Just about everything we stand for in the Middle East is inherently flawed, fundamentally unjust, and systematically oppressive.
well that may be, but that also seems to just about describe everything about the middle east politics as i know it anyway, with or without our involvement. of course we can go on and on about the us' idiotic mid-east policy, athough i feel in the past it has been relatively intelligent regarding our own interests. i do think we are generally pro-democracy in the middle east and around the world, when there actually is something we can do about it, and this is also a huge separate issue. and we are probably the sole reason isreal hasn't simply wiped out any palestinian leadership altogether. my own personal feeling about our israeli policy is not that we should cease to support them, but that we should support them in proportion to our own strategic gain, which right now is greatly exaggerated.
obviously there is a lot of historical baggage to the us middle east policy which you know, so i won't go into it. but regarding the iranian leader, i am not with his holocaust comments. i see his speech as a fundamental (albeit incremental) step in restoring our credibility on the world stage. he would've never been allowed to give a speech like this in the post 9-11 climate of fear, so this is a strong sign that we're returning to normalcy. in a world where the iranian leadership continues to execute homosexuals that it denies it has, in a world where a huge number of people believe that the united states is more dangerous than iran, it is important to eliminate american double standards of free speech and expose someone like ahmedinajad for who he is. i don't see this as a "fuck you" to the united states. i think it actually does us some serious credit that we are willing to listen to what he has to say, or at least allow him to speak.
i will also say that the united states never has supported democracy when it has been used to elect theocratists, communists, fascists, or people who will otherwise use their democratically elected position to strip the democratic rights of others anyway.
theoretically we dont, hate crime laws are federally enforced and attacks on homosexuals have been recently tried as hate crimes. Now its up to to local DA's i guess... though im no expert on the subject.
anyway... i wont say too much on this subject other than after watching ahmadinejad's talk at columbia... that is one bright man, and a very clever speaker... i found his comment about the 'gay phenomenon' particularly telling... he could have just as easily said something along the lines of 'gay problem' or even 'gay issue' both of which would have been recieved not with the laughs but anger.
after finally listening to event (thanks lletdownl), i got the impression that he is a honed politician and what he said was not limited to holocaust, gays and women's issues. in fact those rhetorical issues which made big splash in the media were not even that interesting given those issues with crime and punishment, addressing the core problems in middle east, . and concerns of iran as a sovereign nation with a high cultural past.
in fact, he talked about much larger issues which got him a lot of applause from the audiance.
he is not my favorite person or anything and i am very aware of issues of oppression in iran as an active person who sends letters occasionally to iranian authorities on behalf of political prisoners and writers who are jailed for their views. but, president ahmadinejad is not some kind of a middle eastern dictator we are so accustomed to beat down with fox tv's help.
i can see the iranian president given the opportunity of one on one therotical debate, taking bush and many others to cleaners in a new york minute.
he knows about the skeletons in our closet too well, and more and more we are going to be challenged by better politicians in the future. furthermore, two bit fox employees are not going to be able to save our ass too much longer and spin it as they did in the past. our recent actions in the world perhaps also helped our civilian society grow a little more aware of one sided hawkish agendas.
the fact is our leaders can't stand an intelligent opposition talking back to them with conviction and not afraid to step on our toes.
we actually should give some respect to the situation with someone who is not afraid to talk to us on a platform, instead of plotting vicious acts of terror from a hidden location.
"At the outset, I want to complain a bit about the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims…” President Ahmadinejad
"It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."
Sept. 19, 2007 President Bollinger's Statement About
President Ahmadinejad's Scheduled Appearance
||
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." -- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265.
yes, obviously the guy is a better politician than bush. i have yet to listen to his speech, which i'll probably do this weekend. the increasing awareness of the outside world that americans have is probably breaking down the one-sided hawkish nationalism that our leaders have relied on in the past, which is probably a good thing. that said, i'm sure there are millions of americans who would refuse to ever pay attention to him.
does anyone else find it creepy that he requested to visit the world trade center site? (he was denied).. i mean, i was born the the US and have lived here all my life and will never lose the emotional sting of 9/11 i'm sure until the day i die... but, that being said... i have zero interest in visiting the world trade center site 6 years later.. i didn't have personal ties to anyone there that day and lived in a different city and being there while its a construction site isn't of interest to me.. i'm not being cold, i can honor the memory without needing to see it in the flesh, i feel.. until there's new life there that is..
so, why does this non-american from halfway across the world care?.. yeah, PR and photo-ops, obviously, but beyond that i don't know, it just creeps me out. is it morbid curiosity?, is it to play the 'i sympathize' card?.. or is it more of a smug "well, this is what happens if...."? probably why they don't want him there.
it reminds me of dave chapelle talking about the boy that sued michael jackson.. something like: 'why does an 11 year old in the late nineties even request to meet michael jackson in the first place??.. he isn't old enough to remember Thriller. I do remember Thriller and I only kind of would want to meet the guy.. lets just say i wouldn't break an appointment for it?"
