3 definitions by cyrus III
Greek name of the empire of ruled by the Indo-European peoples of the Iranian plateau during the Achaemenid dynasty. The name got carried over by Europeans for more than two millennia. In actuality the inhabitants of “Persia” for millennia have called it Iran, meaning “land of the Aryans”. “Persians”, Iranians, were responsible for some of the greatest contributions to the modern world. Some examples are the concepts of universal human rights under Cyrus, or Kourosh, the Great, the development of the first postal system, intercontinental road system known as the “Royal Road”, modern algebra, medical procedures and analysis of disease, and overall the first empire to form a multicultural basis and the concepts of “states” which have formed the basis of organization that nearly all modern countries follow to this day.
Persians have formed some of the most fundamental concepts in Math, Biology, Chemistry, governmental organization, and modern human rights.
by cyrus III May 8, 2005
The country which will not be invaded by the USA since, unlike Iraq, Iran has a missile range which can reach Europe, and a modern radar and communications system not to mention approximately an army, including both conventional and revolutionary personnel, of about 750,000 strong. Furthermore attacking Iran, the third largest oil producing country in the world, would dramatically increase oil prices. Notice that Iraq, despite having such a low production of oil, was able to increase the price of oil dramatically. The government also contributes to the stability of Afghanistan, Iraq, and virtually the entire eastern portion of the Near East. So any attack would compromise everything hat the USA tried to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Furthermore, it has been historically shown that any empire that tries to conquer the modern day Iran either losses control of it in about a hundred years, gets destroyed by Iranians, or eventually is taken over by Iranian administrators since the guys who have conquered Iran do not have a clue about running the governments. And given the current case of Iraq, the USA certainly falls under that category.
Furthermore, if the USA attacks Iran, a country with three times the land and populous of Iraq, would very dangerously stretch US forces too thin to effectively engage in an actual threat from another country.
Furthermore, it has been historically shown that any empire that tries to conquer the modern day Iran either losses control of it in about a hundred years, gets destroyed by Iranians, or eventually is taken over by Iranian administrators since the guys who have conquered Iran do not have a clue about running the governments. And given the current case of Iraq, the USA certainly falls under that category.
Furthermore, if the USA attacks Iran, a country with three times the land and populous of Iraq, would very dangerously stretch US forces too thin to effectively engage in an actual threat from another country.
Iran will not be next country attacked unless the entire US representative and military personnel are complete idiots. Therefore, it will most probably happen ;).
by cyrus III May 8, 2005
"Number one exporter of terrorists beside Pakistan."
First of all, just based on English, a country can't "export" people, namely terrorists. A country can deport people, or outsource people, but not "export" since that word describes shipping ITEMS. That being said...
Lol. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I would like anyone, anyone at all, name an Iranian person who directly carried out a terrorist attack? Hmm...either the response would "I don't know any" or "Yeah, that blah blah Arab guy"...of course forgetting that IRANIANS ARE NOT ARAB!!!!!!!!! Also, it's surprising, that despite 9/11th, the person doesn't seem to mention Saudi Arabians, which constituted a majority of the hijackers. Hmm...Maybe that's because the Bush Administration, who basically grovel at the royal Saudis feet (look at the gas prices if you need proof ;)), have completely misinformed the stupid that Saudis are friends and that Iran is the enemy. This is laughable because the Saudis have a monarchy (which Americans ironically fought against in the Revolutionary War, remember?), compared to Iran, which has a semi-representative government. Of course, the big difference hinges the fact that Iran doesn’t supply oil to the U.S, whereas Saudi Arabia does. So, if you want to be a Saudi puppet like the president, then by all means support the quote.
Furthermore, just as a little known fact, Iran has captured the most Al-Qaeida agents than any other country in the world, even including the US :D. Take that sucka. So perhaps, the U.S. people when they vote for someone who is tough on terrorism and gets the job done, should elect Iranian government officials instead of people like Bush...just as a thought.
"Iran is one of the biggest exporter of oil and gas but they say they need atomic energy! Isn’t it funny?"
