Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

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

Meh...

To be intellectually honest, America likely garners some degree of good will for hosting the UN. I'm guessing folks much smarter than I when it comes to foreign relations would simply say I haven't a clue.

My point is one of exasperation and frustration.

A little diplomacy and decorum would be nice but should any of us really expect that from someone like Chavez?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

Ok, so no one expects Chavez to act like a human being. It would be nice if the some of the folks who fancy themselves fair would take Chavez to task for his lack of diplomacy.

 

[RandFan]

Rand, at the risk of pissing off you and a number of other folks, I will engage in some out of the box thinking.

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin.

If he has the balls to accept those conditions, he ought to be allowed a chance to actually pay his respects. Showing that kind of tolerance and open handedness to him, even though he's been a bit of a jerk lately, could be a play at getting a bit more high ground after his sad display of trash mouth last time he was in town. Kill him with kindness.

The mayor and NYPD can't see the forest for the trees, I think, but I do appreciate the depths of feeling involved and how that colors their view, not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.

No risk, no reward.

DR

Darth,

I'm sorry I come across as easily pissed off. I'm really not. I understand the frustration that people have with America. This Iraq mess rightfully has people upset.

I have had a short fuse of late. I'll try and do better.

That said, I like your idea.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Meh...

To be intellectually honest, America likely garners some degree of good will for hosting the UN. I'm guessing folks much smarter than I when it comes to foreign relations would simply say I haven't a clue.

My point is one of exasperation and frustration.

A little diplomacy and decorum would be nice but should any of us really expect that from someone like Chavez?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

Ok, so no one expects Chavez to act like a human being. It would be nice if the some of the folks who fancy themselves fair would take Chavez to task for his lack of diplomacy.

Come on..
Give Chavez a break..
He has not started any war, so far..

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,

I'm sorry I come across as easily pissed off. I'm really not. I understand the frustration that people have with America. This Iraq mess rightfully has people upset.

I have had a short fuse of late. I'll try and do better.

That said, I like your idea.

I was thinking of taking up a collection for "Baseball bats for Gravy" in case my idea is adopted.

Buy American, Louisville Slugger.

DR

 

[Matteo Martini]

In threads about other nations, by the way, I criticize those nations -- the UK, US, Venezuela, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. I don't want you to think it's all about Iran.

You forgot Russia ( Putin`s policy ), France ( for having a foreign minister who spoke for war against Iran ), Japan ( for having PMs still visiting the Yasukuni shrine ), North Korea ( obvious reasons ), India and Pakistan ( for being at war since about 50 years ago ), Iraq ( for having a government which is uncapable of ending a war ), Australia, Poland and Denmark ( for being part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq ), ..

I think you can leave out Barbados and the Antigues

 

[marksman]

You forgot...

Yes, Matteo, that's why I wrote "just to name a few". But far be it from you to not aim your rhetorical gun at me, and shoot yourself in the foot just to find it's already lodged firmly in your mouth.

-marksman, mangling metaphors since 1981!

 

[Oliver]

Come on..
Give Chavez a break..
He has not started any war, so far..

But that's the point in US-Foreign Politics. It doesn't matter
if a foreign country may start a war - or ever did start one.
The Point always has been:

[sarcasm]
Administration: "They are our Enemies now. Period!".
Press: "But..."
Administration: "WMDSEvilMushroomcloudsCommunismEndofWorldDoomsday!!!".
Press: "okay... "

Or as my new Hero Pat Condell would put it:

[/sarcasm]

 

[Oliver]

I didn't watch the full speech of Ahmadinejad yet - but I doubt
that he somehow manages to portray any threat to the US.

From what I see, it's all about Israel - and people all over the
world know this as well. It's not about an actual threat since
there is no evidence for Iran trying to get Nuclear Weapons.

There is no evidence for that.

Rather it's solely about painting Ahmadinejad as being the new
Saddam. I really hope the American People will not fall for these
Lies again. And concerning Israel - I hope that they will not finally
be the victims of this propaganda inasmuch that the world will
turn their backs towards Israels interests...

That could be the beginning of the end of Israel...

 

[Oliver]

Moved over from the "Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak
at Columbia University?" -thread...

... yet.

Again with the Oliver logic where someone who wants to kill you isn't a threat to you until after he's killed you.

Anyway, do go to the other thread.

BS. He and his military are no threat for the US, Israel or Europe.
There is no evidence for the contrary - even the NSC, NSA, CIA
doesn't have such evidence.

You're making this threat up. That's nice and pretty much the
same garbage like in case of Saddam. But nobody with a brain
will believe this crap anymore. And this is dangerous for Israel's
interests - not an advantage in any way. Don't you understand
that?

 

[Pardalis]

Rather it's solely about painting Ahmadinejad as being the new Saddam. I really hope the American People will not fall for these Lies again.

If only you weren't so dismissive of Ahmadinejad's own propaganda (in fact you're falling for it), you might have a point.

 

[jsiv]

Moved over from the "Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak at Columbia University?" -thread...

Could you please move to THE RIGHT THREAD where I've already commented on pretty much the same thing.


Thanks.

 

[Oliver]

If only you wouldn't be so dismissive of Ahmadinejad's own propaganda (in fact you're falling for it), you might have a point.

See? That's the difference between you, me and Truthers.
I fall for evidence - you seem to connect the dots in a
way which is based on emotions, not of facts.

And don't get me wrong, Goury. I like you, but your fears
are ungrounded.

The real threat would be if the Muslim world would turn into
a holy war to protect their Islam. And you seem to put oil
into this fire instead trying extinguishing it.

Do you know what I mean?


