Hiddink may become NT to Australia

Discussion in 'Korea' started by taegukgi2004, Jul 9, 2005.

  1. taegukgi2004

    taegukgi2004 New Member

    Jan 10, 2005


    cheers to this post.pos reps coming you way...i love this type of attitude bro...yeah you are so fking right..it should be a MUTUAL RESPECT...after all, park and lee have brought tremendous amount of success to PSV both on and off the field....well, about hiddink, i don't know but , ive always thought of him as one of "us"...i have tremendous amount of respect for him and what he did, even though he was compensated very well by KFA and by sponsorships, however, i just coulndt bear to see him coaching assuies in the same asian confederation...
     
  2. gatch

    gatch Member

    Mar 13, 2005
    Seoul and Melbourne
    I love Australia. I was born in Australia and I have only recently moved to Korea because of a job opportunity. But I have to say that Australia in the past 10 years has become more "racist" towards asian. The main cause of this is the D##khead of a Prime Minister "honest john howard" and Pauline Hanson. Pauline hanson is obvious. But I must say that John howard is more dangerous. He used the Children overboard scandal as a political tool, Lying to the public. Then when he got caught he Blatently Lied saying he knew nothing about it. He conned the australian people to going to war in Iraq. He said that he would not bring in the GST and he did. He refused to condemn Pauline hanson publically when all the other parties did so. and now he is screwing the workers with this "Industrial Reform"...... I could go on......

    Screw John howard and his "middle class White Australia"
     
  3. Step-Over

    Step-Over Member

    Mar 29, 2003
    Really, can you trust a nation that is symbolised by a marsupial? Please. We should bomb those Kangaroo-humpers? ;)

    But in all seriousness, if the Aussies want to join the AFC to help contribute the general infrastructure of the confederation, why not let them join. It's possible their willingness to participate in the confederation has some beneficial elements for the AFC as a whole.

    However, if the Aussies want to get their fingers in the money pie, and exploit this opportunity in joining the AFC as a stepping-stone to UEFA, then they should take a long walk on a short pier.

    Yet, their lassies are dirty in bed, so let them join, that's enough reason for me. :D
     
  4. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    I don't have time to address your other points at the moment, but I will answer this one now. It really is beside the point whether such wishes are practicable, but rather the very fact that they actually think this way. And if were indeed realistically possible, they certainly would.

    And such talk shouldn't be dismissed off-hand. Of course, they would need several years at least before they could make such a move; but we should consider that the move to Asia was primarily motivated by economic considerations. But the reality is that Aussies would probably rather watch Aussie football than see Australia play Philippines or Cambodia in soccer, whereas every game they play against an UEFA nation would be interesting.

    And don't underestimate the lure of 14 qualification places, and the fact that anyone who's anyone in Australian football plays in Europe, so it would actually be more feasible for the players to play the qualifiers there than in Asia.

    After all, Turkey ("Asia Minor") is playing in UEFA, and so is Russia.
     
  5. K:thecore

    K:thecore Member+

    May 20, 2002
    Honolulu
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Hey Augie where did this come from? Is there any truth to PSV fans not wanting any more Koreans after Park and Lee?

    If thats true...why are we talking about racist Australia? LOL
     
  6. Elliad

    Elliad Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    well, if you are willing to form an opinion based on what a few have posted on boards like these, I can't really say much about that - but from what aussie football friends that I've around me, and from what I watch in TV here that deal with the state and future of soccer in Australia, I find such a notion as you suggest quite laughable.

    You mention Turkey and Russia, but just where exactly is Australia located? You couldn't get any further from Europe than Australia :rolleyes:

    Besides, UEFA qualification is quite attractive, indeed - I've even seen some Korean fans posting that maybe Korea would be better off in UEFA, if the qualification wasn't so damned hard over there. And frankly, even though there are 14 places available in Europe, the state of competition ensures that several quality countries will miss out qualifying for the WC - in the last WC those were Holland and Czech Republic, and it looks like Turkey or Greece or Denmark or Belgium may miss out this time. I do agree with you about most Aussie soccer players playing in Europe and the feasibility, but that's hardly a matter for consideration, I don't think.
     
