From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: cruise missiles ...
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:01:46 GMT
Organization: Labaniyati-ye-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <sehari.728183507@vincent1.iastate.edu> farzin@apollo3.ntt.jp (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
>                   
>---
>
>
>javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com writes:
>  
>@ >5) Sir!, Iranian just defended their land and soil with courage and
>@ >   manhood against all of evils and devils.
>@ 
>@ 
>@ >6) They didn't kill the people. They fought their enemy to librate their
>@ >   land.
>@ 
>@ That is defeinitely true.  But please do not forget that after 1982,
>@ Iran clearly had intentions of going into Iraq, e.g. Majnoon islands,
>@ Fao peninsula, operations Ramadan, ValFajr, etc. etc., all of which
>@ failed.  Do you support this action, and if so, how can you condemn
>@ Iraq's aggression against Iran?  Keep in mind that most of the killing
>@ was during this time.  Now, if Iran's gov't was truly one interested
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>@ in the cause of justice and people's rights, one could argue that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>@ they were attempting to defeat Iraq and punish it for its aggression.
>@ But we all know that this is not the case, and it was just to set up
>@ another fundamentalist gov't led by the traitor Hakim in his country.
>@ This is evidenced by times when IRI would back off from demanding reparations
>@ as long as Saddam would go.  That clearly shows that their priorities
>@ were with the politics of Iraq rather than the rights and well being of
>@ the Iranian people.  Of course Saddam leaving would be good news for 
>@ everybody, but don't think for a minute that another Khomeini in Iraq
>@ would be any better.
>   
>Iran's position was that Saddam Hossein could not be trusted to keep
>the peace and war should continue to oust him from power to prevent
>future invasions of Iran. Given Saddam's record since the end of
>Iran-Iraq war, I think it was quite a reasonable position.

Yes, in theory it was quite a reasonable position.  But when you add this
to IRI's public calls for revolution and toppling of its other neighbor's
as well as many of the region's governments, one cannot help but conclude
that their agenda was more than just "punishing the agressor".  I mean,
who was supposed to replace Saddam? Seriously, what was IRI's answer to
this?  Was it a truly democratic regime which represented the people
(most of which did not support IRI style gov't)?  Furthermore, if this were
their position then, why do they now complain so much when the coalition 
punishes Saddam for breaking UN resolutions?  Why is it ok for them to
dictate Iraq's future and not ok for the UN or coalition, etc.?  In
addition, IRI leaders KNEW they could not win the war, yet they pursued it
for 6 extra years, ending in a worse position than 6 years before.  Iraq
emerged stronger than ever, and Iran emerged weaker than ever. They could
have ended it in 1982 in terms beneficial to Iran, yet they chose not to for
their own political agenda. In doing so they subjected our nation to horrible
sufferring and loss, thus committing one of the worst acts of treason in our
country's history.

America's position in Vietnam was to "defend against communist invaders",
in Kuwait it was to "reverse aggression" and "defend a little country
against a bully".  USSR's position in Afghanistan was that it was 
"invited by an ally in need of help".  The bottom line in these wars were
natural resources, money, and power.  All of these positions are 
"reasonable" too, but I don't see what makes IRI's position any more
genuine and authentic than these.

>                  
> - Farzin            
>              
>PS. Can't we put all this political pro and anti-xxx arguments in
>    the FAQ file? It comes up again and again and again ...
>    Are you reading Mack? I think the FAQ file needs a political
>    section giving the pro- and anti- arguments on the major issues.

I agree, this subject has been argued to death. However you cannot stop
this because this is one of the darkest chapters in our modern history,
and unfortunately it cannot be erased.  The pain will be there for generations
to come, and as long as there is pain, it will be talked about.

Agha Javad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian