Omid Memarian

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Elite Oriented sanctions; Go Two Decades Back!

I was reading the comments and press releases about Iranian nuclear program after making public the IAEA resolution on net today. All of them talk about the firm purpose of the EU3 and US to force Iran for accepting the new pre-conditions. As usual If doesn’t, the next option will be sanctions; however military attack is on the US agenda too.

But I surprised by a comment which was published on
Christian Science Monitor website which mentioned that the easiest sanctions for the EU is to restrict the visa process for Iranian elite:

“The easiest step would be to stop issuing visas for Iran's elite to travel to Europe or to conduct business there. (The US already has such sanctions.)”

I was surprised that how a well known paper like CSM has such petrifaction and bizarre idea about the kind of sanctions which is elite oriented and just hurt the people. What a long dream! There is nobody at the west to push the writers for waking up? It seams the Iraq experience by isolating the society and empowering the authorities to condemn the democratic movements -just because the society has been under the pressure of sanctions- and emphasize on all emergency condition they are facing to suffocate the society, has not been enough. Just talking about sanctions and/or attack when there is no idea for the future and the fact that terrorism is going to be a kind of culture that “hate” is its basis element of that, what is the achievement of the Sanctions?

On the other hands, following blindly the failed international experiences of sanction which mostly just restrict the ordinary people, how can stop a state program for nuclear program or anything else?

I had an interview with a professor in Stockholm University about the sanctions. he mentioned the new mesures for sanctions that is established by UN in recent times is jst governmental oriented. It means it limited the diplomatic maneuver for the political system but not the normal people and specially the elite.

It seems Christian Science Monitor Columnist is a decade back to the history of the Middle East. I think at this time some western media are confused by what is happening between Iran and the west and so some stories they make, is a kind of ridiculous analysis which just show a kind irresponsibility at writing and covering the reality for the audiences.

Also: Half a Step Forward to Rein in Iran (The New York Times)

This is my friend comment on Guardian about the roots of concerns about Iranian Nuclear ambitions. Hossein Derakhshan talks about some aspects of this issue:
"The west should focus less on Iran's nuclear capability and more on those likely to have their finger on the button...".

Cowboy Diplomacy and The Smell of a New War

IAEA has suggested Iran some precondition that Tehran never accept. For the Iranians, to give an unlimited allowance to the IAEA to do what they want to do in the country is not acceptable. I think the ultimate pressure of the American Diplomats at IAEA and some European countries such as Britain will lead the Iran case to the Security council next November unless Iran accept the preconditions of the IAEA that mean loosing the national authority. That’s understandable. Most of the conservative’s papers emphasized to stand against the American ambitions toward influencing in the internal affairs and trying to hurt Iran more than the past. Keyhan an influential conservative paper criticized the government strongly to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and start enrichment of uranium at Natanz plant. More than 180 MPs today emphasized that they will not give up under the American pressure at IAEA. After North Korea, that Americans try to pretend it is going to be solved, Iran is getting a big crisis. If Americans insist on their request to send the Iran case to SC and Iranian start enrichment, the world will go toward a big confrontation. I don’t know what American want to do after the Security Council threatening declaration? Sanction? Iran has been under the American’s sanction more than two decades. What has been the result? Perhaps they increase the sanction. But what will happen after that? Just weakening the society and destroying the civil society and empowering the fundamentalism. So what is the achievement? Perhaps that’s an American style that first by sanction isolate a country and then destroy the socio-poetical infra structure and the perhaps vast attack. “Cowboy diplomacy” now leads the diplomacy of White house. I think that’s just to get rid of the public opinion and the pressure that is increasing about Iraq. Iran is not absolutely North Korea. This was will end by war. We can smell the war signals. Economical sanction has no effect for any changes. There is no evidence that shows sanctions prevent any hostilely behavior.

Lynndie England walking into the courthouse on Sept. 20
Private Found Guilty in Abu Ghraib AbuseNew York Times - 4 hours agoBy DAVID S. CLOUD. FORT HOOD, Tex., Sept. 26 - Pfc. Lynndie R. England, a 22-year-old Army file clerk whose smirking photographs came to personify the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, was convicted Monday

Saturday, September 24, 2005

if you have forggoten to see the interview of Christian amanpour and the New iranian Conservatives president can just Click Here

Sb has sent this link to me and i found it informative just to take a look at a moment to the one of the longest war at the 20th century. However it doesnt cover many aspects of the reality but shows a part of the story...

