PDA

View Full Version : An Interesting Lunch



LadyT
08-21-2006, 07:02 AM
I had a very intersting lunch this weekend with some good friends/ex-coworkers of mine:
An Israeli couple and a quasi republican - pro Israel at all costs guy. I'll preface this by saying these are reasonable people, otherwise, whom I love dearly. I do think they have an extremely warped understanding of politics after this morning. The quasi republican guy started off about Mike Wallace on Sean Hannity. When he said, he was listening to Sean Hannity, I knew I was in for a treat. Well, I guess Hannity had interviewed Mike Wallace who'd interviewed Ahmadinejad (Iranian president). Anyway, Wallace simply stated that he isn't a "madman" and that his pov was not that he hated jewish people, but he disagreed with zionism. Wallace didn't even imply that he agreed with him, he just stated his opinion of the man and Ahmad's POV. Nothing more. Well, my friend was livid at this, "an AMERICAN JOURNALIST who says that this guy isn't mad?". But, is this the level of discourse that we have come to? That if you don't dismiss Islamic leaders as madmen, you're somehow a bad person? Will dismissing these leaders as madmen rather than smart men with an agenda really going to get us anywhere? How do you reason or negotiate with someone you think is crazy or that thinks you are crazy?
Anyway, onto the Isreali friend. I'm convinced now more than ever that we should give a piece of a flyover state or get out of the region all together. Both sides, even rational and politically informed people are have selective memories about current events when it comes to who innitiates the latest series of attacks. Her memory is consistent with the Bush admin's: it all started when hebollah out of nowhere attacked northern Israel an arbitrary starting in my opinion. When I asked her about the picnickers on teh beach in gaza that were killed, she had no idea about what I was talking about. She said it was a story that the otherside must have made up. I would have surely thought that someone like her would have at least known about them, whether or not she believed they were Israeli shells that killed teh people or not is debatable, but to loose sight of it all together in the latest series of violence is unfair in my opinion.

Here's an interesting article on arbitrary timelines:

http://makedemocracywork.org/archives/category/foreign-affairs/israel/

I disagree with author in that I think the killing of the family is really what sparked the latest - at least in hte eyes of the public anyway.

Gaffer
08-21-2006, 07:34 AM
well its obvious you think you are so much haughtier than your friends and I am really surprised that you talk to them at all, what with their point of view.

Your also a Jew hater so why do you hang out with Jewish people?

The killing of the family in gaza had nothing to do with hezbollah. It was a rocket that misfired or was accidentally set off. And it involved hamas. The attacks in the north were designed to distract attention from iran's nuclear ambitions and to gain pr for hezbollah. Which is a puppet of iran. hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and are still holding them. I know this means nothing to you. But you will probably get to see their beheading on the internet soon.

iran's president, and I use the title lightly here, Imalittlehitler is mad as a hatter inspite of your beloved wallace's deductions. This is the man that calls for the total destruction of Israel. who wants to control the entire middle east and start a nuclear war with the US and europe. Nothing crazy about those plans huh?

If iran gets its way and strikes the US it will be on the east coast. Those fly over states that you look down on will be just fine.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 07:45 AM
While I agree with you that we need to start seriously pulling out of the region if only to rethink what the hell our role is!
As I have said before ..... Iraq is a cluster fuck ..and Iran is playing with Apocalyptic Fire.
But... to even go where Mike Wallce is going by stating that Ahmadinejad is anything but a "madman" ...well Im sorry ... the guy is one can short of a six pack, has a missin spark plug, .. he of the "blow Israel off the map" quotes ...
C'mon Lady T... if any Western Leader were to utter words anywhere close to that? Shit... Bush says "You are either with us or against us" and the left in this Country immediately respond by drawing Hitler mustaches on him.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 07:47 AM
Yes, I'm an anti-semite, because I acknowledge that Hamas' ceasefire and Hezbollah's subsequent involvement stemmed from an an actual event that a lot of commentators on the mideast violence tend to leave out..

Here's a free history lesson you jack@$$:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html

"The explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people last Friday was caused by explosives planted there by Palestinian militants, not artillery fire from an Israeli navy gunboat, Israeli military sources said Tuesday. "

"However, in Gaza, the group Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has been able to gather suggests that a 155 mm artillery shell, like the type used by the Israeli military, was responsible."

"The deaths of seven people -- all members of a Palestinian family having a beach picnic -- prompted the military wing of Hamas to resume rocket strikes against Israel after a hiatus of more than a year."

__________________________________-

Furthermore, my displeasure in a nations actions has nothing to do with my viewpoints on religion nor does it insinuate in ANY way shape or form that I hate anyone based on said religion. Its idiots like you that are making honest and rational discourse obsolete in this country.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 07:58 AM
While I agree with you that we need to start seriously pulling out of the region if only to rethink what the hell our role is!
As I have said before ..... Iraq is a cluster fuck ..and Iran is playing with Apocalyptic Fire.
But... to even go where Mike Wallce is going by stating that Ahmadinejad is anything but a "madman" ...well Im sorry ... the guy is one can short of a six pack, has a missin spark plug, .. he of the "blow Israel off the map" quotes ...
C'mon Lady T... if any Western Leader were to utter words anywhere close to that? Shit... Bush says "You are either with us or against us" and the left in this Country immediately respond by drawing Hitler mustaches on him.