  7. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    A bit of a contradiction? If it's feasible for the players, then this would suggest that the distance between Australia and Europe is of little consequence, except for playing home games of course. But flights to Jordan, Syria, Iran, and the like are not much shorter than flights to Europe (And some are even longer, as there are not direct flights to some of these countries as there are to many European destinations).

    And as I said previously, it makes more economic sense, and this is what matters to soccer bureaucrats. In UEFA, there would be much more revenue generated from each qualifying match, whereas in AFC they have to wait to play one of the handful of powerhouses if they want to get any viewership. How was Australia finally able to join AFC in the first place, after so many years of flat denials? It was because they began to think more in a business sense and made an offer that made business sense, rather than saying "Do this for us." And if UEFA and the FFA reach an agreement, then I don't know if AFC can effectively veto this, any more than OFC could stop the Aussies from leaving.

    I certainly didn't say that qualification in UEFA is easy, and I think it is probably tougher than Asia. But qualification was not the primary motivation behind the Australia's move to AFC, was it? It was rather, presented as the "only solution" to get a fair crack at qualification. The real motivator was the added revenue and business opportunities, and of course there are many more markets and business opportunities in Europe and at home if Aussies are playing European sides rather than Asian sides.

    Besides, as you saw in the last World Cup, progress by traditionally weak nations can happen virtually overnight: e.g., Turkey, Korea, Senegal, Japan; and Bulgaria in 1994. I don't expect this kind of turnaround in Australia necessarily, but they are not a bad team considering the Confederation they play in, and the lack of quality opponents. If they faced the likes of Iran, South Korea, Japan, etc, and had access to all the quality tournaments for several years, then they could probably hold their own in Europe, especially if they get a favorable draw.

    Don't underestimate the power of money, when such decisions are made. Why was Japan awarded the co-hosting with Korea - along with its automatic qualifying place - when it had qualified for only one World Cup before?

    Before you answer that question, consider this tangentially related topic: why does NATO now include some of those very nations that it was supposed to protect against - and even more "laughably", as you might have put it only one decade or so ago - why would Russia actually ask for inclusion in it?

    Pure business, my friend.

    And the reason I mentioned Turkey was to generate discussion about it. Why is Turkey included in UEFA (along with Turkmenistan and other Asian countries)? Is it one of the perks of NATO membership?

    Oh, and I forgot to mention Israel, who is also playing in UEFA. Let me bet that their Palestinian "roaches" to the east, to use the phrase of a former Israeli Tourism Minister, wouldn't be granted inclusion no matter how compelling their reasons. (After all, the Palestinian team has trouble getting a full team to even their AFC matches, thanks to their the Israeli authorities). So, the criticism about geographical distance is rather negligible, considering Israel is only one Sharon Wall further from Europe than Palestine. And Lebanon is actually closer.
     
  8. Elliad

    Elliad Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    I think you are reading too much into the geopolitics of the region. Sure that may or may not have influence on the membership of FFA into AFC, but I wouldn't base my entire argument upon it.

    You mention how did FFA get into AFC after all these years of flat denials - it was mainly due to the active lobbying by the new FFA heads, which was mainly concentrated on Japan. And as Australia is about as far as to the Far East as the Middle East is, with much trade interactions occuring between those nations and Australia, the KFA and CFA didn't really have much objection to this. But how is Australia linked to UEFA at all, other than the old connections with the Great Britain?

    There are plenty of Aussie players in Europe, to be sure, but the only thing I've seen so far was that those players are interested in setting up a base in London and get FFA to organise future regular friendly matches in Europe 9which already happened a few times) - even that suggestion was a topic for much debate back here in Oz, as many fans think that a shifting of weight away from Australia isn't good for the development of domestic football in a long run; after all, to be a solid football nation there has to be a solid domestic league and fan-base.

    Anyway, back to the original point, that most Australian fans want to use UEFA by using AFC as a stepping stone, is still quite unbelievable. I respect your opinion on this matter, but I can assure you that that notion is very, very far from the actual concensus of the 'mainstream' football fans (and experts and critics) here in Oz.
     
  9. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    Elliad, I added a few points to my post. So, feel free to comment if you want. And I want to tell you I respect your opinion more than any other person on this post, so never think that I am ridiculing you or anything. OK?
     