Chronology of main events in Iran-Iraq War
22 Sep 2005 14:49:51 GMT

Source: Reuters
Sept 22 (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein can no longer force Iraqis to celebrate "victory" in the war with Iran but they are still haunted by the conflict 25 years to the day after it started.
Here is a short chronology of the main events of the Iran-Iraq war.
Sept 7, 1980 - Iraq accuses Iran of shelling Iraqi border towns from territory belonging to Iraq under 1975 Algiers agreement on frontier line and Shatt al-Arab waterway. 10 days later Saddam Hussein tears up Algiers accord.
-- Sept 22/23 - Iraqi troops invade Iran.
-- Sept 28 - Saddam Hussein says that the invasion was a pre-emptive strike in the face of imminent Iranian attack. Iraq captures the Iranian port of Khorramshahr.
March 1982 - Iran launches ground offensive and re-takes Khorramshahr.
1983 - Iran threatens to seal off Strait of Hormuz - then a lifeline for world oil supplies - if Iraq takes delivery of new weapons from France.
March 1984 - Iranian Revolutionary Guards thrust across on the southern front and capture Iraq's oil-rich Majnoon Islands.
-- Nov 26 - Iraq and United States establish full diplomatic relations which had been terminated in 1967 after U.S. support for Israel.
-- Dec - Iraq begin attacks on Gulf tankers using Kharg island oil terminal.
Feb 1986 - Iran captures the Iraqi port of Faw.
Jan 9, 1987 - Iran launches major offensive towards Basra, viewed as one of the war's major actions.
-- July 27 - U.N. Security Council passes resolution 598 ordering an immediate ceasefire.
Feb 29, 1988 - Tehran comes under missile attack for the first time. Thousands of civilians are killed on both sides in "war of the cities".
-- March - Iran seizes the town of Halabja in northeastern Iraq. Tehran says Iraq used chemical weapons to punish inhabitants for not resisting. It says 5,000 were killed.
-- April - Elite Iraqi forces re-capture the port of Faw. In June they also take back the Majnoon islands.
-- July 3 - An Iran Air A-300 Airbus is shot down over the Gulf by the U.S. warship Vincennes which wrongly identifies the airliner as an attacking fighter. All 290 aboard are killed.
-- July 18 - Iran says it accepts Security Council resolution 598.
-- Aug 20 - Ceasefire officially implemented and monitored by U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG).

The Tanker War and U.S. entanglement
United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and allegedly also supplying weapons [1].
Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked
oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners.
The largest number of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on
November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.
An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the
USS Stark, an Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21. It should be noted that this happened shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal that involved selling weapons to Iran. But U.S. attention was on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. In October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City.
April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.
In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser
USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. It has since emerged, however, that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. The U.S. paid compensation but never apologised.
Through all of this members of the
Reagan Administration had, at the same time, also been secretly selling weapons to Iran; first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly. It was hoped Iran would, in exchange, persuade several radical groups to release Western hostages. (for details see the Iran-Contra Affair).
Human Wave Attacks in the Iran-Iraq War
Many people claim that the Iran-Iraq conflict spawned a particularly gruesome variant of the "Human Wave" attack. The Iranian clergy, with no professional military training, were slow to adopt and apply professional military doctrine. The country at that time lacked sufficient equipment to breach Iraqi minefields and were not willing to risk their small tank force. Therefore,
Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers were often used to sweep over minefields and entrenched positions developed by the more professional Iraqi military. Allegedly, unarmed human wave tactics involving children as young as 9 were employed. One unnamed East European journalist is reported to have seen "tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about 20 to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."[16]
There has been a suggestion that girls were more commonly used for frontline mine clearance, and boys for unarmed "assaults". Reliable firsthand accounts of the use of children in human wave attacks are rare, however. The most serious contemporary firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of an article[17] by the respected technology journalist Robert X. Cringely, who relates the experience of a trip to the front for an unconnected Penthouse magazine assignment.