ETA:

Could you please move to THE RIGHT THREAD where I've already commented on pretty much the same thing.


Thanks.

This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

 

[Pardalis]

See? That's the difference between you, me and Truthers. I fall for evidence - you seem to connect the dots in a way which is based on emotions, not of facts.

We are both guilty being emotional about this subject (that thread you started about Bush and Hitler for example).

You've been given time and time again facts that Iran is not being forthright about its nuclear program, and you have been given multiple times quotes from Ahmadinejad calling for the destruction of Israel. You just don't want to acknowledge those facts.

Iran may be not an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, but it is using rhetoric which is worrisome.

The real threat would be if the Muslim world would turn into a holy war to protect their Islam.

Nobody is attacking Islam. Islam is far from being threatened by western civilization, nobody has called for a war against it. In fact, Islam is more threatened by its own inner divisions.

 

[Tailgater]

This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

I don't think there is a "crisis", but I do believe he dodged or lied during every question today. At the same time, you were already posting a defense for him in the thread, when you hadn't even watched it all.

 

[Oliver]

We are both guilty being emotional about this subject (that thread you started about Bush and Hitler for example).

You've been given time and time again facts that Iran is not being forthright about its nuclear program, and you have been given multiple times quotes from Ahmadinejad calling for the destruction of Israel. You just don't want to acknowledge those facts.

Iran may be not an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, but it is using rhetoric which is worrisome.

Nobody is attacking Islam. Islam is far from being threatened by western civilization, nobody has called for a war against it. In fact, Islam is more threatened by its own inner divisions.

You don't understand that: Even if nobody is calling for attacking
Islam - it could be interpreted this way. Want an example?

Osama Bin Laden

There is no evidence for a nuclear warheads program. It doesn't
matter what Ahmadinejad says. Let me repeat it:

It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad says!

Unless, of course - there is evidence. And no, there is no such.

[derail]

Concerning "Bush - Hitler": I wondered if Americans would even
acknowledge if their democracy would vanish over night. The
Patriot Act being introduced literally "over night" - and voted for
without even reading it would've concerned me. But it's always
a pleasure to see how naive the reactions in here are.

Democracy in the US (Not reading Bills they pass) :


[/end of derail]

 

[jsiv]

This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

CHRIST

I politely asked you in the CU/Ahmadinejad thread if you'd like to comment on some related posts I made in another thread, and instead you decide to go to a third thread, making the whole thing pointless.

I don't know why you have to be so difficult, but fine, I will duplicate them:

Are you aware that the Iranian government was displaying banners reading "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" at the big military parade they held the other day?

They most definitively are trying to start a war of sorts against Israel, the US, and the West by trying to drive everyone in the region against us (as well as sponsoring terrorism.) Iran needs to tone down the rhetoric if it's going to be possible to have rational negotiations with them.

Oh no! Banners!! I'm so scared!!!!

So what?

So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret.

Note that this is not saying that they want to "kill all the Jews." No, they simply want the State of Israel to be dissolved and the people relocated somewhere else, preferably outside of the Middle East.

How do we respond to words and protests? I say we need to not respond at all. Rattling our sabers back at them plays right into their hands.

They aren't content with just empty words and protests though. They do whatever they can to drive others to engage in physical attacks against us (meaning Israel and any western presence in the region.)

If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.

Their wish is probably not to start a war that involves Iran itself, but rather to get everyone in the region to make us feel so unwelcome that we pack up and leave, giving them a greater opportunity to become a dominating force in the middle east -- without any fighting on their own land. Warfare by proxy.

The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? When does it cease to be an "unprovoked preemptive strike?" Take Israel. Iran has been shown to be behind attacks on Israel, both indirectly through supporting terrorist groups, and directly through members of the Iranian Guard operating in countries like Lebanon. If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?

What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads? What do you do then? Striking back has just become a lot more risky. This is probably the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons, not because they intend to attack anyone with them "first." They want free reigns to do whatever they want, without the risk of any major repercussions.

That's how I see it, anyway.

The whole thing is a big mess, and I fear that it's inevitably going to escalate beyond the point of no return. It's sad to watch.

 

[Oliver]

I don't think there is a "crisis", but I do believe he dodged or lied during every question today. At the same time, you were already posting a defense for him in the thread, when you hadn't even watched it all.

I don't have to since Iran is no threat to the US.
Your point ... ? --- "But, but, but...!!!"

"But" what?

 

[Oliver]

CHRIST

I politely asked you in the CU/Ahmadinejad thread if you'd like to comment on some related posts I made in another thread, and instead you decide to go to a third thread, making the whole thing pointless.

I don't know why you have to be so difficult, but fine, I will duplicate them:

What's your question? I don't care who said what or did what.
As long there is no real threat to anyone, I simply don't support
the same row of lies that led to the Iraq Mess.

If you have evidence for a threat - other than words, feel free
to post them.

Until then, you're spouting Woo. And this place may be the wrong
one to try to advocate Woo, don't you think?

 

[jsiv]

What's your question? I don't care who said what or did what.
As long there is no real threat to anyone, I simply don't support
the same row of lies that led to the Iraq Mess.

If you have evidence for a threat - other than words, feel free
to post them.

Until then, you're spouting Woo. And this place may be the wrong
one to try to advocate Woo, don't you think?

Thanks for not actually reading anything I wrote. There is no "woo," and there are infact several questions there.

 

[Pardalis]

You don't understand that: Even if nobody is calling for attacking Islam - it could be interpreted this way. Want an example?

Osama Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden is a lunatic.

It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad says.

It doesn't matter what he says, but whatever Bush says you criticize... Why the double standard?