Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero?

psungee,

Your analogy doesn't represent reality. Our present day enemies don't resemble a neighbor who thinks he has a better landscaping service. It's more like this:

Your neighbor has been commanded by his religious teachings to either convert you or kill you, so he's doing his religious duty. In return for this, he's promised paradise. So he tries to convert you and fails. Finally he starts sneaking over to your house under the guise of borrowing a cup of sugar. While he's there he asks to use the bathroom, and then he starts planting little pipe bombs in your toilet and under beds.

You put up with this for a long time because your previous houseman, Bill Clinton, convinced you he wasn't that big of a threat. You manage to escape injury because the bombs go off when nobody's home, but finally one of the bombs kills your children.

So now you are being vigilant and have decided to defend yourself, but your other neighbors and even some of your family members are accusing you of trying to steal that neighbor's gasoline from his garage. They say you're bloodthirsty and you should be ignoring him and focusing on going to work and giving to the poor.

Meanwhile, the neighbor's still trying to sneak over to your house and plant bombs.

Would you talk to him? Let bygones be bygones? Is there an equitable solution to work out? Would you take his word for anything?
 
fossten,

Here's what I can give yah, "the analogy is weak." I accept that (but it's not as weak as you suggest - but I don't consider that terribly important - it was just a device to try to illustrate a point).

Fact is, we do, to some degree, live in a society of revenge. I do understand that kind of emotion. I can't imagine I'd be happy to sit by as my friends and family were attacked. We do, however, use police and the legal system when we are under personal attack by others within our communities. We do not, typically, take to the street armed with the intent of shooting anyone we think may be responsible for attacking us (well... not usually).

In favour of your own stance, I can be a disproportionate supporter of Israel but it doesn't mean I think they shouldn't seek a peace (while standing for themselves) rather than constant fighting - in spite of (what is to me) obvious Palestinian stupidity and poor and inappropriate behaviours and their own less than constructive actions within their proposed territories. I'm quite convinced that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

At the same time, I don't think everything the State of Israel does vis-a-vis the Palestinians is appropriate or moral. It doesn't detract from my general support of the state. It also merits recognizing that the government of the State of Israel, too, seeks peace - not at ANY expense but they recognize their lives will be better if they aren't in a constant state of war with their neighbours.

Fact is, I feel the same way about the U.S. It is my personal belief that it is incumbent upon states such as ours (the U.S., Canada, etc) to stay on the moral high ground. That doesn't mean you (or we) should accept being victimized.

All this does not detract from the reality that when the U.S. is under attack, so are we so there is a measure of selfishness in Canadian desire for American security.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi, Mahatma

"That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." King Jr. Martin Luther
 
psungee said:
fossten,

Here's what I can give yah, "the analogy is weak." I accept that (but it's not as weak as you suggest - but I don't consider that terribly important - it was just a device to try to illustrate a point).

Fact is, we do, to some degree, live in a society of revenge. I do understand that kind of emotion. I can't imagine I'd be happy to sit by as my friends and family were attacked. We do, however, use police and the legal system when we are under personal attack by others within our communities. We do not, typically, take to the street armed with the intent of shooting anyone we think may be responsible for attacking us (well... not usually).

In favour of your own stance, I can be a disproportionate supporter of Israel but it doesn't mean I think they shouldn't seek a peace (while standing for themselves) rather than constant fighting - in spite of (what is to me) obvious Palestinian stupidity and poor and inappropriate behaviours and their own less than constructive actions within their proposed territories. I'm quite convinced that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

At the same time, I don't think everything the State of Israel does vis-a-vis the Palestinians is appropriate or moral. It doesn't detract from my general support of the state. It also merits recognizing that the government of the State of Israel, too, seeks peace - not at ANY expense but they recognize their lives will be better if they aren't in a constant state of war with their neighbours.

Fact is, I feel the same way about the U.S. It is my personal belief that it is incumbent upon states such as ours (the U.S., Canada, etc) to stay on the moral high ground. That doesn't mean you (or we) should accept being victimized.