War of the Cities and the war's conclusion
The land war regressed into stalemate. Both Iraq and Iran lacked sufficient self-propelled artillery to support their respective armoured forces in assaults. This was made even more important because neither side had the airforce capability to support ground forces. When the relatively professional Iraqi armed force advance was halted by the sheer size and committment of Iranian infantry and the Iranian infantry moved to advance itself; it faced the terrible prospect that the Iraqis had large numbers of non-propelled artillery while the Iranians had comparatively small numbers of non-propelled artillery while even fewer numbers of self-propelled ones. Artillery was important to force an opponent to disperse, tanks to be dug in and enemy infantry to take over. Without artillery Iranian tanks were vulnerable to Iraqi infantry, artillery, anti-tank missiles and crucially were not able to achieve force superiority on a focal point. What followed was a blood bath with the Iranians substituting labour (infantry) for capital (artillery), and both sides turned to more brutal weapons and tactics. Iraq's air force began strategic bombing against Iranian cities, chiefly Tehran, starting in 1985. In response to these, Iran began launching SS-1 "
Scud" missile attacks against Baghdad, and Iraq responded by launching the same against Tehran.
The extreme brutality of the war included the use of
chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq. International antipathy to the Tehran regime meant Iraq suffered few repercussions despite these attacks. Both Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources. The tactics used in the war resembled those of World War I, with costly human wave attacks commonly used by both sides, but by Iran in particular.
Iraq financed, with foreign assistance, the purchase of more technologically advanced weapons, and built more modern, well-trained armed forces. After setbacks on the battlefield, nevertheless, it offered to return to the 1975 border. Iran was internationally isolated, threatened with war with the U.S., and facing rising public discontent. Finally, a cease-fire was agreed to on
August 20, 1988.

The war was disastrous for both countries, stalling economic development and disrupting oil exports. It cost Iran an estimated 1.5 million casualties (1, p. 206), and $350 billion (1, p. 1).
Iraq was left with serious debts to its former Arab backers, including US$14 billion loaned by Kuwait, a debt which contributed to Saddam's 1990 decision to invade.
Much of both sides' oil industry was damaged in
air raids.
The war left the
borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante bellum that he had repudiated a decade earlier.
The war was extremely costly, one of the deadliest wars since the
Second World War. (Conflicts since 1945 which have surpassed the Iran-Iraq War in terms of casualties include the Vietnam War, Korean War, the Second Sudanese Civil War, and the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

Final ruling
9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council:
That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of
22 September 1980, against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict.
Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict—in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens.
On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts' conclusion that "chemical weapons ha[d] been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack" (s/20134, annex). The Council expressed its dismay on the matter and its condemnation in resolution 620 (1988), adopted on
26 August 1988.

EU military attaches walk out at Iran parade
LONDON, September 22 (IranMania) - EU military attaches walked out in protest at a parade in Tehran Thursday after ballistic missiles were rolled past carrying vitriolic anti-US and Israeli slogans, diplomats told AFP."There was a common position among the European Union members that, if the military parade included any slogans that attacked our allies, we would leave," said a diplomat.
"The military attaches from the embassies of France, Italy, Greece and Poland were present at the parade, and when they saw the slogans they promptly left," said another diplomat.
At the parade, Iran showed off six of its Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles sporting banners reading "Death to America", "We will crush America under our feet", "Death to Israel" and "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth".
"They may be just slogans, but for us they are unacceptable," one of the diplomats said.
The military event was held just south of Tehran to mark the start of "Sacred Defence Week", dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed after the forces of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein invaded in It also coincided with mounting tensions between Iran and the EU over Tehran's nuclear ambitions

One of the most Interesting photo website I have ever seen. here

here is a Gallery of Iranian Women in past.... Look at it HERE

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Dog's Dinner!(Guardian cartoon)

Nice cartoon. it shows how the Iranian government is in a close battle with the US. Look at the Rice and Jack Straw in his pocket. This picture is published on one the Guardian pages a few days ago. i lost the page to link it here. if you know put it on a comment please. It shows, there are some common playgrounds between Iran and US at the Middle East such as Iraq crisis, nuclear issues. The Rice feet are mixed with blood and Iraq is bloody too. What is straw watching at? I think US can not leave Iran from any regional affairs. But I think if they choose this way, then they have to pay more expenses for that. How ever I think the Iranian officials exaggerate about the influence of their role in Iraq, but at the same time if they try to activate their mechanisms, they are a beneficial instrument at Iraq peace building process. At least it worth to test the Iranian influence in Iraq

Is Iran gearing for war?
(By Claude SalhaniSeptember 22, 2005 )
Is Iran preparing for war with the United States? It sounds inconceivable, but the U.S. invasion of Iraq has spooked Tehran's mullahs to prepare for the unthinkable. In the Sept. 17 Arab News, Iranian columnist Amir Taheri says, "Incredible though it may sound, there are signs that Tehran may be preparing for a military confrontation with the United States, and has convinced itself that it could win."