I'm not saying I agree with Wallace or Hannity. I'm saying that we are bashing people for merely stating that a supposed madman may have a point of view we should consider. Its not matter of agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but we have to be smart about how we engage the middle east as to concide with our allies and our economic interests as well. If our strategy doesn't reach beyond, "he's just a madman", then I think in the long run, we are going to be fvcked. However, if we can take his alleged view point and some how exploit it in the future to our advantage, then we will be better off. Dismissing anything other than what you believe to be true, won't help us one iota.

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 07:59 AM
People who are against Hamas are also antisemitic.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 08:02 AM
People who are against Hamas are also antisemitic.

LOL, technically, that's true!

Damocles
08-21-2006, 08:04 AM
LOL, technically, that's true!
Not just "technically"... The whole "anti-semitic" thing only being about Jews is a little tired and simply wrong.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 08:10 AM
Not just "technically"... The whole "anti-semitic" thing only being about Jews is a little tired and simply wrong.

You are correct. But when its said in the media, the general understanding is that people are refering to Jewish people, not all semites. Its a generally accepted misnomer like, "African-American".

Care4all
08-21-2006, 08:18 AM
I don't think a journalist should "say" whether a leader of another country is a MADMAN, or not MAD.... a journalist should do neither because they are there to report the news and not give their own opine and it would be severing any further interviews or any opportunity to get further news from this country as easily.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 08:25 AM
I don't think a journalist should "say" whether a leader of another country is a MADMAN, or not MAD.... a journalist should do neither because they are there to report the news and not give their own opine and it would be severing any further interviews or any opportunity to get further news from this country as easily.

during the interview yes, but if someone is doing an interview on the journalist, they should be more than free to give you their personal ideas.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 09:08 AM
Anyway, Wallace simply stated that he isn't a "madman" and that his pov was not that he hated jewish people, but he disagreed with zionism. Wallace didn't even imply that he agreed with him, he just stated his opinion of the man and Ahmad's POV. Nothing more. Well, my friend was livid at this, "an AMERICAN JOURNALIST who says that this guy isn't mad?". But, is this the level of discourse that we have come to?

Dismissing him as a "madman", does nothing to inform us of how to deal with this guy and Iran. And it causes us to underestimate him. Its simply propaganda put out for slack-jawed yokels to lap up. Red meat for the base.

Its similar to the crap bush shovel's about OBL wanting to attack us because "he hates our freedoms". This is a diservice to the american people to either lie about OBL, and mislead the american people about the real goals and motivation of OBL.

Understanding the enemies true goals and motivations - understanding "nuance", if you will - is the first step in taking actions to mitigate the threat from that enemy.

Gaffer
08-21-2006, 09:19 AM
I'm not saying I agree with Wallace or Hannity. I'm saying that we are bashing people for merely stating that a supposed madman may have a point of view we should consider. Its not matter of agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but we have to be smart about how we engage the middle east as to concide with our allies and our economic interests as well. If our strategy doesn't reach beyond, "he's just a madman", then I think in the long run, we are going to be fvcked. However, if we can take his alleged view point and some how exploit it in the future to our advantage, then we will be better off. Dismissing anything other than what you believe to be true, won't help us one iota.

And just how do you intend to exploit his "alleged view point". He has stated that he intends to wipe Israel off the map. He intends to spread his version of islam across the world through terror and military means. He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. So just what do you intend to exploit here? And how?

The usual liberal response, maybe somewhere down the road something will happen in our favor or they will have a change of heart. You live in a dream world.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 09:48 AM
Dismissing him as a "madman", does nothing to inform us of how to deal with this guy and Iran. And it causes us to underestimate him. Its simply propaganda put out for slack-jawed yokels to lap up. Red meat for the base......Understanding the enemies true goals and motivations - understanding "nuance", if you will - is the first step in taking actions to mitigate the threat from that enemy.

As usual, very well said.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 09:49 AM
He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam.

link please

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 10:05 AM
Its easy to call people like this madmen. It marginalizes them as we attribute their beliefs to simply be the result of chemical imbalances or misformed cerebral structure. However Ahmadinejad is not an insane man he is a politician like any other who knows what to say to help himself gain power.

Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden aren't crazy either. They knew what to do to elevate their position. And although the quest for absolute power is despicable it is hardly insane.

As a young man I myself desired power so that I could craft the world to the way I liked it. I was not crazy then just pissed off.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:12 AM
Its easy to call people like this madmen. It marginalizes them as we attribute their beliefs to simply be the result of chemical imbalances or misformed cerebral structure. However Ahmadinejad is not an insane man he is a politician like any other who knows what to say to help himself gain power.

Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden aren't crazy either. They knew what to do to elevate their position. And although the quest for absolute power is despicable it is hardly insane.

As a young man I myself desired power so that I could craft the world to the way I liked it. I was not crazy then just pissed off.


