Time to kick Iran

[plumjam]

This is just ridiculous. Calling Bush satan does nothing to further anything. It doesn't help anything. What is the UN for? Divisiveness?

That's what I don't get.

Oh, well, that's all. Then get rid of the UN.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Tu Quoque argument snipped.

I just read you on another thread saying you're one of few people in the US who truly stands up for free speech. Yet here you are arguing that in a forum of such vital importance as the United Nations, visiting diplomats should censor what they have to say about the USA.
Fine, let's just disband the UN then.

In case you forget it isn't just unidirectional. Remember Reagan's "Evil Empire", and Bush's "Axis of Evil".

 

[RandFan]

I just read you on another thread saying you're one of few people in the US who truly stands up for free speech. Yet here you are arguing that in a forum of such vital importance as the United Nations, visiting diplomats should censor what they have to say about the USA.

I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

In case you forget it isn't just unidirectional. Remember Reagan's "Evil Empire", and Bush's "Axis of Evil".

Wait, wait, Regan went to the Soviet Union and while he was there he called them an Evil Empire? Really? I didn't know that. Do you have a link? I think Bush used the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric in America, right?

 

[Flo]

I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

Errr, I'm afraid I've witnessed several instances of "you" (or more adequately a number of your compatriots, some of them high level officials) doing that on a regular basis. It needs to be viewed for what it means: Americans are humans too, and there's a relatively constant proportion of humans who aren't very bright ...

As for the UN, it has its warts, they need to be corrected, but I'm positive there's a need for an open tribune at world's level, which means of course that, among useful exchanges of ideas and points of views, we have to hear (if not listen to) some insane rantings from unsavory people at times.

 

[plumjam]

I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

Wait, wait, Regan went to the Soviet Union and while he was there he called them an Evil Empire? Really? I didn't know that. Do you have a link? I think Bush used the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric in America, right?

The UN has to be situated somewhere. Technically speaking they aren't actually criticising the USA from within the USA:

"The United Nations headquarters was built on an 18 acre site in New York City purchased with a donation to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1946 [7]. Although it is in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations headquarters is international territory."

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN

Granted, that may be rather a pedantic point on my behalf.
But the wider point is that these diplomats aren't coming to the USA with the express purpose of criticising the USA from within. They are going to the UN General Assembly in order to participate in meetings, express arguments etc..

Maybe a solution would be to move it to some little island somewhere.
I think it was agreed to put it in the USA after WWII because it was important it be in a place not vulnerable to any foreseeable invasion. Plus much of the rest of the world was on its knees.

 

[Flo]

The UN has to be situated somewhere. Technically speaking they aren't actually criticising the USA from within the USA:

"The United Nations headquarters was built on an 18 acre site in New York City purchased with a donation to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1946 [7]. Although it is in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations headquarters is international territory."

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN

Granted, that may be rather a pedantic point on my behalf.
But the wider point is that these diplomats aren't coming to the USA with the express purpose of criticising the USA from within. They are going to the UN General Assembly in order to participate in meetings, express arguments etc..

I'm afraid you're wrong there. People like Ahmadinejad or Chavez do enjoy going "to the USA" with the express purpose of being seen criticizing the USA from within. They are very likely ignorant of, or know the people they are staging their PR demonstration for are ignorant of the exact statute of those 18 acres, and will therefore be viewed as "brave martyrs fighting for the world's freedom from inside the lion's den".

 

[plumjam]

I'm afraid you're wrong there. People like Ahmadinejad or Chavez do enjoy going "to the USA" with the express purpose of being seen criticizing the USA from within. They are very likely ignorant of, or know the people they are staging their PR demonstration for are ignorant of the exact statute of those 18 acres, and will therefore be viewed as "brave martyrs fighting for the world's freedom from inside the lion's den".

I see. You're a mind reader, are you?
If you were the 10 times democratically elected Chavez and the USA had organised a failed coup against you, would you be saying nice things about the USA when you were at the UN?
If you were the democratically elected Ahmadinejad, whose two neighbours were recently invaded by the USA, and the USA was clearly looking for a pretext to attack you, would you be saying nice things about the USA while at the UN?

I think if you didn't raise your grievances you'd be lacking a pair.