What a bunch of croc. Iran, despite being a huge exporter of oil, has an inadequate refining capacity and huge amount of oil demand internally. This is due to the country's energy needs, both automotive and industrial, growing at an alarming rate. Therefore, in order to export as much oil as possible, these internal needs can't be siphoned off to Iranians with huge subsides. How? Through plans initiated by the government which will head initiatives for automobiles to run on compressed natural gas, which is less in-demand than oil, and yes, by using nuclear power to generate electricity. Make sense? And while the cost of internally supplying nuclear fuel is huge and not economical, Iranians has learned all to well that foreigners can't be trusted in sensitive matters, such as the oil nationalization crisis in 1953, which brought in the repressive Shah. So, if for example, Iran decides to receive foreign nuclear fuel and not produce it, and then the foreign nuclear fuel abruptly stops being delivered. That would mean a huge part of the power grid would go out permanently until Iran could find another way to supply electricity. That could take an order of a year to do, which would not be good for any country. Still makes sense? Add to the fact that oil WILL eventually run out, the nuclear option is tantalizing.
Notice that this doesn't disprove that Iran may want nuclear arms as well, merely that generating nuclear power is a wise decision and good on it's own.
First of all, just based on English, a country can't "export" people, namely terrorists. A country can deport people, or outsource people, but not "export" since that word describes shipping ITEMS. That being said...
Lol. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I would like anyone, anyone at all, name an Iranian person who directly carried out a terrorist attack? Hmm...either the response would "I don't know any" or "Yeah, that blah blah Arab guy"...of course forgetting that IRANIANS ARE NOT ARAB!!!!!!!!! Also, it's surprising, that despite 9/11th, the person doesn't seem to mention Saudi Arabians, which constituted a majority of the hijackers. Hmm...Maybe that's because the Bush Administration, who basically grovel at the royal Saudis feet (look at the gas prices if you need proof ;)), have completely misinformed the stupid that Saudis are friends and that Iran is the enemy. This is laughable because the Saudis have a monarchy (which Americans ironically fought against in the Revolutionary War, remember?), compared to Iran, which has a semi-representative government. Of course, the big difference hinges the fact that Iran doesn’t supply oil to the U.S, whereas Saudi Arabia does. So, if you want to be a Saudi puppet like the president, then by all means support the quote.
Furthermore, just as a little known fact, Iran has captured the most Al-Qaeida agents than any other country in the world, even including the US :D. Take that sucka. So perhaps, the U.S. people when they vote for someone who is tough on terrorism and gets the job done, should elect Iranian government officials instead of people like Bush...just as a thought.
"Iran is one of the biggest exporter of oil and gas but they say they need atomic energy! Isn’t it funny?"
What a bunch of croc. Iran, despite being a huge exporter of oil, has an inadequate refining capacity and huge amount of oil demand internally. This is due to the country's energy needs, both automotive and industrial, growing at an alarming rate. Therefore, in order to export as much oil as possible, these internal needs can't be siphoned off to Iranians with huge subsides. How? Through plans initiated by the government which will head initiatives for automobiles to run on compressed natural gas, which is less in-demand than oil, and yes, by using nuclear power to generate electricity. Make sense? And while the cost of internally supplying nuclear fuel is huge and not economical, Iranians has learned all to well that foreigners can't be trusted in sensitive matters, such as the oil nationalization crisis in 1953, which brought in the repressive Shah. So, if for example, Iran decides to receive foreign nuclear fuel and not produce it, and then the foreign nuclear fuel abruptly stops being delivered. That would mean a huge part of the power grid would go out permanently until Iran could find another way to supply electricity. That could take an order of a year to do, which would not be good for any country. Still makes sense? Add to the fact that oil WILL eventually run out, the nuclear option is tantalizing.
Notice that this doesn't disprove that Iran may want nuclear arms as well, merely that generating nuclear power is a wise decision and good on it's own.
How my definition of Iran is far better than the one I quoted simply because I ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING!!!! In other words, be smart an don't do drugs :)!
by cyrus III September 3, 2005