Not only does it marginalize them, it minimizes our ability to approach a solution.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 10:20 AM
Not only does it marginalize them, it minimizes our ability to approach a solution.
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?

Cypress
08-21-2006, 10:28 AM
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?

Let me know when Iran invades and occupies dozens of countries, and sends its navy to blockade our eastern seaboard and sink our shipping.

Until then, the Hitler analogy won't work. To my knowledge, Iran has never invaded its neighbors in all of its modern history. Iran is a problem, but I don't see any evidence of the Hitler analogy.

Ronnie Reagan used diplomacy and negotiation with the evil empire, and iranian theocrats.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 10:34 AM
Let me know when Iran invades and occupies dozens of countries, and sends its navy to blockade our eastern seaboard and sink our shipping.

Until then, the Hitler analogy won't work. To my knowledge, Iran has never invaded its neighbors in all of its modern history. Iran is a problem, but I don't see any evidence of the Hitler analogy.

Ronnie Reagan used diplomacy and negotiation with the evil empire, and iranian theocrats.
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:34 AM
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?

If he starts exterminating people and committing acts of genocide, I'd agree that his mental state would not be an issue. However, there may exist some room at this point for tit for tat regarding peace agreements and the stopping of nuclear proliferation. If you just write him or any other leader off as a madman who will not listen to reason, you limit the possibilities to finding a peaceful solution.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 10:38 AM
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...


I don't like the Hitler analogy, not only because it inaccurate, but I heard the same charges about saddam four years ago: NeoCons calling Saddam "the Next Hitler". Its was all marketing and propaganda to gin up a war.

We got fooled once into a war with over-the-top propaganda. I ain't getting fooled again.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:42 AM
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...

Still apples and oranges. Again, we have not gotten to the point where ahmed is exterminating Israeli's, I believe that if we are intelligent and understand his thought process, that perhaps we can gain some kind of resolution to the violence that is ensuing in the middle east and at the very least cool off anti-US sentiment over there. We're not going to get there assuming he's a madman. I don't agree with many of his policies, but you see Damo, you have people that are being extremely unreasonable about the new boogie man and claiming things like, "He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. " and if you don't agree then you must hate jewish people. Which is ridiculous. I'm very hesitant and skeptical to take crap like that at face value because that kind of foolish thinking got us into our current quagmire. Have we learned nothing?

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:43 AM
We got fooled once into a war with over-the-top propaganda. I ain't getting fooled again.

LOL, that's what I said!

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 10:44 AM
I mentioned Hitler so I will address it. In general saying someone is crazy or mad implies that they are not a capable adversary or may be incompetent. Now even in a situation where we have two choices capitulation or war an understanding of the leader of our foe is important if we choose war. If we see an enemy as crazy their is no rhyme or reason to the things they do and thus it is impossible to plan. However if we see their policies as calculated and following a specific line of thinking and ethos then we are able to plan and achieve victory more easily.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 10:51 AM
I mentioned Hitler so I will address it. In general saying someone is crazy or mad implies that they are not a capable adversary or may be incompetent. Now even in a situation where we have two choices capitulation or war an understanding of the leader of our foe is important if we choose war. If we see an enemy as crazy their is no rhyme or reason to the things they do and thus it is impossible to plan. However if we see their policies as calculated and following a specific line of thinking and ethos then we are able to plan and achieve victory more easily.

Exactly.

Screaming talking points like: "He's the next Hitler!" and "This is world war 3!" is meaningless propaganda and fear mongering, which does nothing to address the issue.

The american people can be treated like adults. They know this guy is an authoritarian thug. We don't need marketing buzzwords, to understand the problem.

Its essential to understand this guys goals and motivations (and therefore discern his weaknesses), in order to defuse the situation, isolate him, and form alliances of convenience against him.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 10:55 AM
If he starts exterminating people and committing acts of genocide, I'd agree that his mental state would not be an issue. However, there may exist some room at this point for tit for tat regarding peace agreements and the stopping of nuclear proliferation. If you just write him or any other leader off as a madman who will not listen to reason, you limit the possibilities to finding a peaceful solution.
My question had little to do with whether he was committing genocide. When Hitler first started he had yet to begin the Genocide... He was still unwilling to deal in Good Faith...

Is this gentleman willing to deal in Good Faith or is it much like Hitler? Or any other leader that are dealing in bad faith since Hitler seems to be getting in the way of discussion here. I specifically mentioned him because of the earlier ideation that we limited ourself by labelling him a "madman"...

Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?

klaatu
08-21-2006, 10:57 AM
I guess it ok to call American Christians Fascist and Bush Hitler .. but its not right to use the same analogies towards Ahmadinejad and extreme Islam ....

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:57 AM
Its essential to understand this guys goals and motivations (and therefore discern his weaknesses), in order to defuse the situation, isolate him, and form alliances of convenience against him.

Agreed. And labeling someone as "crazy" by definitely makes this unattainable. Caligula was crazy, Ahmad isn't.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 10:58 AM
Still apples and oranges. Again, we have not gotten to the point where ahmed is exterminating Israeli's, I believe that if we are intelligent and understand his thought process, that perhaps we can gain some kind of resolution to the violence that is ensuing in the middle east and at the very least cool off anti-US sentiment over there. We're not going to get there assuming he's a madman. I don't agree with many of his policies, but you see Damo, you have people that are being extremely unreasonable about the new boogie man and claiming things like, "He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. " and if you don't agree then you must hate jewish people. Which is ridiculous. I'm very hesitant and skeptical to take crap like that at face value because that kind of foolish thinking got us into our current quagmire. Have we learned nothing?
Still not an answer to the question I actually asked. Once again the name gets in the way and helps to erect a strawman. Is this man dealing in good faith, or is it much like Hitler, it doesn't matter what we do he will do what he wants regardless?

Basically, Hitler is getting in the way. The only reason I mentioned him is because he was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to...

klaatu
08-21-2006, 10:58 AM
by the way ... http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml

klaatu
08-21-2006, 10:59 AM
Agreed. And labeling someone as "crazy" by definitely makes this unattainable. Caligula was crazy, Ahmad isn't.

But bush is ...right Lady T?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:01 AM
Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?

With leaders being described as insane we tend to view their subjects as also insane. It's like with Bin Laden. If we just say he is crazy then all his followers are crazy. There is nothing to understand just kill them all is the solution. If the press keeps saying such things there is a strong possibility such a position will enter the public concensus and thus negotiation will not be favored and a hard line approach will.

This is somewhat like dealing with children. Young children lack a considerable ability to reason much like a madman and thus negotiation is pointless. A strict firm hand is the only way to deal with such a person and thus tactics that are more authoritative are favored.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:05 AM
As far as ahmadinejad goes I think any man can be negotiated with its simply a matter of what incentives he requires. Sometimes the cost is to high and negotiation become impossible but all people's motivations are based on incentives. Our ability to negotiate with him will be based on presenting a situation which is more favorable then his current path.

By the way we put too much emphasis on ahmadinejad. He has gotten much attention because he has been vocal. It is the mullahs who control Iran and Ahmadinejad and the office of the President are impotent.

Remember in the 90s the impotency of Khatami's government for reform that was stonewalled by the mullahs. Khatami will ultimately perform the will of the theocracy as any Iranian President will until reform comes.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:06 AM
Still not an answer to the question I actually asked. Once again the name gets in the way and helps to erect a strawman. Is this man dealing in good faith, or is it much like Hitler, it doesn't matter what we do he will do what he wants regardless?

Basically, Hitler is getting in the way. The only reason I mentioned him is because he was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to...

Well, I only mentioned hitler because you did, so I guess we can drop it. But, to answer you question I do think he is a reactionary. If we do something that seems to threaten his power he will react. I don't believe he will drop a nuclear bomb on Israel unless he's attacked first. Much like all the talking heads of the world, he says he wants peace in his country.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:07 AM
But bush is ...right Lady T?

Bush is stupid. At best he has the intelligence of a really smart gorilla. Have I called him crazy?

klaatu
08-21-2006, 11:08 AM
Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?

With leaders being described as insane we tend to view their subjects as also insane. It's like with Bin Laden. If we just say he is crazy then all his followers are crazy. There is nothing to understand just kill them all is the solution. If the press keeps saying such things there is a strong possibility such a position will enter the public concensus and thus negotiation will not be favored and a hard line approach will.

This is somewhat like dealing with children. Young children lack a considerable ability to reason much like a madman and thus negotiation is pointless. A strict firm hand is the only way to deal with such a person and thus tactics that are more authoritative are favored.

Im all for peaceful resolution ... but lets not be a hypocrite here ...

Again ... This is what we are dealing with ... someone who is intent on fullfilling a Prophecy ....
Many on these boards use the same rhetoric when describing Bush.. that he is a fantatical Christian who claims to have conversations with God ... and that he thinks it is his destiny to bring about the War to end all wars ... in essence ...he is a crazy madman ...

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...le_10945.shtml

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:08 AM
He's not going to nuke Israel regardless. Only a madman would set off a nuclear device a few hundred miles away from his nations borders. And he's not a madman and even if he is the rest of the governmemt isn't.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:10 AM
Which article Klat?

klaatu
08-21-2006, 11:10 AM
Bush is stupid. At best he has the intelligence of a really smart gorilla. Have I called him crazy?

Well if a Human Being has the intelligence of a Gorilla .. and he is President... if the shoe fits ....:orang:

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:11 AM
Bush isn't crazy either. There is all that talk about talking to God. I don't think Bush believes that but he knows that some of his supporters are crazy. And as we know crazy people get to vote too.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 11:12 AM
Which article Klat?

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml

klaatu
08-21-2006, 11:14 AM
Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return
Nov 17, 2005





His call for the destruction of Israel may have grabbed headlines abroad, but it is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's devotion to a mystical religious figure that is arousing greater interest inside Iran.

In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.

According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."

"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.

This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.

Presidential aides have denied a popular rumor that he ordered his cabinet to write a letter to the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom where thousands of pilgrims come each week to pray and drop messages to the Imam.

But what really has tongues wagging is the possibility that Ahmadinejad's belief in the 12th Imam's return may be linked to the supposed growing influence of a secretive society devoted to the Mahdi which was banned in the early 1980s.

Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.

Ahmadinejad, who is only the second non-cleric to become president since the revolution, has made clear his immense respect for Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a deeply conservative cleric with close ties to the Hojjatieh-founded Haqqani theological school in Qom.



Conspiracy theorists, never in short supply in Iran, allege that many members of Ahmadinejad's cabinet and other key appointees are Haqqani graduates and Hojjatieh followers.

"It seems that they (Hojjatieh members) have recently become more active and are spread through the government," said a political analyst who declined to be named.

"The president has repeatedly said his government will pave the way for the Imam's return."

But others point out that many former government officials, perceived as moderates, graduated from Haqqani.

Haqqani's continued links to Hojjatieh, though rumored, have not been proven and it remains one of the most prestigious theological schools in Qom.

Ahmadinejad's emphasis on the importance of development and justice to encourage the Mahdi's return, also suggest an important divergence from Hojjatieh thinking.

But he would be better advised to focus his speeches on practical rather than religious issues, said former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi.

"Of course, we must pray for the return of the Imam, but we must also tackle inflation and unemployment," the reformist cleric told Reuters.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml

Cypress
08-21-2006, 11:14 AM
He's not going to nuke Israel regardless. Only a madman would set off a nuclear device a few hundred miles away from his nations borders. And he's not a madman and even if he is the rest of the governmemt isn't.

And I'm old enough to remember that as far back as the 1980s, many were predicting that Iran was going to go nuclear in a couple of years.

They's had a nuclear program for decades. The technical hurdles to weaponizing a nuclear program remain immense.

Certainly, any ambitions they might have should be thwarted. Nuclear proliferation is destabilizing to the world. But, this is not an imminent threat, and bed-wetting and diaper-shitting is not warranted at this point.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 11:18 AM
Well, I only mentioned hitler because you did, so I guess we can drop it. But, to answer you question I do think he is a reactionary. If we do something that seems to threaten his power he will react. I don't believe he will drop a nuclear bomb on Israel unless he's attacked first. Much like all the talking heads of the world, he says he wants peace in his country.
I did not. I hadn't even posted on this thread until that response to your post. I only mentioned Hitler because he was specifically mentioned in another post about our limiting ourselves.

If the leader of another nation will not deal in good faith will it matter if somebody else, other than leadership, labels him as a "madman"? Truly, if the only response we have left to get our goals met is to wage war does it make the difference how he was "labeled"? Do we truly limit ourselves by allowing a free press to label him as they will or having a citizen at a dinner table label him as such? Honestly...

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:18 AM
Im all for peaceful resolution ... but lets not be a hypocrite here ...

Again ... This is what we are dealing with ... someone who is intent on fullfilling a Prophecy ....
Many on these boards use the same rhetoric when describing Bush.. that he is a fantatical Christian who claims to have conversations with God ... and that he thinks it is his destiny to bring about the War to end all wars ... in essence ...he is a crazy madman ...

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...le_10945.shtml

You want to play a game of site wars?

"On April 13, 2006, Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying that the peaceful Iranian nuclear technology would not pose a threat to any party because "we want peace and stability and we will not cause injustice to anyone and at the same time we will not submit to injustice.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#Nuclear_program

This one says he's a little lamb.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 11:19 AM
Something odd happening to our quotes... :D I'll look into it.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 11:24 AM
With leaders being described as insane we tend to view their subjects as also insane. It's like with Bin Laden. If we just say he is crazy then all his followers are crazy. There is nothing to understand just kill them all is the solution. If the press keeps saying such things there is a strong possibility such a position will enter the public concensus and thus negotiation will not be favored and a hard line approach will.

This is somewhat like dealing with children. Young children lack a considerable ability to reason much like a madman and thus negotiation is pointless. A strict firm hand is the only way to deal with such a person and thus tactics that are more authoritative are favored.

Once again. Regardless of the label is he dealing in good faith?

Personally, were I the leader of Iran, I would "talk" their ears off while building the weapon. I would not let anybody deter me from that goal because there is evidence the US will do nothing once you go nuclear...

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:24 AM
Something odd happening to our quotes... :D I'll look into it.


something similar happened on a nother post I think, but I'm pretty sure I just screwed mine up. I wouldn't kill myself over it.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 11:29 AM
I fixed them.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:31 AM
I did not. I hadn't even posted on this thread until that response to your post. I only mentioned Hitler because he was specifically mentioned in another post about our limiting ourselves.

If the leader of another nation will not deal in good faith will it matter if somebody else, other than leadership, labels him as a "madman"? Truly, if the only response we have left to get our goals met is to wage war does it make the difference how he was "labeled"? Do we truly limit ourselves by allowing a free press to label him as they will or having a citizen at a dinner table label him as such? Honestly...

Side track: I didn't bring hitler into the mix because I actually think that in the end, he was crazy. There's speculation that he had syphillis in his later years and that that it made him mentally unstable. My comment was more focused on Amhad than anything.

Damo, the point is that you're going to me more likely to jump to the conclusion that the only option left si to wage war if you are dealing with a madman. You have to take the journey and exploit all options before you get to that point. If you think someone's crazy, why would you try to strike a deal with someone or engage in treaties?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:31 AM
Once again. Regardless of the label is he dealing in good faith?