  10. Elliad

    Elliad Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    I hope you are not asking the question why can't Australia be considered, if Turkey did manage to get in?

    Israel used to be in AFC until the 70's, I think, but it became just too cumbersome for them to travel all the way to East Asia for NT matches as none of the other Middle Eastern countries would play them in any tournament. UEFA was the only way out for them.
     
  11. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    I think we're in agreement here about a few matters, but just to make sure, let me ask a few questions to clarify:

    1) What was the thrust of the lobbying? Wasn't it about TV contracts and other business matters as you suggested? Wouldn't we expect more of these kinds of contracts and revenue should Australia be gained entrance into UEFA?

    2) Can I infer from your comments that for Aussie players in Europe, having to travel great distances for nearly every WC qualifying match (both home and away matches) would be even more burdensome than than doing the same for only half the matches, i.e., those in Australia?


    I thought you'd never ask! Rupert Murdoch, maybe?

    And since you are asking the question, how are Turkey and Israel similarly "connected"?

    Ah, it's the same answer as before, but with a twist: pure business my friend, and politics of course.
     
  12. xabi_al0ns0

    xabi_al0ns0 New Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Australia
    Gee perhaps teams like Iran shouldn't be in the AFC either because they have a corrupt regime?

    And perhaps China shouldn't be allowed to play either because of their appalling human rights records.

    The list goes on and on and it has nothing to do with football so don't be stupid.

    And by the way these days us Asians are taking over Australia :D
     
  13. Elliad

    Elliad Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    Think practically, do you think UEFA clubs would fly all the way out to Australia to play those European club competitions, let alone to have friendlies?

    And on the 2nd point - it's a matter of FFA wanting a NT that may do Ok abroad at the expense of the growth of domestic football in Australia. Other codes of football are so popular in Australia due to the thriving domestic competition for those codes - which doesn't exist for soccer, atm.


    Rupert Murdoch maybe a factor, if Australia was say located in Mediterrannean, or in the northern Atlantic. But it's in the right middle of Pacific and Indian Ocean, so it's not going to happen. And for those countries, as you are aware they are right next door to Europe, and prolly have much trade interactions with them. For Australia it's Korea, Japan and China.
     
  14. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    man it really drives me crazy when I read such stupid claims from immigrants... being Iranian, Chinese, Indian, Korean, Japanese, etc.... we are not taking over anything... we are surrendering everything we have to them.... reaching high executive positions in companies doesn't mean you are owning that country.... Asians may seem the most well off part of the society in New Zealand and Australia but they are certainly no where near to taking over the country if anything they are just the means for native (or older immigrants if you may) to have stronger hold on the country's future using the economical strength provided by immigrants.... now if it happens that immigrants take key position in government (more specifically, the parliament) then you can rant about how we are taking over these countries.... it's about time for us to realize that we are not the same as the Irish in US...
     
  15. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    You should study the origins of this corrupt regime(and I suggest you use primary sources, and stay away from the official, sanitized, redacted, canned version that you get in university libraries). After all, the Ayotollah was living safely in Paris and flew to Iran via Air France. And during the Iran-Iraq conflict, the US was arming them covertly while having quasi-official support for Iraq - all the while condeming the war as an atrocity. And who funded the Iraq's war? The same Saudi and Kuwaiti moguls who secure all those lucrative deals with Washington, London, and the Bush and Cheney clans.

    Actually, I'm not arguing against their inclusion in principle, per se. But human rights records are always (merely) bargaining chips for the West, so why shouldn't Asia also use this, if they want to affect changes in policies and reduce discrimmination? And for all the talk of China's "appalling" human rights record, one of the worst offenders is Turkey, who has killed many more Kurds than Saddam. In fact, according to Amnesty, they are near the top of the list. But none of the world powers in the West seem to mind, as Turkey are good allies when it comes to exploiting Central Asia and the Near East and their resources there are only more allotments for "foreign aid"(read defense deals) rather than any condemnation.

    And it has a lot to do with football, Turkey signed that lucrative defense contract known as NATO, and now they are playing in UEFA.
     
