Many thanks, Arjay.

Pity more of our gutless OLO's couldn't show the same historical sense.

Meaning of course, historical knowhow, so much lacking in our OLO threads, even from the management.

Not a great fan of Ahmadinejad either but this piece is a little over the top.

Anti Israeli maybe but "anti-semitic to a sickening degree"? This country has a Jewish member of parliament as mandated by their constitution.

After Israel Iran has the highest Jewish population as a percentage of its total in the Middle East.

It is also interesting to reflect on the incarceration rates per 100,000 in both countries. Iran 222 - USA 760. Granted not all political prisoners but telling none the less.

Where Iran does excel is in the number of executions it carries out per year now well outstripping the US.

Altogether a nasty regime but the US has supported worse.

In reply to the above:

I am not a blind follower of the USA, nor am I devoid of any criticism of America, its policies and history. The Vietnam era is a dark page in US history, as is the support of atrocious right wing Latin American regimes in the 70s and 80s. The Iraq invasion is a debacle that shouldn’t have happened, even though things aren’t as black and white as most US critics wish to see it. Saddam Hussein was one of the worst and most brutal tyrants the 20th century has seen and for the US support in the 80s: I fully agree with Christopher Hitchens – even though I don’t agree with him on everything – that it’s never too late to reverse that shameful support and oppose the regime, although there would of course have been many different options to do so.

However, choosing between the open democracy of the USA and the insipid Iranian regime where any dissident carries the risk of detention (without trial) and often torture isn’t at all hard for me. As for my statement that the Iranian regime is anti-semitic to a sickening degree, I don’t know how much sicker you can get than organising a ‘Holocaust denial conference.’ And I am talking about the regime here, not the Iranians themselves, as that is another story, thank god!

As for my statements regarding the regime’s attitude towards and treatment of women and homosexuals: in Iran, the girl/woman who gets raped is to blame and over the past years there have been several cases where the victim of rape has received the death penalty. There have also been registered executions of homosexuals over the past years.

More in next post

Continuing the above:

As for pragmatic politics: doing business and having diplomatic ties with a country/regime doesn’t mean you have to embrace everything they do. The Australian government does business and has diplomatic ties with China, still that doesn’t withhold them from criticizing the regime if and when necessary. That’s what I mean with pragmatic politics. Considering the history of US-Cuban relations – and I really hope that Obama can end the ridiculous Cuban trade embargo - I can understand that the Cuban regime looks for support elsewhere, but I think it’s repulsive that a regime that calls itself ‘communist’ – and this applies to Chavez’ Venezuela and Lula’s Brazil as well, even though those governments are ‘socialist’ – can wholeheartedly embrace a regime that has killed so many members of the Iranian Communist party. So much for solidarity.

As for Islam: I am not anti-Islam – it seems like you can’t stress these things enough - but I am very worried about the rise of its extreme forms Wahhabism and Salafism worldwide and the way they demand more and more of the public space, especially in Europe – much to the detriment of freedom-loving Muslims themselves. I grant everyone their beliefs and convictions – be it in the atmosphere where it belongs: the private one.

kees, iraq may not as black and white, well black, as critics suggest. however, if you're going to do a pocket comment of iraq, you should at least make it clear that the u.s. invasion was not just a "debacle", something which went wrong. it was also premised on lies. and you should make it clear that hussein's evilness had little if anything to do with the reasons for invading. of course hussein was a tyrant. you say it as if anybody doubts it, as if there's anybody not glad to see him out of power. but that was never the debate.

this is the trouble. even in that little bit on iraq, you seem prone to manipulation, to buy the we're-the-good-guys crap on iraq. well, those liars are the same guys now lying about iran. i don't trust them one iota. you seemingly do, and thus i don't trust you.

as i said, document what you claim, or i simply don't care.

Keep up the good work, Bushbasher, especially the giving of credit where its due.

Reckon holding back the truth comes from both sides, mate. I sometimes wonder who's the worst?