Personally, were I the leader of Iran, I would "talk" their ears off while building the weapon. I would not let anybody deter me from that goal because there is evidence the US will do nothing once you go nuclear...

I can't be sure. Obviously there is good reason to go nuclear as it is politcally advantageous. However that is not to say that nothing we say can matter. Negotiations are still helpful even if one or more parties are not dealing in good faith because the potential remains they may change their minds.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 11:36 AM
You want to play a game of site wars?

"On April 13, 2006, Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying that the peaceful Iranian nuclear technology would not pose a threat to any party because "we want peace and stability and we will not cause injustice to anyone and at the same time we will not submit to injustice.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad#Nuclear_program

This one says he's a little lamb.


Yeah ..what a lamb... did you read further down?

Iran-Israel relations
Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
See also: Iran-Israel relations
In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated. [45]

Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.[46] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.[47] Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[48]

The translation of his statement has been disputed. At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed regarding the October speech "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that." [49] In June, 2006 Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cited several Farsi speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".[50] Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away". [51]



[edit]
Holocaust denial
See also: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad repeatedly made controversial statements questioning the Holocaust, and criticized European laws against Holocaust denial. These statements were condemned by many governments, and led to accusations of anti-Semitism.

According to CNN, he stated that "they have invented a myth that Jews were massacred" [54]. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he was asked, "Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just 'a myth'?" Ahmadinejad responded, "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it." In the same interview, he later stated, "We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. [...] If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from".[55

Cypress
08-21-2006, 11:39 AM
Once again. Regardless of the label is he dealing in good faith?

Personally, were I the leader of Iran, I would "talk" their ears off while building the weapon. I would not let anybody deter me from that goal because there is evidence the US will do nothing once you go nuclear...


there's a huge assumption built into your argument. That Iran is "building the weapon", while they talk to us.

Acutally, there's no credible evidence Iran is building a weapon.

Now, maybe they would "like" to have a nuke. I find that a credible assertion. But, all credible evidence indicates they don't have the technical capacity to acutally weaponize uranium. To enrich uranium for a bomb, it takes thousands of precision centrifuges operating under demanding and techincally difficult cascades. There's no evidence Iran has this capacity.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:40 AM
Such rhetoric is popular in Iran. He is catering to his constituents. Anti-Judaism is popular in Iran and other middle eastern countries. This certainly doesn't show he is crazy only that he appealing to a hateful constituency.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Yeah ..what a lamb... did you read further down?

Iran-Israel relations
Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
See also: Iran-Israel relations
In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated. [45]

Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.[46] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.[47] Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[48]

The translation of his statement has been disputed. At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed regarding the October speech "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that." [49] In June, 2006 Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cited several Farsi speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".[50] Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away". [51]



[edit]
Holocaust denial
See also: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad repeatedly made controversial statements questioning the Holocaust, and criticized European laws against Holocaust denial. These statements were condemned by many governments, and led to accusations of anti-Semitism.

According to CNN, he stated that "they have invented a myth that Jews were massacred" [54]. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he was asked, "Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just 'a myth'?" Ahmadinejad responded, "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it." In the same interview, he later stated, "We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. [...] If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from".[55


Those quotes still don't confirm you're original assertion that he wants to bring about world war three.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 11:57 AM
Once again. Regardless of the label is he dealing in good faith?

Personally, were I the leader of Iran, I would "talk" their ears off while building the weapon. I would not let anybody deter me from that goal because there is evidence the US will do nothing once you go nuclear...

I can't be sure. Obviously there is good reason to go nuclear as it is politcally advantageous. However that is not to say that nothing we say can matter. Negotiations are still helpful even if one or more parties are not dealing in good faith because the potential remains they may change their minds.
Nobody has stopped the negotiations. In fact, if the US were directly involved they would be more likely to fail. It is better to have the US as seen to be in opposition in this case.

Allowing the press and a few diners to label the President of Iran as a "madman" simply isn't a large enough deal to say we have sidetracked and stopped negotiations. It is unrealistic to expect our government to crack down on those so labeling this man...

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:58 AM
Allowing the press and a few diners to label the President of Iran as a "madman" simply isn't a large enough deal to say we have sidetracked and stopped negotiations. It is unrealistic to expect our government to crack down on those so labeling this man...

I am not suggesting such a thing. Just offering my opinion that it is not a good thing if for nothing else that it is incorrect. However I do think the influence it can have over the electorate is real.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Not just "technically"... The whole "anti-semitic" thing only being about Jews is a little tired and simply wrong.
Yet you have no problem with "Islamo-fascism?"

;)

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:03 PM
BTW ornot, I hope you don't mind. I've taken your term "christo-fascism" and am running with it. :cof1: :p

Cypress
08-21-2006, 12:13 PM
Nobody has stopped the negotiations. In fact, if the US were directly involved they would be more likely to fail. It is better to have the US as seen to be in opposition in this case.

Allowing the press and a few diners to label the President of Iran as a "madman" simply isn't a large enough deal to say we have sidetracked and stopped negotiations. It is unrealistic to expect our government to crack down on those so labeling this man...


