Thread: They have the right to enrich uranium...

^^

NO,

you are correct that "Persian" is the western word descended from Greece. But its equivalent in our language is FARS not Iranian. Replace "F" with "Ph" and drop the "h", you will get something like Parsis.

However, Persian (Fars) and Iranian are not the samething. Iran, the word itself means the Land of Aryans. It is a very old word that was chosen to reprsent the nation of Persians (FARS) in the 1930s. To be of the Iranian race, you may do not need to be Persian. For example, Medes, Parthians, Bacterians, Scythians and Persians were all Iranians, and their empire was an Iranian empire, were the Iranian-people (Persian and Medes) ruled over the rest of Iranian-people (Parthians, Bacterians and Scythian) and other racially different subjects such as the Semetic people, Babylonean, Lydian etc. etc.

Persia and Iran are not the samething. One is NOT the translation of the other in native language. Fars is the translation of "Persia" in my language, not Iran.

Originally Posted by xerxes

^^

NO,

you are correct that "Persian" is the western word descended from Greece. But its equivalent in our language is FARS not Iranian. Replace "F" with "Ph" and drop the "h", you will get something like Parsis.

However, Persian (Fars) and Iranian are not the samething. Iran, the word itself means the Land of Aryans. It is a very old word that was chosen to reprsent the nation of Persians (FARS) in the 1930s. To be of the Iranian race, you may do not need to be Persian. For example, Medes, Parthians, Bacterians, Scythians and Persians were all Iranians, and their empire was an Iranian empire, were the Iranian-people (Persian and Medes) ruled over the rest of Iranian-people (Parthians, Bacterians and Scythian) and other racially different subjects such as the Semetic people, Babylonean, Lydian etc. etc.

Persia and Iran are not the samething. One is NOT the translation of the other in native language. Fars is the translation of "Persia" in my language, not Iran.

Much like India issue

But still most Iranians are Parsis or of that root, so it may not be the iranian empire but definitely a state within state

Originally Posted by xerxes

Garry, I am not sure I mind India having nukes ... they are an entire subcontinant and a Great Power of high statues. Prestige demands it.

No. I don't agree here... Prestige and importance to the globe should no longer be a criterion for defining who HAS right to own nuclear weapon and WHO is not. There is no feasible way to build justice criteria.... Globe should FIRM .... NO MORE. Or else this plannet would see few regional nuclear wars which would harm all.....

Look, that is what Indians are thinking now of IBCMs while they DO NOT NEED IT to threaten PAKISTAN..... I like Indians.... But USA should STOP them or they do not deserve right to be a global POLICEMEN....

India Eyes ICBMs After Testing China-Specific Missile

Originally Posted by xerxes

BTW, i dont know if you know this, but after the ascention of Reza Khan as the Shah in the 30s, he changed the name of "Persia" to "Iran", because the word Persia has been so embrassed in the early 20th century and 19trh centuray due to Qajar's incompetence into holding their territory against British and Russian conquests, that he chose to change the name of his nation to a new name and a new begening: Iran.

Little he (Reza Shah) knew that 50 years later the Mullah will drive the "Iran" and "Iranian" to an even lower lever then the feeble Qajars. That is why, TODAY Iranian aboard generally reverted back to their old name which is Persia and Persian. and that is why generally Iranian abroad have a problem with 300 movie, and thats because the movie drops the bomb on the word Persian, which they came to associate themselves with with sense the Revolution and souring of the name Iranians because of the Khomeinist.

Well, it is strange but Hollywood is a great part of the policy making. Indeed, it forsters a lot of views through its movies which are not intended to be taken seriously.... yet MANY build their views on what is happening from the VIRTUAL reality created by hollywood movies which are trying to MATCH the views already created BEFORE

I guess Borat moviet was a good and most funny example demonstrating that. But even without Borat even here most are affected by a COMMON view. For example - if you watch hollywood movies about Soviet/Russian space program you would see a rusty Mir where a guy in Ushanka (russian fur hat with ear flaps) usees a hummer to repair an oxigen tank. Or more recent SPACE COWBOYS where "Russian ONLY communication satelite is 14 year old and is USING 30 year old control system STOLEN from USA and now only Eastwod can repair it"......

I read it HERE in the thread about simularities of Concord and Tu-144... People are still believing in MYTH that concord design was stolen yet they cannot POINT what was actually SIMILAR!!! Because there SO LITTLE simmilar between these two.

Well. Only few here can give their fair points to a hardware which was not designed in USA.... others always state - RUSSIAN AVIONICS SUCKS.... and yet can not point WHERE particularly?!?!?