I thought Bollinger came off as a media whore - trying to score some points. Anyways, does anyone take Ahmadinejad seriously? Every time I see him speak I think dam, thats a nice jacket and 2 - this guy is almost laughing when he speaks. Hes just trying to get a rise out of people and fools like Bollinger take the bait. Tards.
It seems a lot of people on this topic think the guy is some kind of genius or a wizard. i find the things he said laughable at best ... nothing that smacks of being bright, clever, or a good politician. But then again as I heard Chris Matthews say ... people thought Hitler was funny at first too.
i agree, marimba. the whole "we don't have gays in our country" sounded to me like a typical propoganda statement he would make in a speech to his own country, but outside of that context, it just sounds completely laughable.
i also wouldn't read too much into any specific language he used in the speech. i think it's important to remember he was speaking through a translator.
to me, he comes off as childish and manipulative, not two of the best characteristics for the leader of one of the world's most important countries.
But he does dress well. Did you see him on 60 min last year? A major improvement from the all black and ZZ Top look the Ayhotolas had. I had nightmares as a child in the 80's.
i am more interested about the issues he responded. i care less about wheter or not he is funny, stupid, his jacket etc..
namhenderson made a good post in his blog which addresses the stuff i am talking about. they are not particularly funny subjects.
and, believe me i have seen much more laughable characters in our own back yard than iranian president. do i need to name any?
it is easy to write him off, but the issues regarding nuclear energy, palestine, iraq and its neighbors, out right criticism of US foreign policies, hypocritical moves by european leadership, raise of non aligned nations and so on, are real issues.
all in all, he was a better media whore than bollinger by far. and, everyday media underestimated the weight he carries as a leader of a very important regional power.
if we ever attack iran, it will be the biggest mistake we would ever make.
wait, i was thinking the media overestimated his power as the president of iran.. which as someone mentioned earlier is just a mouthpiece, or a loudmouth in a nice suit compared to the current ayatollah. am i wrong?
I agree these issues are major, crazy, but not to be ignored. It seemed to me that some of the comments on this post were complementary and almost in praise. Maybe I misinterpreted them.
Le Bossman, obviously I disagree with just about everything you said. For a moment I actually thought that I was in a discussion with one who's knowledge of the Middle East consisted of more than just a potted history cobbled out of various yet hardly reliable sources (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc). Obviously I was wrong on that part. So let's just let the disagreements stand. Please continue to flow with the pathetic status quo that exists on the ground right now. That's really going to get us somewhere. But the good news for you is that you would make a good American politician in this day in age -- that is in an age of sullen "expertise" and instant position-taking.
I just have a hard time believing that after all the incessant bull shit that we heard about Iraq and how the public was so mischievously hoodwinked into believing that Iraq had a connection to Bin Laden and that suddenly the "Al-Samood" Rockets were like the next A-bomb (all ultimately ended as utter falsehood), that people are now on board with a possible showdown with Iran. Why would anyone believe what America says about Iran after Iraq?
Just know that an armed confrontation with Iran will not be like anything we've ever seen before. Judging how much this war in Iraq is costing us, a war with Iran will put half of America under the poverty line. the draft will be reinstated, and we would all have to go. We are dealing with a country that has 70 million people -- to which a vast majority are actually very proud of their establishment.
Idle hands, that image is pretty much a testement to just how low our expectations are of average Americans in regard to their "knowledge of the Middle East."