In fact, if the US were directly involved they would be more likely to fail.

This I agree with. Bush and Condi are utter failures, and completely discredited.

We would need somebody like a Colin Powell, and James Baker, or a Richard Holbroke. Somebody tough and competent.

Hell, even Ronald Reagan has the gravitas and credibility to sit down for tough face to face negotiations with the evil empire.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 12:24 PM
Yet you have no problem with "Islamo-fascism?"

;)
What a dork. I have never said the term should be widely used, only that it is accurate for the reasons that I ascribed...

Damocles
08-21-2006, 12:26 PM
In fact, if the US were directly involved they would be more likely to fail.

This I agree with. Bush and Condi are utter failures, and completely discredited.

We would need somebody like a Colin Powell, and James Baker, or a Richard Holbroke. Somebody tough and competent.

Hell, even Ronald Reagan has the gravitas and credibility to sit down for tough face to face negotiations with the evil empire.

It wouldn't matter. Iran cannot be seen as kneeling to the US. Having the US as other than a background advisory role would be detrimental to talks there regardless of who is the leader.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 12:32 PM
It wouldn't matter. Iran cannot be seen as kneeling to the US. Having the US as other than a background advisory role would be detrimental to talks there regardless of who is the leader.

Even Ronald Reagan was aware of secret and backdoor diplomatic meetings. No one says, there has to be a Reagan-Gorbachevv Reykyavik conference,

Trusted and competent Republican statesmen like Richard Luger and Chuck Hagel are saying we need to talk to Iran.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 12:35 PM
Even Ronald Reagan was aware of secret and backdoor diplomatic meetings. No one says, there has to be a Reagan-Gorbachevv Reykyavik conference,

Trusted and competent Republican statesmen like Richard Luger and Chuck Hagel are saying we need to talk to Iran.
That is my point. The idea that they aren't doing that is simply rhetoric. The idea that some other group would be any more successful is wishful thinking. We may as well use the rubbing lamp theory of government because we aren't working within the framework of reality.

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 05:31 PM
I guess it ok to call American Christians Fascist and Bush Hitler .. but its not right to use the same analogies towards Ahmadinejad and extreme Islam ....


That's correct Klaatu.

Why? Does that seem strange to you?:p

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 05:35 PM
Still not an answer to the question I actually asked. Once again the name gets in the way and helps to erect a strawman. Is this man dealing in good faith, or is it much like Hitler, it doesn't matter what we do he will do what he wants regardless?

Basically, Hitler is getting in the way. The only reason I mentioned him is because he was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to...

How can we know that Damo? How can anyone possibly do anything other than make, what would be a very dubious claim, that they do know? The only way to find out is to try and talk to him. In what history of diplomacy, do the principals decide to speak only to their friends? This is pure lunacy.

And fyi, a good part of the world does not believe that bush is ever dealing in "good faith", most especially during the recent Israeli/Lebanon debacle. I'm one of them. But if you asked me "is bush dealing in good faith" all I could do is tell you that I do not believe he is. But I could not say that I know, or that I could prove it. I would tell you ,watch his actions, for they will speak louder than his words. And I would tell anyone to do the same with the President of Iran. His words are for his countrymen oftimes, and at other times, for the world stage. Watch instead what he does, and most especially, through back channels.

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 05:39 PM
Bush isn't crazy either. There is all that talk about talking to God. I don't think Bush believes that but he knows that some of his supporters are crazy. And as we know crazy people get to vote too.

Your posts on this thread have been very reasoned, and interesting. I wanted to say that first, because we always seem to have misunderstandings. Ok, now...

In fact, you don't know that though. It would be more accurate to say that you "hope" this to be the case. But you can't know that he doesn't mean it, that he doesn''t believe it. The idea that he does believe it, is frightening, isn't it? So many of us can dismiss it with, oh he's just playing to the freaks in his own base. But we don't know. We can't. We only hope.

tianabautre
08-21-2006, 06:24 PM
Your posts on this thread have been very reasoned, and interesting. I wanted to say that first, because we always seem to have misunderstandings. Ok, now...

In fact, you don't know that though. It would be more accurate to say that you "hope" this to be the case. But you can't know that he doesn't mean it, that he doesn''t believe it. The idea that he does believe it, is frightening, isn't it? So many of us can dismiss it with, oh he's just playing to the freaks in his own base. But we don't know. We can't. We only hope.

Well, you may have a point on him being crazy - but the fact is, the fvcker is definitely stupid. I've got 6 years of stupidity and idiotic decisions backing me up.

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 06:26 PM
Well, you may have a point on him being crazy - but the fact is, the fvcker is definitely stupid. I've got 6 years of stupidity and idiotic decisions backing me up.

LOL...no, you have an air-tight case there Tiana.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 06:28 PM
How can we know that Damo? How can anyone possibly do anything other than make, what would be a very dubious claim, that they do know? The only way to find out is to try and talk to him. In what history of diplomacy, do the principals decide to speak only to their friends? This is pure lunacy.