All this does not detract from the reality that when the U.S. is under attack, so are we so there is a measure of selfishness in Canadian desire for American security.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi, Mahatma

"That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." King Jr. Martin Luther
Click to expand...
Look at all the waffle indicators in your spiel. At what point do you take a stand and say "no more"? Israel, for example, has been attacked by her neighbors from all sides since 1948. At this juncture I don't blame them for ANYTHING they do. Theirs isn't an issue of getting along, it's an issue of survival. Period. Waffling on this issue will get them destroyed. Every time some US President has convinced them to give ground, they've acquiesced, to their own detriment. And has it stopped the attacks on their civilian population? NO. So why should they capitulate ever again? Isn't SIXTY YEARS of attacks enough for them to justify defending themselves in your eyes? If not, how long should they put up with that crap?

How long should we?

"He that attempts to ski around both sides of the tree ends up with a smashed face."

"He that attempts to stand on both sides of the fence ends up with a fencepole up his ass."
- Me
 
Couldn't help but repost this from newsbusters.org:

Differences
September 21, 2007 - 17:38 ET by ThisnThat
President Bush: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Media's reaction: "We hate you, BuShie, you stole the election".

General Petraeus: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq"

Dim Congress reaction: "You're a liar; your progress report requires a willing suspension of disbelief".

Ahmadinejad: "The Holocost is a myth; we will wipe Israel off the map".

Media's reaction: Media and academic elites are falling over themselves to fete this genocidal madman. "Please come speak to us. May we interview you?"

The Dims and the media are our enemies within. This charade proves it beyond a doubt.
 
fossten said:
Look at all the waffle indicators in your spiel. At what point do you take a stand and say "no more"? Israel, for example, has been attacked by her neighbors from all sides since 1948. At this juncture I don't blame them for ANYTHING they do. Theirs isn't an issue of getting along, it's an issue of survival. Period. Waffling on this issue will get them destroyed. Every time some US President has convinced them to give ground, they've acquiesced, to their own detriment. And has it stopped the attacks on their civilian population? NO. So why should they capitulate ever again? Isn't SIXTY YEARS of attacks enough for them to justify defending themselves in your eyes? If not, how long should they put up with that crap?

How long should we?

"He that attempts to ski around both sides of the tree ends up with a smashed face."

"He that attempts to stand on both sides of the fence ends up with a fencepole up his ass."
- Me
Click to expand...
Your personal quotes are very cute but... having a balanced view of life isn't "waffling" (well, not necessarily). I know you won't care for this analogy either but ...

"I saw a car I liked. I had a budget of $20,000 but the car costs $22,000. It consumes more fuel and that will affect my budget in other ways. Should I? Shouldn't I? If I buy it I will have to give up steak for a year and park my bike for the summer. I'll take the time I need to consider both sides."

Fred calls it "waffling" while George calls it "considering different aspects of the issue."

I find your reference to Israel interesting particularly in light of the fact that just that day I watched Carter promoting his book and his ideas and said to Mrs. Psungee, "Every time they gave up they got kicked in the rooster (not quite the word I used but 'a rose by any other name, right?)." Carter just doesn't get it! So, I can kinda appreciate your point (it's not waffling - it's "having a balanced view". Giving consideration to different aspects of a matter. Israel was in error to cede lands without anything in exchange EXCEPT things went quite well with the succession of the Sainai to Egypt. They made a deal and, for the most part, the deal worked. The two states are, essentially, at peace. At least according to most Israelis I know.

The deal on Sainai worked with the Egyptian state. If Israel succeeds lands on its own terms (peace and diplomacy) they will have no problems. It is, at best, specious to suggest that war and annihilation of enemies is the only way. If you point to Lebanon, I will remind you that Lebanon and Israel had friendly relations prior to Syrian, fundamentalist Islam and Palestinian incursion into Lebanon. Jordan has had friendly relations as a result of discussions between King Hussein and Golda Meir - years of good relations. More interesting and a better example continues to be Egypt since there was always more animosity between the two states.

You will argue that peace worked because the Egyptians were beaten (or you should argue this;)). Well, without some diplomacy they would still be at war. It wasn't winning a war that gave them peace. Winning was only the precursor. It was talking.