  16. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    that really is a good argument IF Iranians were Arabs (not the victims of Arabs)... if Iran was the one who invaded Iraq (not the vise versa).... and if you had a clue what you talking about ;)
     
  17. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    It would be much more feasible for them, money-wise especially and even time-wise, than for many Near-eastern countries to do the same. In fact as it stands now, after Australia's inclusion into AFC, Aussies will have to make long trips regardless of whether they are playing at home or away, because because few if any are playing club football in Asia now. So, the argument could work both ways. I think eventually, the players themselves will push for inclusion into UEFA, and the management will not have much to resist.

    I don't know if it's going to happen, but at least we have to consider the possibility, and if it is a consideration at all, then Australia's benefit to AFC in the long run might be short-lived.
     
  18. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    I think you should read my post more carefully. You've not only missed my point, but totally misrepresented my view! I was implying that Iran and Iraq were - and I would say still are - BOTH victims of the West's divide-and-conquer strategy that served these same imperialists in former Yugoslavia. Iran was given covert aid by the US and several other European countries. You've heard of Oliver North and the Iran-contra scandal haven't you? Iraq on the other hand, was given defense deals pitched, negotiated, and authorized by Rumsfeld and the rest in Washington, even the biological and chemical "WMD's" that were to become the pretext for war in 2003. So, Iraq actually was urged into the war by American, Saudi, and Kuwaiti interests so they could reap the material benefits of defense contracts, and of war-weakened countries for the following few decades; with the aim of stealing their oil and natural resources.

    And what is Washington doing now to Iran? The same WMD "diplomatic" game that they used against Iraq. But we should never forget all the lies that Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney, and Blair said about Iraq.

    And I never used the word "Arab" as an attribution for the Persian Iranians.
     
  19. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    no correct version would be America and most of the world started aiding Iraq at the beginning of the war siding with them against Iran and it wasn't only defensive it was a very general technical aid by non-Arabs and money aid by Arabs... after a while due to persistence of Iran the tables turned, Iran-contra scandal came to light which wasn't an official American policy anyways.... so I still say that the point you are trying to get that the current Iranian regime is influenced by America is not correct at all.... and in general corrupt can be said about almost all the governments around the world... and it is called human nature ;)
     
  20. Elliad

    Elliad Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    lol, anyway sebcoe, I can't say I'm completely convinced but there were some interesting points raised, and so thank you for the discussion :)
     
  21. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    You're diluting the poison. These "non-Arabs" you mention are the 44 western countries that supplied ARMS to Iraq - and 29 of these also supplied arms covertly and non-covertly to Iran. This is a fact! And this is one of the reasons why Iraq's 12 thousand page account of their WMD program, which was imposed upon them by the US through the Security Council, was reduced to 4 thousand after the US got it in hand. Because eight thousand pages had damning evidence: for instance the 24 US corporations that supplied ARMS and defense aid to Iraq for their "WMD" program!

    You might recall the big anthrax outbreak following suspiciously close to the 9-11 "tragedy"(This was the excuse that FBI gave for never investigating 9-11: they had to divert their attention to the anthrax investigation). Well, the Bush administration and the Zionist spokespersons and lobby groups were quick in pointing the finger at Iraq. But then they were discredited because the strain of anthrax that Iraq received in a few decades back was from Ames, Iowa - not Maryland, where the new strain was traced back to, by the FBI incidentally. Of course, I am only using the most obvious illustration to prove my point that the evidence is clear, and has never even been attempted to be refuted even by Rumsfeld and Rice, that the US supplied Iraq with the deadliest weapons, to serve their geostrategic goals in the region.

    And my remarks are not directed at Iran as such, nor their ethnic heritage. Only the origins of their regime. Many Iranians would agree that they share my suspicion of American involvement and covert aid for the regime. If this wasn't indeed the case, how does one adequately explain that in both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars post 9-11, the Iranian military gave very important "support" for the US and Great Britain? The regime itself are not composed of Islamic fundamentalists actually opposed to the "Great Satan," but it is in their interests to portray this image in order to preserve their power there. And the US wants it this way, so that they have a pretext for securing defense and oil contracts, provoking wars, etc.