The Iranian people and the Iranian government are going 2 seperate ways I thought. How can a state who sponsers terrorism be trusted with nuclear technologies? How can a theocracy be taken seriously as a legitimate government? Could this be the cultural equivelant of evolution playing out? If a guy put on a crown and sat on a throne in europe and claimed to be a conduit to God we'd have a revolution.
proud that i have differing opinions about who or what to believe than someone as vicious, self-aggrandizing, overly defensive, and pathetically desperate for a fight as you Archmed?
it is easy to make a terrorist nation from just about any nation these days isn't it?
just get a blog, some aerial photos of a country site with military trucks on it and viola...
and wear a t-shirt that says 'socket to me'.;.)
jesus archmed. i'm not at all claiming to be a scholar of middle eastern politics and history, and obviously i understand that the dynamics of these issues are not summed up in a few paragraphs while i'm busy at work. since you possess such a conviction about what you know, then i suppose i'm willing to assume that you know what you are talking about. i am not looking for a fight. if you want americans to be less ignorant on the subject, than why don't you point them to some sources so that i can enlighten myself instead of insulting them and spraying them with your seething anger? because in all honesty, i don't think your end of the "dialogue" is getting us anywhere either.
Its not the Iranian people who are terrorists or even supporters of terror, its the government. What happened to the Darling of the Middle East from the 90's? Remember when Iran was touted as this progessive nation joining the 21st century?
archmed i appreciate what your saying but have to seriously disagree that americans would be on board with military action in Iran. If bush was dumb enough to push that before he leaves office i would virtually gaurantee massive Vietnam type demonstrations... the next president will have only marginally more leeway. But i dont see support for that kind of action from anyone but the most die hard hawks whos numbers are diminishing with every day passing in iraq.
(*)our little darling of iran who was. abondoned un expectedly for the fear of raising oil prices and for some reason i was not sorry. if the name SAVAK and CIA doesn't ring a bell, we have to ponder a little longer and refresh some memories.
*not to sound like favoring the current islamic ruling elite. i am just feeling anecdotal today. stakes are much higher these days.
all of these statements, which many take as the premises of the debate:
he is an oppressive dictator.
he is a holocaust denier.
he said israel should be wiped from the map.
iran sponsors terrorism.
iran hates the u.s.
among others... all of them get rather complicated quickly if you research them, and muddles the righteousness and moral clarity they reinforce. am I a fan of his? not at all, but I'm even less a fan of seeing how successfully various pressure groups have been in framing the terms of the debate with an overtly anti-iranian agenda. the main AP feed that was circulating around the news websites had the headline "Ahmedinejad questions holocaust, 9/11". for those that have watched his talk, does this ring of a fair characterization of the content? what percentage of the population will watch the talk to see if their portrayal is fair? what percentage will even read the article, vs. the percentage that will only see the headline? the headline functions as further soundbite reinforcement, liberties taken in its authoring safe in the near complete lack of critical inquiry. for all the references to his "holocaust denial", which again should be examined for fairness, not a single one of the articles I have read about the talk has mentioned his open invitation to the students and faculty of columbia to visit the universities of iran. why? my wife is iranian, and I spent a month there a couple years ago. that gesture of generosity and openness rang absolutely true to the character of iran I saw-- you see it everywhere, between strangers, there. much of the debate here I find disheartening.
Bollinger (or Bowinger) sounded more like a reactionary workers' union leader, not the president of a respected university, actually. Ahmadijenadad sounded more respectable, well except the homosexual comments.
So long for your theoretical discussions, fellas. All of us know that the ONLY reason we want to promote democracy (as it were) in the Middle east and the rest of the world is to furthur our own military industrial complex. That is the big pink elephant in the room, isn't it?
OK, we have clowns in our government, patent.
OK, this guy used the media, patent.
OK, this guy is no different than David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, irrational, ego driven, delusional, weapons whore... the remainder of the comparison would be a guess and I would be willing to bet that my guess would be ground zero right.
Iran's leader speaks
how much money does ahmadinejad make? because if he's too poor to afford to eat at little caesar's pizza then i'm definitely not listening to him.
"how much money does ahmadinejad make? because if he's too poor to afford to eat at little caesar's pizza then i'm definitely not listening to him."
I don't think I get it.
it's a 'holy' fasting month and i don't thing he would eat your bovine hormone casein or gmo glutten.
usa: agricultural terrorism against it's own people?
so...if we are potentially going to invade Iran to potentially overthrow a regime, why didnt we shoot this guy yesterday when he was at Columbia???
well that may be, but that also seems to just about describe everything about the middle east politics as i know it anyway, with or without our involvement. of course we can go on and on about the us' idiotic mid-east policy, athough i feel in the past it has been relatively intelligent regarding our own interests. i do think we are generally pro-democracy in the middle east and around the world, when there actually is something we can do about it, and this is also a huge separate issue. and we are probably the sole reason isreal hasn't simply wiped out any palestinian leadership altogether. my own personal feeling about our israeli policy is not that we should cease to support them, but that we should support them in proportion to our own strategic gain, which right now is greatly exaggerated.