IMO, you have to keep fighting but you also have to be ready to talk. Don't confuse this with treating a terrorist like a welcome guest. That's silly - and I'm not inclined to think myself that weak-minded ... but you have to do more than fight.

If you want to make it personal, I would choose to express it this way. While you and I disagree and may argue, vociferously, on this issue (and others) if we met I assume we would still be able to be civil (I can even be friendly 'cause I have no use for taking this discussion personally but...) If we're going to be personal, "I wouldn't just let someone hit me. You can hate me but not hit me." I am, personally, capable of walking past people with whom I've got a shaky past. I'm not friends with everyone I know. I have no use for some of my neighbours but they still live there - and I live here and we don't fight.

Even "agreeing to disagree" doesn't mean you have to raise your fist. It just means you put an issue behind you. You cannot resolve something so you stay out of each other's way - period.

BTW, I also find it interesting how little we hear about this renewed bout of incursions, by Russia, into foreign air space. Right now, nations aren't shooting down Russian planes - they're ... "Talking".
 
psungee said:
Your personal quotes are very cute but... having a balanced view of life isn't "waffling" (well, not necessarily). I know you won't care for this analogy either but ...

"I saw a car I liked. I had a budget of $20,000 but the car costs $22,000. It consumes more fuel and that will affect my budget in other ways. Should I? Shouldn't I? If I buy it I will have to give up steak for a year and park my bike for the summer. I'll take the time I need to consider both sides."
Click to expand...
You're correct, it's a bad analogy. You're attempting to conflate indecision and weighing the cost with trying to accomplish something by adopting two strategies, both of which are diametrically opposed. Actually, in another way, your analogy supports my position, because you can't have your steak and your bike and the new car all together. You have to choose one or the other. What you're calling a balanced view is really just an unwillingness to take a stand.

Diplomacy is what you use AFTER you have achieved military victory. Otherwise, as you stated yourself, talking is seen as weakness by your enemies.

We ought to be intercepting Russian planes like we did in the 70s and 80s.
 
Joeychgo said:
Not at all. I said before, im not in favor of it, just exploring the issue. I think we should whack him while he's here.
Click to expand...

:eek: I wouldn't have believed you said that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. :I
 
Guy ... with respect, I did NOT say it was a bad analogy - I said "I know you won't care for this analogy either but ..." (even though I don't think it's a great one).

With this said, "I give up." Here are my final thoughts on this:

"We disagree. It is a subject upon which we will likely always disagree. I can't argue a point if I am misquoted to support an opposing argument and I can accept that we don't agree without making accusations of 'incorrect fusing of ideas' and weakness or inflexibility. I would contend that the historical example of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt and Jordan bears out my hypothesis that there must be discussion as you war.

Still, I believe in being open-minded. Thinking about things that are said to me, particularly when I disagree, makes me stronger - not weaker. As such, I will carry into my future our discussion and will consider it (because I do think about such things sometimes). I don't even mind having had this discussion. I have argued with close friends in the past and have always held that one must be able to disagree. If you never listen to and think about dissenting opinions and other views you will never learn anything.

I, personally, encourage any final thoughts but our next discussion will be on something else;)

Thanks - it's been interesting.
 
More to the original point of this thread.
If we let Ahmadinejad visit ground zero with his entourage
in a disingenuine paying of respects it will be seen as a triumph.
Hell we may as well invite Bin Laden to come and visit and stand there like a hunter over his trophy kill.
Ahmadinejad stands for everything Al Queda stands for and the implied meaning of him standing there will not be lost in the Islamic world. It will lift his stature and give the enemy a propaganda victory
that we must not allow.
 
04SCTLS said:
More to the original point of this thread.
If we let Ahmadinejad visit ground zero with his entourage
in a disingenuine paying of respects it will be seen as a triumph.
Hell we may as well invite Bin Laden to come and visit and stand there like a hunter over his trophy kill.
Ahmadinejad stands for everything Al Queda stands for and the implied meaning of him standing there will not be lost in the Islamic world. It will lift his stature and give the enemy a propaganda victory
that we must not allow.
Click to expand...

