I like it for it's streght apply to the problem!
- By: Surri on January 29, 2004

Iran will change peacefully. We have gone through too much and even the Islamic gov knows that its days are numbered. There are many religious leaders in Iran who have either changed their views about religion in politics, or have always been against it since the beginning. Religion is something for the individual, its for self growth, its for a sense of inner peace. A theocracy is an oxymoron...it just cant exist. Religion cant be imposed, it defeats the purpose. Iran was an experiment with Islam, and it has failed miserably. But there have been a few positives. The literacy rates and education rates in Iran are very high. The people are very educated...which is one of the ironic things if you look at it historically. Literacy rates were 30% during the 1970's, now they are above 75%. Iran is undergoing a change from the bottom --> up. People are sick and tired of the nepotism and wasting of countries resources in the hands of a real oligarchy. Its not even religious what they have done. They have tarnished Islam, they are guilty of the worst human rights crimes, bribery, fraud, money laundering. They cant stay there forever. Every year, the pressure builds. More people test the waters. Iran will eventually become a secular state. We wont be like Turkey and abandon our past. We will embrace our past and build on it. A secular, tolerant state, we will be a model nation for the rest of Middle East. I'd give it atleast 5 yrs for some real dynamic changes.
- By: Vanessa Yousefi on January 1, 2004

Eric you are a raving self-righteoous ASSHOLE!!!! You are obviously exploiting the tragedy of the Iranian people to get on your own soapbox. Yet even then you can't even form an arguement of your own - you just past a couple of links and retreat back into your comfortable AMERICAN life while the people who have to dig out of this tragedy and live under the theocratic regime of the mullahs could give less of a shit about your smug ability to post pseudo-progressive propaganda. Fuck off and die you little dickwad.
- By: EricPuncher on December 31, 2003

Don't bother with Eric. He forgets how much it costs in health to be invaded or to get nuked by those idealistic regimes like China. Note also that the cute little graph forgets to include Medicare. How convenient since Medicare has been on the upswing (as you'll notice all of the health costs have been on the upswing.) What Eric also fails to mention is that military costs are a fairly well known. Sure there are skunk programs and missing money here and there, but those errors don't compare to what you get out of the medical expenditures. Especially when you aren't tracking PRIVATE expenditures on health care, which is far, far greater than what's shown here. But that's because we are now able to pay for treatments (many, many of them) that, while sometimes expensive, were non-existant before, and would never exist under a socialist health policy. Finally, since we are in a sense making comparisons to other countries, Eric forgets that those socialist countries of Europe and Canada have always been able to spend less on their military because our military was protecting them (that spike in the middle lines up curiously well with the expenditures the U.S. made to run the Soviet's down to collapse - remember all the whining leftists who blamed us and Reagan for the Soviet's movement of nukes into Eastern Europe?). The ones who find our military budget just as reprehensible and irresponsible ALWAYS find our military -- budget or none -- reprehensible and irresponsible because they trust evil people more than any sane person would allow. Hoder, the state only tends to your needs in order to get the taxes. People in power want more power. They tax a little out of you here and a little out of you there because you don't care about the pocket change. But that pocket change ads up, and it becomes a great way to buy fealty. It's the way it goes. When you have a system that is built on the prepetuation of power, the crap starts rolling uphill. Every system keyed around the government (or those otherwise in charge) is one of those systems. The worst win out. And Scott, it's a primary feature of a capitalist democracy. The more "social" it gets and the less "capitalist" it leans the less democracy you're going to have. Money doesn't buy votes nearly as much or as easily as you think the more regular people are able to put their votes in. How come Steve Forbes isn't in office? He outspent GWB by quite the margin for a while. Congressmen can be bought, but, well, just re-read the paragraph above. On the other hand, look at the capitalist-leaning social democracy of the EU. All of the member states are lying to one another, cheating on another (ok, maybe it's just France and Germany). Yet, what recourse do the people have to remove the people in power? Little if any. The EU has little obescance to the people of Europe, and one day, in the next 25 years, I fear we may hear the trains on the tracks in the middle of a cold, frost-bitten night, coming to ferry away what Jews remain and whomever else does not wish to bend to the State. If you lived in a gun-totin' freedom-lovin' country, on the other hand, you could also remove the people in power via incredibly violent means if necessary. Sometimes, its the only way. Ask Romania.
- By: Grayson on December 30, 2003

When a government can run the whole country only by the oil and gas income, it doesn't have to answer its people's needs; it only thinks about its own needs. This is a brilliant point and it applies to foreign aid or any other source of government revenue independent from the growth of the prosperity of the people. In fact, Taiwan and Japan changed their policies, once subsidies were cut off for Japan in the 50's and Taiwan in the 60's. They both at the time had per capita incomes well under $1000 per year. Now, both are solidly in the First World. I believe any country can accomplish this, if they do want is necessary. Iraq (and Iran) could be there within 10 or 15 years, a blink of an eye. One idea that has been proposed for Iraq and I believe if implemented there, will eventually spread to all economies that are natural resource based, is the plan for an Iraqi Peoples Oil Trust. If the people own the oil, then they should get the revenues. The plan to pay into individual Iraqi accounts, the income from the oil. Alaska does this with the massive oil revenues from the North Slope oil. How would such an idea go over in Iran?
- By: Jabba the Nutt on December 30, 2003

Focus, this is about the tragedy in Iran not about military spending in the USA.
- By: PJ on December 30, 2003

If the U.S. economy wasn't so enormously large, I think many more would find our military budget just as reprehensible and irresponsible. Find out more here: Military versus Health spending Total World Military Expenditures National Missle Defense Spending per state Bush Budget for 2003
- By: Eric on December 30, 2003

this is a great point! One of the primary features of a capitalist-leaning social democracy is the fact that the people, despite what naysayers like to assert, have the freedom to remove the people in power via peaceful means. This is such a huge progression in human history that it really is worth projecting out into the world.
- By: scott partee on December 30, 2003

On an additional note financial assistance is still needed for relief but also for rebuilding and basic needs. So please donate. You can find links to donation sites by visiting Pedram's eyeranian; the National Iranian American Council; Faramin's Human First; or my Iranian Truth.
- By: Nema on December 30, 2003