 

[Flo]

I see. You're a mind reader, are you?
If you were the 10 times democratically elected Chavez and the USA had organised a failed coup against you, would you be saying nice things about the USA when you were at the UN?
If you were the democratically elected Ahmadinejad, whose two neighbours were recently invaded by the USA, and the USA was clearly looking for a pretext to attack you, would you be saying nice things about the USA while at the UN?

I think if you didn't raise your grievances you'd be lacking a pair.

I don't need to read mind, I read and listen* to what people say, and both those idiots have actually boasted on several occasions to their constituents about having "a pair" and thus daring to defy America on its own soil.

I don't mind political leaders saying nasty things about the USA on occasion (I supported Chirac in his opposition to follow on the war in Iraq, for example), I object about taking seriously clowns like Ahmadinejad and Chavez who are making a big circus of pointing to American defects while using their elected position to deny basic freedoms to their own compatriots and/or threatening their own neighbors.





* in their native language, and in the case of Ahmadinejad, I get it translated by people I have every reasons to trust, i.e. Iranians I work with.

 

[plumjam]

I don't need to read mind, I read and listen* to what people say, and both those idiots have actually boasted on several occasions to their constituents about having "a pair" and thus daring to defy America on its own soil.

I don't mind political leaders saying nasty things about the USA on occasion (I supported Chirac in his opposition to follow on the war in Iraq, for example), I object about taking seriously clowns like Ahmadinejad and Chavez who are making a big circus of pointing to American defects while using their elected position to deny basic freedoms to their own compatriots and/or threatening their own neighbors.


* in their native language, and in the case of Ahmadinejad, I get it translated by people I have every reasons to trust, i.e. Iranians I work with.

Well I guess in your world powerful nations should be allowed to try to remove democratically elected heads of state and threaten war against weaker nations. And when those weaker nations go to the UN General Assembly they should keep quiet about it in order, presumably, to avoid hurting people's sensibilities.

 

[Flo]

Well I guess in your world powerful nations should be allowed to try to remove democratically elected heads of state and threaten war against weaker nations. And when those weaker nations go to the UN General Assembly they should keep quiet about it in order, presumably, to avoid hurting people's sensibilities.

You shouldn't use a slice of bacon to clean a cristal ball, it gets all fuzzy and interferes with your mind-reading ... because your guess about my world is far, far, from anything approaching reality.

 

[plumjam]

You shouldn't use a slice of bacon to clean a cristal ball, it gets all fuzzy and interferes with your mind-reading ... because your guess about my world is far, far, from anything approaching reality.

Ok. Maybe you can tell us what Chavez and Ahmedinejad should and shouldn't be allowed to say in UN meetings.

 

[Flo]

Ok. Maybe you can tell us what Chavez and Ahmedinejad should and shouldn't be allowed to say in UN meetings.

Where did I say they should ask for permission to say anything ? I consider both as clowns and hypocrites (and dangerous ones at that), but I'm all for them to prove it publicly to the whole thinking world.

However, in my book, politicians should refrain from words and actions devoid of any substance that only aim at pleasing the sheep at home, but of course my book is a work of fiction.

 

[plumjam]

Where did I say they should ask for permission to say anything ? I consider both as clowns and hypocrites (and dangerous ones at that), but I'm all for them to prove it publicly to the whole thinking world.

However, in my book, politicians should refrain from words and actions devoid of any substance that only aim at pleasing the sheep at home, but of course my book is a work of fiction.

Fair enough.
Personally I don't see either of them as dangerous, as neither are itching for war.
Isn't most of what politicians worldwide say devoid of substance and only aiming to please sheep?

 

[Flo]

Fair enough.
Personally I don't see either of them as dangerous, as neither are itching for war.

Then I suggest you seriously study what they are saying and doing inside their own countries. They are both dangerous for their own people, and Ahmadinejad for the neighbors too. The fact that American policy is blamable in some areas doesn't absolve other governments from their wrongdoings.

Isn't most of what politicians worldwide say devoid of substance and only aiming to please sheep?

Told you, my book is fiction.

 

[plumjam]

Then I suggest you seriously study what they are saying and doing inside their own countries. They are both dangerous for their own people, and Ahmadinejad for the neighbors too. The fact that American policy is blamable in some areas doesn't absolve other governments from their wrongdoings.