Fossten, I bet you agree with this statement (as do I);)
 
psungee said:
Fossten, I bet you agree with this statement (as do I);)
Click to expand...
Yes sir. It was a very good point.:cool:

Wouldn't it be great if one of the reporters at the usual press conference said, "Mr. President, I understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coming to New York and will be speaking at Columbia University next week. Do you approve of this visit, and if so, would you also approve if Osama bin Laden were coming to speak at Columbia University?"

BUSH: :eek:

Update:

Columbia University Dean says of course he would have invited Hitler to speak. But he bans the ROTC and the Minutemen, eh? What a guy.

Also, 60 Minutes will broadcast Ahmadinejad speaking directly to the American people.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/22/video-of-course-wed-invite-hitler-to-speak-says-columbia-dean/
 
fossten said:
:eek: I wouldn't have believed you said that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. :I
Click to expand...

A few years ago, you gave me sh!t for saying we should have [secretly] just shot a missile up Saddam's ass, instead of attacking Iraq, if he was "the cause of terror".
 
95DevilleNS said:
A few years ago, you gave me sh!t for saying we should have [secretly] just shot a missile up Saddam's ass, instead of attacking Iraq, if he was "the cause of terror".
Click to expand...

We tried to do that.

Unfortunately, the intelligence on the ground in Iraq was terrible. The information was wrong, Hussein identified the informants and killed them, and we lost the element of surprise when launching the military operations in Iraq.
 
Ahmadinejad is in, ROTC is out
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, September 24, 2007

President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is a very open-minded guy, in his own opinion. In inviting the Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, he issued this statement. "Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas...Necessarily on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs that many, most of even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialog and reason."

So why won't Bollinger allow the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) to recruit on the Columbia campus? ROTC was expelled from Columbia in the late sixties. In 2003 a majority of students said they wanted ROTC back, to give students the choice to serve their country in this way. The Columbia faculty opposed the measure, however, and Bollinger sided with them against the students.

What is the problem with ROTC as far as Columbia University is concerned? Apparently Bollinger and other left-wingers on the faculty can't stand the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning homosexuals. Yet this policy, devised and introduced by the Clinton administration, respects the privacy of homosexual soldiers on the condition that they aren't open or flagrant about being gay. The objective of the policy is to maintain morale in the barracks.

Even if you disagree with the military, Bollinger himself says that Columbia is open to allowing ideas that are "offensive and even odious." This is the whole point of tolerance. Tolerance means, “I disagree strongly, but I will put up with you.” If I agreed with what you have to say then there is no question of tolerance. Whatever Bollinger’s ideological disagreement with ROTC, surely students are capable of hearing his concerns and then making up their own minds about whether to enroll.

Meanwhile, Iran's policies toward homosexuals are--shall we say--somewhat more stringent than those of the U.S. military. I visited the website of Human Rights Watch where the country's sorry record is pretty well laid out. A few months ago, to take a random example, the Iranian police raided a home where men were allegedly dressed up as women. The men were accused of homosexuality, detained without a lawyer, and beaten. Perhaps they should consider themselves lucky: in the past Iran has not hesitated to execute homosexuals. Last November two men were strung up in northern Iran for engaging in homosexual acts. (Lesbianism is apparently punished not by death but by public whipping.)

It's interesting to see that Columbia has such wide parameters when it comes to giving Islamic radicals like Ahmadinejad a forum on campus. Actually I don't agree with conservatives who say that the man should be prevented from speaking. Let him come and let him talk. If Ahmadinejad blames America and Israel for terrorism and calls for both to be wiped off the map, he would be doing no more than echoing what many leftists at Columbia have been saying for years. If he takes the more interesting approach of defending Muslim holy law regarding women and gays, he will show the left what it’s in for if Islamic radicalism triumphs in the Middle East.

