously take over the world and become a new super power cashing the postponed checks issued by Kofi Annan.

By: RHM

RHM — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:48:52 +0000

Kofi Annan has to be remembered as one of the most inept UNSGs of all time. I recently heard a Latin American head of state declare that it remains a mystery in LA as to why the presidents of the IMF and the WB always come from Europe and the US. Duh, they foot the bill. The real question is why does the Sec. Gen. of the UN always come from perpetually underdeveloped countries? (I know the alleged reasons, but I found this ironic).