Nothing that either of them are supposedly doing in their own countries is anywhere near as dangerous for their own people as would be a successful US engineered coup in Venezuela, or a US invasion of Iran.
This is why they complain about the US. And good luck to them for doing so.

 

[Flo]

Nothing that either of them are supposedly doing in their own countries is anywhere near as dangerous for their own power as would be a successful US engineered coup in Venezuela, or a US invasion of Iran.
This is why they complain about the US. And good luck to them for doing so.

Fixed that for you.

ETA: nothing both are doing is only "supposed" either.

 

[plumjam]

Fixed that for you.

ETA: nothing both are doing is only "supposed" either.

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power. His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?

Maybe you can tell me what Chavez has been doing against his own people.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.
A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[yairhol]

Hi, It'll be impossible for me to read all that's been said in this thread so if anyone can summarize a little of what's been said so far.

Is anyone saying Iran should keep on going towards nuclear weapon?

Regards,
Yair

 

[Flo]

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power. His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?

Maybe you can tell me what Chavez has been doing against his own people.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.
A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.

At this point, I suggest you look it up yourself ... unless of course you want to pull an Oliver and pretend that what you don't see doesn't exist, and that anyone opposing the USA is by definition virtuous.

BTW, Mugabe, Omar Bongo, and quite a number of odious dictators all around the world have been elected several times, with scores in the high 90%. I suppose it automatically means their people love them and would never, ever, think about replacing them

 

[plumjam]

At this point, I suggest you look it up yourself ... unless of course you want to pull an Oliver and pretend that what you don't see doesn't exist, and that anyone opposing the USA is by definition virtuous.

BTW, Mugabe, Omar Bongo, and quite a number of odious dictators all around the world have been elected several times, with scores in the high 90%. I suppose it automatically means their people love them and would never, ever, think about replacing them

Ducked out of that one, huh?

What has Chavez been doing against his own people?

 

[marksman]

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times

Where do you get that number from?
1: 1994: Elected President of Venezuela for the first time
2: 2000: Chavez re-elected
3: 2004: Chavez defeats recall referendum
4: 2006: Won re-election
As far as I can tell, those are all of the elections held to determine if Chavez should be President. What were the six other elections?

I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power.

Not at the moment. Politics can be fickle though. If he doesn't improve the welfare of the poor, which are the mainstay of his popularity, to coincide with the way the standard of living has been increasing amongst Venezuela's neighbors, he could get in trouble.

His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?

Well, he could theoretically also face a military coup. When Chavez engineered his own failed military coup in 1992, he only had support of 10% of the military (if that much) and he ended up in prison for a year. After that, he concentrated on political grass roots support. The rank and file military doesn't have a lot of love for him, though he has managed to replace most of the upper echelons of the military with supporters. Of course, that's all speculative. Given how well he suppressed the prior coup attempt against him, nobody -- including America -- appears to be considering another one.

And for the record, I don't support coup attempts.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.

Probably? You mean, you don't know?
At any rate, he was elected only in the most nominal sense. The candidates for nomination are all pre-selected by the Council of Guardians, a council of fundamentalist Shi'a clerics. When Ahmedinejad ran (and won), the Council approved only six candidates or the 90 who applied. All applicants who were considered reformers or independents were rejected. Because of the outcry, the Council relented and allowed two nominal reformers on the ballot.

There were three "Conservative candidates", including Ahmedinejad. There were three "Reform" candidates -- all but one of whom had been Conservative Party candidates previously, and a "Trans-Party" candidate who was also most recently a Conservative Party candidate.

Ahmedinejad got only 19.7% of the vote on the first round of voting, and beat Rafsanjani (the Trans-Party candidate) on the second round. One of the "Reform" candidates was only 2 points behind Ahmedinejad on the first round, but was excluded form the second round, leaving a choice between Rafsanjani and Ahmedinejad, two members of the Establishment.

In the end, it wasn't much more of a choice than an ice cream parlor that lets you pick between vanilla, french vanilla and lite vanilla.

A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ah, the tu quoque. Is there no leader for whom it cannot serve as apologetic?