    A little tangential, but let me ask you why three of those that were on FBI's list of 9-11 hijackers were living at the Pensacola US Naval Air Base (this was the address on their driver's licenses), as reported by the Washington Post. Why wasn't this ever denied by the military officials? And how was it that all these suspects' training at the Florida flight schools was facilitated by Navcom, which is owned by Osama bin Laden's brother?

    Such is the nature of covert operations, I guess. The war in Laos wasn't an official war, either. And the overthrow of Hugo Chavez wasn't "official" either, if you mean the kind of policy that Washington likes to boast about.(They were rather embarrassed actually that the coup didn't work, and predictably denied any involvement; though it isn't a mystery that they absolutely felt threatened by his non-aligned stance, and his flirting with the petro-Euro system.) Please explain: How does drug money sufficient for heavy arms mysteriously get funnelled from one continent to another without someone other than the likes of a lieutenant colonel knowing about it? Don't you think these transactions leave any trail?

    What do you consider "official" policy? You're not implying that covert activity isn't common policy, are you?

    And to call it a "scandal" in the first place is scandalous. It was only staged as a scandal, but didn't turn out to be much of a scandal at all. Like most such scandals, they are a whitewash opportunity, after the real scandal story is broken by brave journalist who probably isn't working in mainstream media.

    How big a scandal could it have been, if the one who was at the center of it ran for senate, and is considered a national hero? Traitor to hero overnight! Give me a break - not official policy, my A**.
     
  22. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    so far so good!
    the point that there is a very good understanding and feeling of the support from America towards Wahabee terrorism is been accepted and stated by me as well.... that is very convenient for them because they need their existence as an excuse for their political actions in region.... but to say they are having close ties with Iran is a bit wishful.... you can surely have strong claims for England and Germany having close ties with Iran and having influences in social and political aspects of the regime... but your reasoning for US relations with Iran is kind of flawed.... Iran fought AQ/Afghans not for US, we fought them (still fighting) because Iran is a Shiite country and stands for everything that is hated by Wahabee fundamentals.... for them Western countries being non-Muslim are just ignorant and they need guidance (verbally and by force) to come to their senses and follow Islam... but Iran being a Muslim country has no excuse to have democratic and western values (just compare the status of women in Wahabee ideology and Iran then you'll see why they hate us) same goes for Iraqi Sunnis and lunatics which see Iran as the "promised land".... America has Iran under sanction which really takes away credibility from your claim... if anything there was easier ways to plot this "play" than economically hurting Iran and Iranians....
    again I don't see your point? what does Osama being created by US (which is a known fact) has to do with Iran...

    the notion of official policy is that supported by at least a great portion of the society and the government... in a covert operations the former is irrelevant but the latter stays in.... Iran had a lot of different/independent parts to it's government when it happened shows that the interest for this issue wasn't raised from official side of American government but from the part which was close to at least one of their buyers in Iran's government.... I would have explained it more but need to refresh my memory on the issue from my Persian archive.... but if anything there is a user called "Iranian Monitor" who is very knowledgeable on this issue and I'm sure can explain it better than me.... I'll let him know!
     
  23. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    You're drifting off-topic again. I'm not talking about Iran as a whole, but the clerics at the top who seem to only utter damning things about the US, but then offer aid to the US in the forms I mentioned. Their support for the regime is similar in nature to the support they gave Saddam since the CIA supported his coup, even after Desert Storm. Why did they not overthrow him (or ever assassinate him as was often rumoured in the media?) after the Gulf War, and why did they undermine two popular uprisings against him? Well the excuse given by Bush senior was that they wanted to be sure that the person who took his place would be pliable to US policy. Forgive me if I am wrong, but if Saddam is the evil monster that we portrayed him to be, and if the US is indeed a champion of the democratic values that it presumes to espouse, then why would the US not overthrow him first, and then run a staged election like the one in Iraq this year?

    But the question is who is throwing the gas into the burning furnace? There wasn't Mosque burnings, the origin of which is still in doubt, before the Americans arrived there. And Wahabbism, like Talibanism are ideologies that worked, and are still working, in the interests of Washington. Many of us in the US heard the bad publicity about the violence in the old textbooks in the Afghanistan schools. Some of the examples of violent images include pictures of guns and landmines, and this was intended to teach Afghan children how to count. But what the media didn't tell you is that these same textbooks were written at the University of Nebraska, in order to condition the Afghans to fight during the Soviet-war era, which is actually better named the "Afghan opium kingpin era", during which the US allied with the most notorious of them all - and the one who operated six heroine labs - Hekmatyar.