obviously there is a lot of historical baggage to the us middle east policy which you know, so i won't go into it. but regarding the iranian leader, i am not with his holocaust comments. i see his speech as a fundamental (albeit incremental) step in restoring our credibility on the world stage. he would've never been allowed to give a speech like this in the post 9-11 climate of fear, so this is a strong sign that we're returning to normalcy. in a world where the iranian leadership continues to execute homosexuals that it denies it has, in a world where a huge number of people believe that the united states is more dangerous than iran, it is important to eliminate american double standards of free speech and expose someone like ahmedinajad for who he is. i don't see this as a "fuck you" to the united states. i think it actually does us some serious credit that we are willing to listen to what he has to say, or at least allow him to speak.
that should read "i am not concerned with his holocaust comments"
the US doesnt necessarily embrace homosexuals...
true but we don't stone them and hang them or shoot them.
i hope that the leader of iran is paid more than $6 dollars/day...because if he isn't, then i'm simple going to have a hard time respecting him.
well i can't respect anyone who can't afford little ceasar's
can we always refer to this in bold from now on?
le bossman
in many places in the US we also dont have laws that protect them from stoning and hanging
i will also say that the united states never has supported democracy when it has been used to elect theocratists, communists, fascists, or people who will otherwise use their democratically elected position to strip the democratic rights of others anyway.
yes, this is unfortunate mdler. it is unfortunate how many gays are stoned in the US everyday. how long are we going to stand for this?
theoretically we dont, hate crime laws are federally enforced and attacks on homosexuals have been recently tried as hate crimes. Now its up to to local DA's i guess... though im no expert on the subject.
anyway... i wont say too much on this subject other than after watching ahmadinejad's talk at columbia... that is one bright man, and a very clever speaker... i found his comment about the 'gay phenomenon' particularly telling... he could have just as easily said something along the lines of 'gay problem' or even 'gay issue' both of which would have been recieved not with the laughs but anger.
the man's an excellent politician, i will give him that.
after finally listening to event (thanks lletdownl), i got the impression that he is a honed politician and what he said was not limited to holocaust, gays and women's issues. in fact those rhetorical issues which made big splash in the media were not even that interesting given those issues with crime and punishment, addressing the core problems in middle east, . and concerns of iran as a sovereign nation with a high cultural past.
in fact, he talked about much larger issues which got him a lot of applause from the audiance.
he is not my favorite person or anything and i am very aware of issues of oppression in iran as an active person who sends letters occasionally to iranian authorities on behalf of political prisoners and writers who are jailed for their views. but, president ahmadinejad is not some kind of a middle eastern dictator we are so accustomed to beat down with fox tv's help.
i can see the iranian president given the opportunity of one on one therotical debate, taking bush and many others to cleaners in a new york minute.
he knows about the skeletons in our closet too well, and more and more we are going to be challenged by better politicians in the future. furthermore, two bit fox employees are not going to be able to save our ass too much longer and spin it as they did in the past. our recent actions in the world perhaps also helped our civilian society grow a little more aware of one sided hawkish agendas.
the fact is our leaders can't stand an intelligent opposition talking back to them with conviction and not afraid to step on our toes.
we actually should give some respect to the situation with someone who is not afraid to talk to us on a platform, instead of plotting vicious acts of terror from a hidden location.
He's not even a dictator, he's a mouth piece and he's brilliant at it. Bush should try and employ him as press secretary.
COLUMBIA ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Orhan thats very well said.
re beefeaters @11:40
"At the outset, I want to complain a bit about the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims…” President Ahmadinejad
"It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."
Sept. 19, 2007
President Bollinger's Statement About
President Ahmadinejad's Scheduled Appearance
||
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." -- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265.
||
It's worth noting that several days before Ahmadinejad's arrival Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh was released from prison on bail.
Admiral William Fallon's sentiments are also worth noting.
yes, obviously the guy is a better politician than bush. i have yet to listen to his speech, which i'll probably do this weekend. the increasing awareness of the outside world that americans have is probably breaking down the one-sided hawkish nationalism that our leaders have relied on in the past, which is probably a good thing. that said, i'm sure there are millions of americans who would refuse to ever pay attention to him.
