| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran Inflicted With AIDS And Now Cholera |
| 2008-09-01 |
| Already struggling to maintain a lid on the AIDS epidemic in Iran, which has infected as much as 30% of the 70 million population with full blown AIDS or HIV, the islamic regime has now threatened prison and execution to any doctor who reveals any details about the CHOLERA outbreak that is spreading like wildfire throughout the country with major cities as contamination centers... |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #19 Considering the |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-01 18:41 |
| #18 Gaia is angry! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-09-01 18:26 |
| #17 Considering the source, I'd be taking the stats with a bit more salt than I would a Debka article. The cholera outbreak is verifiable from other sources. And cholera outbreaks happen in the region on a regular basis. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-09-01 16:15 |
| #16 thanks |
| Posted by: bman 2008-09-01 15:27 |
| #15 This whole thing is questionable. Reminds me of the cold war propaganda that all russian troops were gay alcoholics. The threads on Carter, on the other hand, are spot on. He blew nearly every decision he had to make as president. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2008-09-01 14:46 |
| #14 And to this day, Carter still blames everyone but himself for his screw ups. especially them Joooooos |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-09-01 11:51 |
| #13 FWIW early in my career I worked as a programmer for the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the Shah was investing in defense tech compatible with the systems we were building for DOD. I got a very nice job offer (tax free too, at the time) to go to Teheran for 2 years. Mr. Lotp really didn't want to as he had healed from a serious training injury and wanted to go back to active duty. So we had a child and he did just that. As you can imagine, tho, I had a LOT of questions about how exactly I was likely to be received as a young western woman working in Teheran with Iranian (male) programmers. Other contractors there told me things would be more or less fine with the Shah's military officers and in the better neighborhoods of Teheran but it would be best not to leave the capital without an escort. Just as well I/we didn't take the offer. 16 months later the Shah fell. I didn't get to the Middle East until the mid-late 80s. As it happened, a good friend of ours married an Iranian man whose father had been a police official in the provinces. The family was sympathetic to the Shah (although not associated with SAVAK or politically active) and when he grew ill they emigrated. That's the sum total of my own information sources, apart from watching the horrific mess Carter made and the bloodshed that followed. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-09-01 11:38 |
| #12 bman: The Shah had the same situation as Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. Each used the iron fist to force their country into the modern era. And each made the mistake of easing up on their people when they thought progress had been made, which was interpreted as weakness, and caused instability. Mexico still has a tolerably good train system thanks to Diaz. However, Carter is singularly to blame for destroying both the Shah and Somoza in Nicaragua, but utterly pulling the rug out from underneath them. He turned major problems into a crisis, and was so short-sighted that he could not see that the solution was far worse than the problem. He was very blunt that he despised them, even though they were our allies, and preferred their enemies to them. Carter's whiny lack of character also created turmoil elsewhere, because his spinelessness meant to our enemies that they could get away with it. The French FL had to drive the Cuban mercenaries out of Africa because Carter couldn't act, just snivel. All told, Carter's actions threw five nations from peaceful stability, if dictatorship, into the arms of bloody tyrants. And to this day, Carter still blames everyone but himself for his screw ups. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-01 11:36 |
| #11 I certainly was around then and there is no question Carter had a choice and forced out an ailing Shah to let events take their own course instead of backing him and finding a way orderly succession and to keep the Ayatollah in Paris. Carter will be savaged by history. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-01 11:26 |
| #10 Cholera has been reported on the increase in Iran since 2006 or so. Probably on the order of tens or hundreds of fatalities nationwide in 2007. The presumptive main vector is via the water supply. The rainy season begins in Nov or so and when storm water and sewer water systems interact during floods, the danger is greatest. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-09-01 11:14 |
| #9 Though #5 and #6 sound great I'm not sure it was this simple. Like to hear from Ol spook or someone else from that era that can add some light on this topic. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-09-01 11:14 |
| #8 Sometimes it just boggles the mind to think that Democrats have such a talent for being wrong about almost everything. You would think the law of averages would eventually have them getting something right sooner or later... Twice a day, they are... |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-09-01 09:08 |
| #7 Ironically, a silver lining. The burden of Carter's cause de jour, Habitat for Humanity will be lightened somewhat by nature's culling, of upright primates, by disease, war, famine, etc. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-01 09:08 |
| #6 Jimmy Carter made a lot of mistakes but failing to support the Shah of Iran was by far the worst. We may end up in a nuclear exchange because of it. Carter's refusal to support the Shah was because the Shah was guilty of human rights abuses. This was one of those cases where the perfect was definitely the enemy of the good because Carter's delicate sensibilities turned Iran over to some truly horrible people. They killed more, by orders of magnitude, than the Shah and Savak would have ever come close to approaching. Sometimes it just boggles the mind to think that Democrats have such a talent for being wrong about almost everything. You would think the law of averages would eventually have them getting something right sooner or later... |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-09-01 08:47 |
| #5 The Shah invested a good deal of Iran's oil money in infrastructure such as clean water supplies, waste water treatment and schools. It was the integrated schools in the cities that drove the fundies berserk and led to the 'revolution' - he had the audacity to teach girls and fail to impose the veil on women.  The MMs hate the US because he had close ties to us (including defense ties). The MMs invested the subsequent 30+ years of oil money in vast, corrupt personal fortunes and in a mad race to show they're better than the West. The irony here is that if the Shah had not fallen, we would almost certainly have sold them better tech than they are getting now AND we would have trained them in using it effectively. Saddam would have been contained geopolitically, if not internally within Iraq, and that bloody 8 yr long Iran-Iraq war would not have occurred. Not even Saddam's Soviet sponsors would have indulged him in aggression when he had US ally Saudi Arabia on one side and US ally Iran on the other. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-09-01 06:51 |
| #4 "The bacteria is easily killed by the most basic of sanitation practices." Unfortunately for the Iranians, the Prophet (bees pee upon him) didn't use those practices, and so there is no need for them to use them either. |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-09-01 02:38 |
| #3 Cholera is spread ONE and only ONE way - drinking water that people have shit in. There is no other way to get cholera. The bacteria is easily killed by the most basic of sanitation practices. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-09-01 02:33 |
| #2 This may be a perfect storm for transmission of HIV. To start with, IV drugs, especially heroin from Afghanistan, are the big cheap thrill in Iran, if you can't afford smuggled alcohol. But Allan knows how many junkies share their needles, which are probably as dull as pencil lead after being used a few dozen times. The big stat that would confirm it is if they also have sky high rates of hepatitis c. But add to that the flaky interpretation of homosexuality in Shiite Islam: that oral sex is homosexual, but sodomy is not. Some of their almost entirely male religious cities might have HIV rates that even the Castro Street crowd in San Francisco never experienced. The madrassas perfectly complementing their junkies as a second, parallel epidemic. In that this is most likely the African strain of HIV, which passes easily from male to female, and back, if the male has untreated VD sores, and you have a serious health care problem. Remember that their health minister is in denial, as "There are no homosexuals in Iran". Almost every boy that would be trained there will be sodomized at some point. And most many times. Yep, a sky high infection rate isn't likely, but in this case, not impossible. And if their public sanitation is so poor that they are getting a cholera outbreak on top of it, they are in deep kimchee. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-01 00:26 |
| #1 30% seems a bit of a stretch given that percentage is in same range of the moral cesspools of Africa. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-09-01 00:05 |