But if Columbia can make room for Ahmadinejad, Columbia can make room for ROTC on campus. This absurd double standard of kowtowing even to the enemies of America, while blocking the military and other politically incorrect institutions, has got to stop and stop now. Columbia and other universities should be just as open to ideas from the right as they are to ideas from the left and from the Islamic radicals. Isn't it time Bollinger and his thick-headed colleagues realized that free speech and diversity should be valued across the political spectrum? Send me your thoughts at dineshjdsouza@aol.com.

Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.




Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 
Seventy years before this week’s invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Columbia rolled out the red carpet for a senior official of Adolf Hitler’s regime. The invitation to Iran’s leader may seem less surprising, but no less disturbing, when one recalls that in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented “the government of a friendly people,” Butler insisted. He was “entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect.” Ambassador Luther’s speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler’s peaceful intentions. [sound familiar?] Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences.

Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities. While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise. Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as “political soldiers of the Reich.”

In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42946.html
 
psungee said:
I have argued with close friends in the past and have always held that one must be able to disagree. If you never listen to and think about dissenting opinions and other views you will never learn anything.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY

Keep posting - dont let them scare you off
 
Some more food for thought along the lines of knowing your enemy and keeping your friends close but your enemies closer.

We cannot just bomb Iran into submission especially when the military is talking about occupying Iraq for at least another 10 years. We 180,000 troops and another 180,000 paid mercenaries there and look at how hard that slog has turned out to be.


By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: September 24, 2007
TEHRAN — When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was first elected president, he said Iran had more important issues to worry about than how women dress. He even called for allowing women into soccer games, a revolutionary idea for revolutionary Iran.

Today, Iran is experiencing the most severe crackdown on social behavior and dress in years, and women are often barred from smoking in public, let alone attending a stadium event.

Since his inauguration two years ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world, and in Iran, for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of being put into practice than his plan for women to attend soccer games. He has generated controversy in New York in recent days by asking to visit ground zero — a request that was denied — and his scheduled appearance at Columbia University has drawn protests.

But it is because of his provocative remarks, like denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, that the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him. In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts.

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.”

That is not to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad is insignificant. He controls the mechanics of civil government, much the way a prime minister does in a state like Egypt, where the real power rests with the president. He manages the budget and has put like-minded people in positions around the country, from provincial governors to prosecutors. His base of support is the Basiji militia and elements of the Revolutionary Guards.

But Mr. Ahmadinejad has not shown the same political acumen at home as he has in riling the West. Two of his ministers have quit, criticizing his stewardship of the state. The head of the central bank resigned. The chief judge criticized him for his management of the government. His promise to root out corruption and redistribute oil wealth has run up against entrenched interests.

Even a small bloc of members of Parliament that once aligned with Mr. Ahmadinejad has largely given up, officials said. “Maybe it comes as a surprise to you that I voted for him,” said Emad Afrough, a conservative member of Parliament. “I liked the slogans demanding justice.”

But he added: “You cannot govern the country on a personal basis. You have to use public knowledge and consultation.”

Rather than focusing so much attention on the president, the West needs to learn that in Iran, what matters is ideology — Islamic revolutionary ideology, according to politicians and political analysts here. Nearly 30 years after the shah fell in a popular revolt, Iran’s supreme leader also holds title of guardian of the revolution.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power stems not from his office per se, but from the refusal of his patron, Ayatollah Khamenei, and some hard-line leaders, to move beyond Iran’s revolutionary identity, which makes full relations with the West impossible. There are plenty of conservatives and hard-liners who take a more pragmatic view, wanting to retain “revolutionary values” while integrating Iran with the world, at least economically. But they are not driving the agenda these days, and while that could change, it will not be the president who makes that call.

“Iran has never been interested in reaching an accommodation with the United States,” the Iranian political scientist said. “It cannot reach an accommodation as long as it retains the current structure.”

Another important factor restricts Mr. Ahmadinejad’s hand: while ideology defines the state, the revolution has allowed a particular class to grow wealthy and powerful.

When Mr. Ahmadinejad was first elected, it appeared that Iran’s hard-liners had a monopoly on all the levers of power. But today it is clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not a hard-liner in the traditional sense. His talk of economic justice and a redistribution of wealth, for example, ran into a wall of existing vested interests, including powerful clergy members and military leaders.