Link to 1 hour interview Charlie Rose did with Ahamadinejad the other day. Plus my take on it,.
http://namhenderson.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/charlie-rose-mahmoud-ahmadinejad/
does anyone else find it creepy that he requested to visit the world trade center site? (he was denied).. i mean, i was born the the US and have lived here all my life and will never lose the emotional sting of 9/11 i'm sure until the day i die... but, that being said... i have zero interest in visiting the world trade center site 6 years later.. i didn't have personal ties to anyone there that day and lived in a different city and being there while its a construction site isn't of interest to me.. i'm not being cold, i can honor the memory without needing to see it in the flesh, i feel.. until there's new life there that is..
so, why does this non-american from halfway across the world care?.. yeah, PR and photo-ops, obviously, but beyond that i don't know, it just creeps me out. is it morbid curiosity?, is it to play the 'i sympathize' card?.. or is it more of a smug "well, this is what happens if...."? probably why they don't want him there.
it reminds me of dave chapelle talking about the boy that sued michael jackson.. something like: 'why does an 11 year old in the late nineties even request to meet michael jackson in the first place??.. he isn't old enough to remember Thriller. I do remember Thriller and I only kind of would want to meet the guy.. lets just say i wouldn't break an appointment for it?"
I thought Bollinger came off as a media whore - trying to score some points. Anyways, does anyone take Ahmadinejad seriously? Every time I see him speak I think dam, thats a nice jacket and 2 - this guy is almost laughing when he speaks. Hes just trying to get a rise out of people and fools like Bollinger take the bait. Tards.
It seems a lot of people on this topic think the guy is some kind of genius or a wizard. i find the things he said laughable at best ... nothing that smacks of being bright, clever, or a good politician. But then again as I heard Chris Matthews say ... people thought Hitler was funny at first too.
i didn't mean to imply that, but as i said i've yet to hear his speach. myself i wouldn't call him a "wizard"
i agree, marimba. the whole "we don't have gays in our country" sounded to me like a typical propoganda statement he would make in a speech to his own country, but outside of that context, it just sounds completely laughable.
i also wouldn't read too much into any specific language he used in the speech. i think it's important to remember he was speaking through a translator.
to me, he comes off as childish and manipulative, not two of the best characteristics for the leader of one of the world's most important countries.
But he does dress well. Did you see him on 60 min last year? A major improvement from the all black and ZZ Top look the Ayhotolas had. I had nightmares as a child in the 80's.
Everybody is crazy about a sharped dressed man.
"sharp"
Is irrationality a prerequisite for a successful career in politics?
i am more interested about the issues he responded. i care less about wheter or not he is funny, stupid, his jacket etc..
namhenderson made a good post in his blog which addresses the stuff i am talking about. they are not particularly funny subjects.
and, believe me i have seen much more laughable characters in our own back yard than iranian president. do i need to name any?
it is easy to write him off, but the issues regarding nuclear energy, palestine, iraq and its neighbors, out right criticism of US foreign policies, hypocritical moves by european leadership, raise of non aligned nations and so on, are real issues.
all in all, he was a better media whore than bollinger by far. and, everyday media underestimated the weight he carries as a leader of a very important regional power.
if we ever attack iran, it will be the biggest mistake we would ever make.
wait, i was thinking the media overestimated his power as the president of iran.. which as someone mentioned earlier is just a mouthpiece, or a loudmouth in a nice suit compared to the current ayatollah. am i wrong?
I agree these issues are major, crazy, but not to be ignored. It seemed to me that some of the comments on this post were complementary and almost in praise. Maybe I misinterpreted them.
Le Bossman, obviously I disagree with just about everything you said. For a moment I actually thought that I was in a discussion with one who's knowledge of the Middle East consisted of more than just a potted history cobbled out of various yet hardly reliable sources (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc). Obviously I was wrong on that part. So let's just let the disagreements stand. Please continue to flow with the pathetic status quo that exists on the ground right now. That's really going to get us somewhere. But the good news for you is that you would make a good American politician in this day in age -- that is in an age of sullen "expertise" and instant position-taking.
I just have a hard time believing that after all the incessant bull shit that we heard about Iraq and how the public was so mischievously hoodwinked into believing that Iraq had a connection to Bin Laden and that suddenly the "Al-Samood" Rockets were like the next A-bomb (all ultimately ended as utter falsehood), that people are now on board with a possible showdown with Iran. Why would anyone believe what America says about Iran after Iraq?
Just know that an armed confrontation with Iran will not be like anything we've ever seen before. Judging how much this war in Iraq is costing us, a war with Iran will put half of America under the poverty line. the draft will be reinstated, and we would all have to go. We are dealing with a country that has 70 million people -- to which a vast majority are actually very proud of their establishment.