Action over Iran

The public is rightly worried about the fate of British troops in southern Iraq, but we must not forget equally ominous developments across the border, in Iran. The election of the hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the rise of oil prices and, not least, the sapping of the American military in Iraq, have emboldened Teheran in its nuclear ambitions

Iran Makes North Korea Look Easy

(By Tyler Marshall and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers)
WASHINGTON — In the wake of this week's shaky international agreement on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, diplomats and armscontrol specialists agreed on one central point: Achieving similar progress with Iran will be even tougher

Monday, September 19, 2005

Shooting with empty Gun! Iranian policies for following the insistence against the US and European countries to achieve the nuclear fuel circle, is based on the lack of authority between the Americans and their allays to stop Iran. Iranians have recognized the American frail situation at their bargaining about the nuclear issues, can take more political and economical advantages for the Islamic regime. “They have no play card to force Iran to stop enrichment uranium,” says a conservative politician. Beside, no threat, including sanctions will persuade them to stop the nuclear program. Because they have lived under the sanctions for more than two decades. They have been isolated for many years and it is not a big threat. At the same time the oil price, Iraq complicated situation and also the unstable political climate in the relationship between Palestine and Israel, increase the maneuver space for the Iranian hardliner which are getting more and more disobedient.

Putin's diplomacy allows Iran to avoid censure
India opposes taking Iran case to UN security body Newindpress
EU nuclear draft on Iran urges UN report-diplomats Reuters AlertNet

Reshuffling the Civil Society

A member of the central committee of the Hezbe Motalefe Islamic party (Islamic Coalition Party) once again called for combating civil society groups in Iran. Hamid Reza Taraghi, who holds no government or other official positions in Iran, has come out like a decision maker and this time called for a complete reshuffle of civil society organizations.

His call comes at a time when fundamentalists have been effectively controlling city councils across the country and the parliament, through their latest elections and now are focusing more on non-government religious organizations and groups. Taraghi’s problem according to his own words is that he believes that NGOs are occupied by what he calls “outsiders”, and thus beyond any official control. And without naming any one specific person or group to whom these “outsiders” belong, he simply calls all of them “royalists”, a term that these days does not carry any political weight but is a vague reference to the old guard prior to the revolution of 1979. What appears to be the focus of the likes of Taraghi is anything outside the formal government structure because all the official political organizations are now safely in the hands of the hardline conservatists, with the presidency and thus the executive branch being the very last to fall into their hands. So the attention of these politicians is now NGOs and other groups not yet taken over by the hardliners. So civil society institutions are the new target.

Taraghi goes further to clarify his views by saying that there are plans to strengthen organizations to be in line with the regime and its cultural principles. While he does not name any particular groups, it is clear that any such move to curtail the activities of the NGOs or take them over, will lead to a still wider gap between the government as a whole and the public, who now have some influence through their NGOs. Such alarms and suspicions are not without cause. Other government officials have expressed their concern about independent NGOs in the past, but more so recently after the June 2005 presidential elections that brought a hardliner into the presidential palace. Last year about this time, a number of leaders of NGOs were arrested and demanded to explain their activities. Others were called in by the government’s bureau that monitors and control housing affairs, as these organizations had rented space from the bureau. Both types of activities have created a sense of insecurity and an atmosphere of fear for civil society activists.

Just recently, Jomhurie Eslami newspaper, a conservative hardline newspaper close to the leadership, published a report on NGOs accusing them of being line with the interests of the West, a code word for being Western agents. Following this, one Member of Parliament named a specific NGO calling it an agent of the West and working to promote foreign interests. Result: more NGO activists curtailed or even suspended their work.

In yet another attack on civil society groups, this year’s government budget had cut all the support and money it used to provide to NGOs for their work, which flourished during president Khatami’s terms as they provided assistance programs in health, education, needs of the youth, welfare and other social work to those in need. So with no funds and an atmosphere of terror, NGOs are either ending their work or preparing to do so. At one time there used to be some 2000 groups active in issues pertaining to the youth, whose primary goal was to maintain a link between government policies and the youth. In contrast with the third development plan where article 147 specifically called for government support of NGOs, the fourth development plan is silent on the issue.