    By analogy, the cyanide gas that Saddam used to kill Kurds at Halabjeh was also supplied by the US.

    And there would have been no war in the countries of former Yugoslavia if Bonn and Washington had not pushed for national independence based on racial lines and supported fascist parties. Was it merely coincidence that Milosevic had disagreements with the IMF before the war, and that Western corporations would take over 4500 state-owned companies after? And that Halliburton got lucrative service contracts in Kosovo and also the rights to build and supply a humungous military base there?

    And we wouldn't be talking of a North and South Korea, if it hadn't been for the US support for rightists while being intolerant of leftists, after they offered Russia the territory north of the 38th parallel immediately after WWII. And was it a coincidence that during the Korean War, the US refused offers of armistice from the Soviets, whose military and economic infrastructure is heavily indebted to the US and the West(See the late Hoover Institute research fellow Antony Sutton's work regarding this), until it was concluded three years later with a stalemate, thereby preserving the lucrative defense contracts in the South?

    Was it an accident that such a large ethnic group as the Kurds, very conservatively estimated at five million wasn't given its own country, and were bisected by boundaries of three different countries? And this while a population much smaller, namely the Jews were? Was it only an accident that Kuwait, which didn't exist prior to the last century was carved away from Baghdad? And is it a coincidence that the delta of Kuwait is also the most rich in petroleum reserves per land area?

    I can't bring myself to address this, because it seems to be a regurgitation of canned CNN stories and the like.

    But let me ask me why it wasn't female suicide hijackers(assuming we believe their fantastic story about 9-11), if we are talking about repression of women in these countries as motivation for hatred. In actuality, you know that almost all women in Afghanistan still wear the Birkah, that caused such outrage when Western countries saw images of them. And this is by choice! Just ask any aid worker who has worked in Afghanistan since the invasion.

    Yes, and Iraq was also officially under sanctions while Saddam was being propped up and supported by the US. And don't forget that "unofficially", corporations like Cheney's Halliburton was trying to secure contracts with Saddam during the period between the two wars! And don't forget about the black market that existed in Iraq, which benefitted Saddam and his cronies, contrary to discredited claims of him funnelling oil funds(cf. UN Aid agencies).

    And you still don't want to stay on topic. I am not talking about the Iranian masses here, I am talking about the Iranian regime.

    To call America a republic would be a real exaggeration: it is a plutocracy at best. But to call it a democracy would be a joke. So, my point is that the "great portion" of society doesn't have much sway in foreign policies. After all, if it came down to a referendum of closing the School of America's, then I don't think you would find any support for training those who would in any other circumstance, save our own, be considered "terrorists." And you are assuming that the great portion knows enough about the existence and nature of policies, covert or non-covert, to care much less to have a voice.

    And please don't fall into the trap of believing that merely by virtue of being covert, that it isn't common and accepted by the highest levels of power.
     
  24. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    this is quite funny, you are actually telling about Iran to an Iranian who lived in Iran most of his life... who's uncle was in the center of revolution and fought the Kurds after the revolution.... I think you are under the impression that I am not Iranian and are talking about the stuff that I heard on news or read online.... but I am a full blooded Iranian and been fully engaged with the stuff you are talking about (I freaking lived through it).... I am very anti-American and most of the things you say are very correct.... just the bits about support of US behind Iranian leaders is a bit off.... I can imagine such supports being behind Iran's political leaders such as Rafsanjani but not the political spiritual leaders...
     
  25. sebcoe

    sebcoe Red Card

    Jan 14, 2005
    Let me reiterate, this time more explicitly, since you didn't answer me the first time. How does such a MASSIVE supply of ARMS covertly come into the grasp and control of the political leaders, without firstly the intelligence agencies not being able to track such a transaction - and all the dubious money transactions before it - and secondly, without a ship carrying such weapons to Iran. The spiritual leaders of your country control the military, don't they?
     

Share This Page