It is probably quite easy to live in the stereotype world..... it helps to simplyfy things and saves brain cells

I blame the Iranian nuclear thing on the Hollywood liberal leftist tree hugging hippies. Their hysteria over Gorebal warming is driving everyone to re-examine the use of fossil fuel plants. Too much "green house" gas, they say. This was caused by the same environmental whackos in the first place.

In the 70s, they convinced the world that nuclear power is dangerous, so we went with fossil fuel plants.

Fastforward to today. These fossil fuel plant they wanted is putting out too much pollution. We should look for affordable and alternative form of energy. The best one is nuclear.

The environmental terrorists have done it again.

Originally Posted by Shek

Canmoore,

I think the fact that the forum is one on Iran is the main reason you haven't seen NK pop up in the thread. Thus, I wouldn't assume that the absence of North Korea implies consent for their aspirations, which is more akin to nuclear blackmail in return to propping it up from disintegration.

Thanks Shek.

Originally Posted by xerxes

Comeone, madame, you cannot just pick and choose which presidents represents America best based on their portfolio, no more than I cannot pick and choose which Iranian president represent Iran the best. It is a package. In case of Iran, A-jad had brought the office of President even to a lower level with his rhetorics.

Fair enough Nixon embraced China, but my only point was Nixon is only well-known for his scandal in water-gate. Now let's expand a little on what you said about picking and choosing Presidents. Reagan embraced Gorbachev in ending the Cold War. If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed. Those other politicians would have been too traditional, too cautious, to push such radical proposals (zero nukes and SDI) or to take Gorbachev's radicalism at face value. (There's no need to speculate on this point. When Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan in 1989, U.S.-Soviet relations took a huge step backward; it took nearly a year for Bush and his advisers to realize that Gorby was for real.)

Originally Posted by xerxes

Anyhow, my point was that a rogue nation can be un-rogued independent of its human right abuses if its fits with the Great Game. And incase of Nixon, I am not sure if he was a failure but he got the Chinese angle going, which encircled the Soviet Union in turn. It has bee said that if America had lost the Vietnam War, then it has gain something far better (China) as a result of it. If the Vietnam War - a failure - had helped to drive a even deeper wedge between Peking and Moscow, then Nixon was there to collect the reward. I think that is good.

Still fair enough. Since Nixon successfully embraced China, and Reagan embraced Russia, should the US now embrace an isolated/rogue nation in this war on terror? It is a fair question, don't you think?

Hi julie, you asked "should the US now embrace an isolated/rogue nation in this war on terror? It is a fair question, don't you think?" ... personnally, I say no. What does the US has to gain from it? ... sure a few small things here and there but nothing major.

The Soviet and Sino examples are different sense we were talking about Great power and a superpower, whose geopolitical alignment had bearing, whereas Iran - though is a thorn on US side and had been for over two decades now - it cannot give something good enough in exchange. However, let me assure you had Iran had a lot to offer, .. human right abuses or not, nuclear weapons or not, Washington would be quite happy to embrace Iran as partner. Indeed, Iran's human right abuses are largely eclipses and overshadowed by the brutallity of Communist China.

As far as the war on terror, is concern, I see it as tool or a banner to achieve national aim of the US government. The sameway Tehran mask its national intrest in the name of Shia brotherhood and all those cute things. .. and there is nothing wrong with both cases, sense nations do always pursue their national intest and usually do mask it under a slogan. Granted, Iran has very evident connection to Hizbollah and therefore, perhapes would be a great candidate-target nation on this war on terror. But one only needs to take look at the geopolitical alignment of Iran and Iraq toward United States to realise that intrestingly all the target nations in this global war on terror are the same nations that happen to be enemies of the States, and happilly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain not a real target (and yes I am aware of what happens in Whuzursitan). Also, do take note that when was the last article that you read that connected Saudi Arabia to the sunni Jihadist in Iraq (a very obvious link), and when was the last time you read article that connected Tehran to the Sunnis in Iraq or to the Taliban in Afghanistan (both MAJOR ideological enemies of Shia Iranians). So I ask you is the war on terror is sham? It is a fair question, don't you think?

Xerxes,

The War on Terror is not really a sham, if you look at it dispassionately and without the baggage of imagining that the War on Terror is a War on Islam.

Can you deny that the unpredictable strike by the terrorist anywhere is not really worrisome? These terrorist are not confined to an particular geographical space. They strike world wide, encompassing all religious population mix and nationalities. Therefore, the terror has become global instead of being confined to certain geographical areas as before i.e. Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Philipines etc. And in the earlier days, there was no umbrella organisation of the terrorists. Now, they have. It is called AQ.