Idle hands, that image is pretty much a testement to just how low our expectations are of average Americans in regard to their "knowledge of the Middle East."
I hope you're proud.
The Iranian people and the Iranian government are going 2 seperate ways I thought. How can a state who sponsers terrorism be trusted with nuclear technologies? How can a theocracy be taken seriously as a legitimate government? Could this be the cultural equivelant of evolution playing out? If a guy put on a crown and sat on a throne in europe and claimed to be a conduit to God we'd have a revolution.
proud that i have differing opinions about who or what to believe than someone as vicious, self-aggrandizing, overly defensive, and pathetically desperate for a fight as you Archmed?
i couldn't be prouder.
it is easy to make a terrorist nation from just about any nation these days isn't it?
just get a blog, some aerial photos of a country site with military trucks on it and viola...
and wear a t-shirt that says 'socket to me'.;.)
jesus archmed. i'm not at all claiming to be a scholar of middle eastern politics and history, and obviously i understand that the dynamics of these issues are not summed up in a few paragraphs while i'm busy at work. since you possess such a conviction about what you know, then i suppose i'm willing to assume that you know what you are talking about. i am not looking for a fight. if you want americans to be less ignorant on the subject, than why don't you point them to some sources so that i can enlighten myself instead of insulting them and spraying them with your seething anger? because in all honesty, i don't think your end of the "dialogue" is getting us anywhere either.
Its not the Iranian people who are terrorists or even supporters of terror, its the government. What happened to the Darling of the Middle East from the 90's? Remember when Iran was touted as this progessive nation joining the 21st century?
archmed i appreciate what your saying but have to seriously disagree that americans would be on board with military action in Iran. If bush was dumb enough to push that before he leaves office i would virtually gaurantee massive Vietnam type demonstrations... the next president will have only marginally more leeway. But i dont see support for that kind of action from anyone but the most die hard hawks whos numbers are diminishing with every day passing in iraq.
(*)our little darling of iran who was. abondoned un expectedly for the fear of raising oil prices and for some reason i was not sorry. if the name SAVAK and CIA doesn't ring a bell, we have to ponder a little longer and refresh some memories.
*not to sound like favoring the current islamic ruling elite. i am just feeling anecdotal today. stakes are much higher these days.
all of these statements, which many take as the premises of the debate:
he is an oppressive dictator.
he is a holocaust denier.
he said israel should be wiped from the map.
iran sponsors terrorism.
iran hates the u.s.
among others... all of them get rather complicated quickly if you research them, and muddles the righteousness and moral clarity they reinforce. am I a fan of his? not at all, but I'm even less a fan of seeing how successfully various pressure groups have been in framing the terms of the debate with an overtly anti-iranian agenda. the main AP feed that was circulating around the news websites had the headline "Ahmedinejad questions holocaust, 9/11". for those that have watched his talk, does this ring of a fair characterization of the content? what percentage of the population will watch the talk to see if their portrayal is fair? what percentage will even read the article, vs. the percentage that will only see the headline? the headline functions as further soundbite reinforcement, liberties taken in its authoring safe in the near complete lack of critical inquiry. for all the references to his "holocaust denial", which again should be examined for fairness, not a single one of the articles I have read about the talk has mentioned his open invitation to the students and faculty of columbia to visit the universities of iran. why? my wife is iranian, and I spent a month there a couple years ago. that gesture of generosity and openness rang absolutely true to the character of iran I saw-- you see it everywhere, between strangers, there. much of the debate here I find disheartening.
Bollinger (or Bowinger) sounded more like a reactionary workers' union leader, not the president of a respected university, actually. Ahmadijenadad sounded more respectable, well except the homosexual comments.
So long for your theoretical discussions, fellas. All of us know that the ONLY reason we want to promote democracy (as it were) in the Middle east and the rest of the world is to furthur our own military industrial complex. That is the big pink elephant in the room, isn't it?
OK, we have clowns in our government, patent.
OK, this guy used the media, patent.
OK, this guy is no different than David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, irrational, ego driven, delusional, weapons whore... the remainder of the comparison would be a guess and I would be willing to bet that my guess would be ground zero right.
"irrational, ego driven, delusional, weapons whore"
the only thing president Bush lacks in this list is an ego. and thank god for that
nurse: Bush will kill all Jews in the U.S. before his term is up, mark my word.
whats the punchline cf?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.