Taraghi traces the current attitude towards NGOs to the days when fundamentalists had no faith that independent NGOs and civil society would be localized, meaning it would be free from Western ideas and definitions on human rights etc. So from his perspective, these groups were suspect before they even had a chance to present themselves and their utility. Still, the record of these groups shows that a very large number of youth have stayed involved in government programs in such areas as education, vocational training, women’s issues, health awareness, environmental awareness, cultural events, social participation and even political events, particularly at the local provincial levels. Even the sixth parliament (made up primarily of moderates) made use of specialists in some of these fields.

The distrust with which conservatists and hardliners view NGOs is perhaps well demonstrated in an article that one of their newspapers, Resalat, published in which it claimed that after the newspapers belonging to the moderates and liberals were closed down, their publishers would work through their NGOs to advance their Western ideas.

The word that Taraghi now uses for taking over independent NGOs is cleansing, indicating the depth of changes they have in mind. Changes that will be met with resistance and will further alienate the public
* published on Roozonline daily

Saturday, September 17, 2005

President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, talked at the general Assembly about the Iranians rights for achieving the nuclear Energy today. He had an Interview with Christian Amanpour who originally an Iranian. She was one of the reporters who believed that Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani capture the presidency desk. So she had a exclusive interview with him a few days before the last presidential election on July. “Iran peruses achieving the nuclear fuel circle” Says Mr. Ahmadinejad at his interview with Ms. Amanpour.

What Ahmadinejad has said has not a new point that the past. He has charged the Americans by the Nuclear Apartheid. Amanpour believes that the Iranian president talk includes a kind of aggressive points and that’s just a confrontation statement. Is it?
Listen to a part of the interview here-CNN
Iranian rails against US over nuclear weapons- Telegraph, UK
Iran's Nuclear Defense-TIME
UK attacks Iran nuclear stance-BBC News

Thursday, September 15, 2005

American Tragedy, American Apartheid

Many of Papers and magazines around the world are criticizing the American policies and performance at the Katrina Hurricane during the last two weeks ago. President Bush tries to keep the solidarity of the people like the 11 sepetember disaster. But no one can go back and ingnore the weakness of the American administration to react against the last natural disaster. That was a human tragedy indeed. Like the other disasters happened in bam two years ago( earthquake in the central area of iran which 26000 poeple died), most of the hurt appeared after the event that usually require a quick reaction and flexibility to join the facilities and equipments of all institutions to join for the saving process, But as the Busah administration is always look at from the far distance they can not distinguish what is happening at the first step ahead.

And like the similiar situations, the deprived poeple pay the expenses of the carelessness and inefficiency of the government which really doesn't care about them. Just try to show a deep condolence. The picture that is sent to the world of the US is a black picture that is always mixed with a "Tragedy" in its roots. "American Tragedy" at the katrina Hurricane mixed with the "American Apartheid". Black and poor poeple lifes is not valuable enough to deal with... the tendency of Bush to be a messenger for the world fails at the first step just inside the US. Isnt is a real tragedy?

Iran: Sharing Nuclear Power to Muslim Countries

President Ahmadinejad has said that Iran can share the nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries. he hasn't clarify that it means just Islamic countries of Islamic groups or other interested fans of the Nuclear energy. it sounds the exporting the Revolution is going to happen. He has said at his meeting in UN world summit at NY. That's show off? That's threat? Or it is something just a play card at their negotiations with American or the weak and unstable partner at European countries? Now, it seems just a bluff, though it is a message to the Arab world o the other Muslim countries around which concerning about a nuclear power Iran.

CNN World- Thursday, September 15, 2005

Afghanistan new parliamentary Election

sabrina Sagheb, 24 years old,Afghan Paliamentary Election Candidate Posted by Picasa

Sabrina Sagheb is one the youngest candidates for the upcoming parliamentary election in Afghanistan. The youth generation at the region follows reform at social and political arena. Sabrina represent the liberal generation of the Afghan people which have been under the deprived life more than 2 decades. Afghans are jumping. She advocate for the equality and of course for preventing the forced marriage. I think, just talking freely about these issues, is a great outcome of changes in Afghanistan today which can have calm effect of the neighbors.

Monday, September 05, 2005

The new arrengment of the Political Power In Iran Posted by Picasa