“Ahmadinejad is a phenomenon,” said Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president under the more moderate administration of Mohammad Khatami. “On a religious level he is much more of a hard-liner than the traditional hard-liners. But on a political level, he does not have the support of the hard-liners.”

In the long run, political analysts here say, a desire to preserve those vested interests will drive Iran’s agenda. That means that the allegiance of the political elite is to the system, not a particular president. If this president were ever perceived as outlasting his usefulness, he would probably take his place in history beside other presidents who failed to change the orientation of the system.

Iranians will go to the polls in less than two years to select a president. There are so many pressures on the electoral system here, few people expect an honest race. The Guardian Council, for example, controlled by hard-liners, must approve all candidates.

But whether Mr. Ahmadinejad wins or loses, there is no sense here in Iran that the outcome will have any impact on the fundamentals of Iran’s relations with the world or the government’s relation to its own society.

“The situation will get worse and worse,” said Saeed Leylaz, an economist and former government official. “We are moving to a point where no internal force can change things.”
 
04SCTLS said:
Some more food for thought along the lines of knowing your enemy and keeping your friends close but your enemies closer.

We cannot just bomb Iran into submission especially when the military is talking about occupying Iraq for at least another 10 years. We 180,000 troops and another 180,000 paid mercenaries there and look at how hard that slog has turned out to be.
Click to expand...

We can take out their nukes. And we should. We don't have to invade them, all we really have to do is destroy their one oil plant and they will be begging for help.
04SCTLS said:
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: September 24, 2007
[...]

Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world

He has generated controversy

the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him.

elevating his status at home and in the region

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president,

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad”

That is not to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad is insignificant.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power

But today it is clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not a hard-liner in the traditional sense.

“Ahmadinejad is a phenomenon,”
Click to expand...

He's a ROCK STAR!!! :rolleyes:
 
Isreal will beat us to taking out their nukes like they did the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and their recent attack on Syria which is still shrouded in silence and secrecy.
In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.
When the radical arabs blithly talk of a nuclear exchange with Isreal they say sure we'll lose millions of people but there's a billion of us and it will be worth it to annialate the Jews especially since there's so many of them all in one place.
 
04SCTLS said:
In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.
Click to expand...



Because it does.

We might have a problem though, we cant just claim ignorance if Isreal were to attack, because we control the airspace inbetween them and iran. We would have to knowingly let them through.
 
Joeychgo said:
Because it does.

We might have a problem though, we cant just claim ignorance if Isreal were to attack, because we control the airspace inbetween them and iran. We would have to knowingly let them through.
Click to expand...
How is this a problem? Iran is a threat, Israel is our ally, we help them take their asses out. What, should we be worried that our enemies might get mad at us? Sheesh. We seem to have lost our balls.
 
Joeychgo said:
EXACTLY

Keep posting - dont let them scare you off
Click to expand...

Ummm... Thanks Joeyc.. I think, perhaps, I'm just too stupid to be scared:) but I've opined, sufficiently, on this issue of Ahmadinejad and his visit. More from me would, essentially, be the same and somewhat off topic as duly pointed out by 04SCTLS but "thanks again - I appreciate the welcome!" I assure you there will be other occasions on which I will be able to antagonize and/or be antagonized over my (uncomfortably to some) liberal views. It's still interesting to read the ongoing discussion.

Considering, however, 04SCTLS' (off-topic;)) comments:
04SCTLS said:
Isreal will beat us to taking out their nukes like they did the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and their recent attack on Syria which is still shrouded in silence and secrecy.
In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.
When the radical arabs blithly talk of a nuclear exchange with Isreal they say sure we'll lose millions of people but there's a billion of us and it will be worth it to annialate the Jews especially since there's so many of them all in one place.
Click to expand...
it is noteworthy that "if" Iran were to attempt such an action one would think their Arab brethren would recognize how many Palestinians would die. I wonder how the Arab world would, this time, blame Israel, the United States, and the world Jewry for such decimation of their own numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 230 (members: 1, guests: 229)
Back
Top