Therefore, the terror has become worldwide because of the AQ and hence it is a Global War on Terror.

Iran has just had a few bomb blasts. Once it becomes commonplace, you will also agree it is a Global WoT.

Ray

Originally Posted by Ray

The War on Terror is not really a sham, if you look at it dispassionately and without the baggage of imagining that the War on Terror is a War on Islam.

I definitly do not hold that view. .. you know that.

Originally Posted by Ray

Can you deny that the unpredictable strike by the terrorist anywhere is not really worrisome?

They are worrisome for the public yes.

Originally Posted by Ray

These terrorist are not confined to an particular geographical space. They strike world wide, encompassing all religious population mix and nationalities. Therefore, the terror has become global instead of being confined to certain geographical areas as before i.e. Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Philipines etc. And in the earlier days, there was no umbrella organisation of the terrorists. Now, they have. It is called AQ.

Agreed. Though, I imagine AQ itself is the PR umbrella rather then defacto central brain of all operations worldwide. Correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Ray

Therefore, the terror has become worldwide because of the AQ and hence it is a Global War on Terror.

Iran has just had a few bomb blasts. Once it becomes commonplace, you will also agree it is a Global WoT.

I agree that terror - religous terror that is not state terrorism - which was confined into Palestine, Kashmir is now troubling the unhappy world as whole with a form that is fluid and undefined. So from that aspect that you have mentioned, yes, we may call it the Global War of Terror, sense the terror has been globalized, in reference to the way it was before. That being said, the war on terror as advertized from the White House seems to be the perfect banner to serve its national intrest. One only need to look at Washington portfolio on Iran and Iraq. Again needless to say I am aware of Tehran's connection to Hizbollah and other terror organization. That is my view. That is why I call it a sham, espacially sense the US Government is the biggest contributor in this war on terror. However, like I said to Julie, all nations serve their intrest, so I have absolutly no problem with Washington's war of terror being a sham.

[QUOTE=xerxes;367419]Ray

They are worrisome for the public yes.

and that translate into votes in democracy and the political parties better identify with the worry of the public, what ho?

Agreed. Though, I imagine AQ itself is the PR umbrella rather then defacto central brain of all operations worldwide. Correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe AQ does not control all the cells that are creating the mayhem. But it has become an icon which motivates and it uses that to create a greater aura for itself and so the cycle repeats as repeats the mayhem!

I agree that terror - religous terror that is not state terrorism - which was confined into Palestine, Kashmir is now troubling the unhappy world as whole with a form that is fluid and undefined. So from that aspect that you have mentioned, yes, we may call it the Global War of Terror, sense the terror has been globalized, in reference to the way it was before. That being said, the war on terror as advertized from the White House seems to be the perfect banner to serve its national intrest. One only need to look at Washington portfolio on Iran and Iraq. Again needless to say I am aware of Tehran's connection to Hizbollah and other terror organization. That is my view. That is why I call it a sham, espacially sense the US Government is the biggest contributor in this war on terror. However, like I said to Julie, all nations serve their intrest, so I have absolutly no problem with Washington's war of terror being a sham.

Religious terror is being converted by all including the terrorists into political terror or vice versa. The demarcation has become too hoary for distinguishing the boundaries.

It maybe true that political advantage is being accrued by all from the GWoT. Politics is after all a murky game. If the US is taking advantage, I presume every country is doing the same under this generic umbrella including the terrorist (in an oppositemanner). I don't think any country can claim purity in this affair including Iran! China is cracking down on the Xingjiang rebels under the same umbrella. While the Kashmir issue has political origins, the Moslems have turned it into a jihad and India feels, rightly or wrongly, it is has now assumed the mantle of the greater Islamic terrorist intent and hence a part of the GWoT!

Originally Posted by Ray

It maybe true that political advantage is being accrued by all from the GWoT. Politics is after all a murky game. If the US is taking advantage, I presume every country is doing the same under this generic umbrella including the terrorist (in an oppositemanner). I don't think any country can claim purity in this affair including Iran! China is cracking down on the Xingjiang rebels under the same umbrella. While the Kashmir issue has political origins, the Moslems have turned it into a jihad and India feels, rightly or wrongly, it is has now assumed the mantle of the greater Islamic terrorist intent and hence a part of the GWoT!

hi Ray, I have never said otherwise. Infact I always point out repeatedly that Iran is also serving its own national intrest - in Lebenon and other places - under another sort of PR umbrella, call it Shia brotherhood. You will not find me denying it, nor you will find me claiming that Iran's crusade is pure and free of any BS. Indeed, it is full of it.