*sigh* We are talking to him. Both through international groups and behind the scenes more directly. I thought I made this clear. Iran cannot be seen to kneel to the US, therefore our open participation would cause the talks to fall through. It is disingenuous to assume only the blunt up front is what is happening, especially in international politics.



And fyi, a good part of the world does not believe that bush is ever dealing in "good faith", most especially during the recent Israeli/Lebanon debacle. I'm one of them. But if you asked me "is bush dealing in good faith" all I could do is tell you that I do not believe he is. But I could not say that I know, or that I could prove it. I would tell you ,watch his actions, for they will speak louder than his words. And I would tell anyone to do the same with the President of Iran. His words are for his countrymen oftimes, and at other times, for the world stage. Watch instead what he does, and most especially, through back channels.

And FYI, it isn't just Bush that they are talking with. This assumes that it is the US and Iran and nobody else. (Of course France and their "promise" of 2000 notwithstanding the rest of the world is not considered to be bargaining in bad faith)...

This has been such a pain to get y'all to admit.

First you throw Hitler under the bus, I mention him in a direct answer to a post in which his name was used... Then for at least six posts thereafter everybody is assuming it was MY analogy. Rubbish...

Almost every argument made by the left in this thread is constructed of straw and assumption tied together with stereotype and innuendo and dressed in "invisible" cloth. They aren't even well-hidden strawmen with poor construction...

Throw in a Hitler analogy, then when I ask a QUESTION assume my opinion and construct a strawman, throw an accellerant on (hitler again) and assume that *whoosh* it'll all light up and I'll start to cry while trying to put it out... Then when it is pointed out that it wasn't my analogy and I hadn't yet provided an opinion, assume again and throw more accelerant on a non-existant fire...

Somebody forgot their lighter.

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 06:32 PM
I didn't say anything about Hitler, did I? If I did, I've forgotten it already. Did I forget it already, or are you trying to gaslight me? Which is not a cool thing to do to a girl with a bad memory.

I think you are assuming we are talking to him, when all indications coming out of Condi are that we will not until certain criteria are met, and these are criteria that are not going to be met. So if there are some low-level talks going on, and I do not discount that possibility, they are meaningless.

Annie
08-21-2006, 06:42 PM
Yes, I'm an anti-semite, because I acknowledge that Hamas' ceasefire and Hezbollah's subsequent involvement stemmed from an an actual event that a lot of commentators on the mideast violence tend to leave out..

Here's a free history lesson you jack@$$:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html

"The explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people last Friday was caused by explosives planted there by Palestinian militants, not artillery fire from an Israeli navy gunboat, Israeli military sources said Tuesday. "

"However, in Gaza, the group Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has been able to gather suggests that a 155 mm artillery shell, like the type used by the Israeli military, was responsible."

"The deaths of seven people -- all members of a Palestinian family having a beach picnic -- prompted the military wing of Hamas to resume rocket strikes against Israel after a hiatus of more than a year."

__________________________________-

Furthermore, my displeasure in a nations actions has nothing to do with my viewpoints on religion nor does it insinuate in ANY way shape or form that I hate anyone based on said religion. Its idiots like you that are making honest and rational discourse obsolete in this country.


Right, like this:



:( (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21131&only)

Annie
08-21-2006, 06:45 PM
Yes, I'm an anti-semite, because I acknowledge that Hamas' ceasefire and Hezbollah's subsequent involvement stemmed from an an actual event that a lot of commentators on the mideast violence tend to leave out..

Here's a free history lesson you jack@$$:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html

"The explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people last Friday was caused by explosives planted there by Palestinian militants, not artillery fire from an Israeli navy gunboat, Israeli military sources said Tuesday. "

"However, in Gaza, the group Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has been able to gather suggests that a 155 mm artillery shell, like the type used by the Israeli military, was responsible."

"The deaths of seven people -- all members of a Palestinian family having a beach picnic -- prompted the military wing of Hamas to resume rocket strikes against Israel after a hiatus of more than a year."

__________________________________-

Furthermore, my displeasure in a nations actions has nothing to do with my viewpoints on religion nor does it insinuate in ANY way shape or form that I hate anyone based on said religion. Its idiots like you that are making honest and rational discourse obsolete in this country.


Right, like this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21131&only


:(

Damocles
08-21-2006, 06:51 PM
I didn't say anything about Hitler, did I? If I did, I've forgotten it already. Did I forget it already, or are you trying to gaslight me? Which is not a cool thing to do to a girl with a bad memory.

I think you are assuming we are talking to him, when all indications coming out of Condi are that we will not until certain criteria are met, and these are criteria that are not going to be met. So if there are some low-level talks going on, and I do not discount that possibility, they are meaningless.
I was describing the whole of the experience in the thread, not just from you. Yours was just another. So far the only answer I got to my question was "How could we know?" and then a bunch of assumption and foolishness. I have yet to offer what I believe about the person.

All I have stated is, first of all, in a land with Freedom of the Press you cannot have the government punishing the press for using such a word, and the whole thread was started by some guy at a table... Really, this isn't international politics, it's a dinner table!

Anyway, I have tried again and again to get the answer to my question and all I have gotten was questions and assumptions and half naked strawmen doused in water...