good question

[Bug]

I used to like him and I still like some of the things he says.

But he is a two faced liar, a weasel and I have no doubt that he would abuse any power he aquires including a nuclear weapon.

He reminds me of George Bush.

[cj001f]

If the head of either Saudi Arabia or Russia engaged in the same rhetoric, and oversaw a state that was sponsoring the same initiatives as the regime which Ahmedinejad is - I can hardly imagine circumstances where a university in the US could invite them to give an address without being criticized for doing so.

 

Why would they need to be invited by a Unversity, the government will welcome them with open arms!

[Dechristo]

Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad replied: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

[Adam13]

Of course they dont have them he already killed them all.

[TREETOAD]

What exactly is the connection between the Iranian president and 9-11 now? Especially since Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

 

 

Aren't most 7-11 stores run by Iranians?

The Iranian calendar is 2 days slower than ours.

Therefore it must have been the Iranians that did 9-11.

Shock and Awe time. hahahahahahah

Edited September 25, 2007 by TREETOAD

[fenderfour]

An idealist might argue that we should not support repressive regimes even when they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests.

 

A realist might argue that we should support repressive regimes because they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests.

 

I'm not sure what the term is, though, for someone who argues that we should support repressive regimes even when they are not on our side, and doing so is contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests.

 

Should we support any of them? Can we continue to get along in the world without supporting some oppressive regimes?

 

It's the ignorance of the general population that irks me. Some of the most outspoken critics act like Iran is the only bad country out there.

[JayB]

What's striking to me is that you seem to incapable of, or reluctant to make a distinction between a repressive state with a leadership that's openly hostile to the US, and repressive states with a leadership that's not hostile to the US - and seem to be somewhat astonished by the fact that others have done so. This seems like an elementary distinction that should at least be recognized when discussing the matter, whether you are in the idealist or the realist camp

 

 

[fenderfour]

I would rather know who my enemy is and greet him face to face than to have my "ally" stab me in the back.

 

How many regimes has the US put into power only to have them turn on us?

 

I'm not idealistic. I am many things, but idealistic is not among them.

 

I admire a man who isn't afraid to stand up to the world's super power. Yes, he oppresses his people, he doesn't believe that the Holocaust occurred and that 9/11 was a hoax. That isn't any different than thousands of people across the US, or any of a number of governments with which we are are friendly. The only difference is that Ahmadinejad is honest about it. Why single him out?

 

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if he wasn't honest because our administration and the media would have portrayed Ahmadinejad as a valuable ally in the Middle East. No one would have questioned Columbia for inviting him and he would have laid a wreath at Ground Zero. It's not about reality it's about PR and how the people are manipulated.

 

 

[JayB]

1. Are you really confused as to why the opinions of a head of state with a significant population in a region of immense strategic significance for the entire world have been granted broader coverage, and subjected to greater analysis and critique than, say - "Chet Guthrie, a HVAC technician from Lubbock Texas..."?

 

2. That's a good question - how many regimes *has* the US put in power that subsequently "turned on them?" I'd be interested in hearing your assesment, as well as your thoughts on the reasons why the US may have had at that particular moment in history, to act in that manner.

 

3. If he wasn't honest about what, in particular, would he appear as an ally? If he made no statements concerning the Holocaust or 9/11, yet continued to provide the same kind of support for Hezbollah, various insurgent groups in Iran, still called for the destruction of Israel,etc - his perception in the US would be substantially different?

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Deleted for reasons of National Security.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[Peter_Puget]

 

By the way Columbia says that the Iranian government approached them about having their Pres make a speech at the University.

[fenderfour]

1. Are you really confused as to why the opinions of a head of state with a significant population in a region of immense strategic significance for the entire world have been granted broader coverage, and subjected to greater analysis and critique than, say - "Chet Guthrie, a HVAC technician from Lubbock Texas..."?

 

Yes, I really am that confused. Not that you've really listened to what I had to say before.

 

I was pointing out that his views are not that uncommon here in the US, or amongst other world leaders. They just keep their mouths shut. You seem to think that having these ideas is ok so long as you don't talk about them in public.

 

2. That's a good question - how many regimes *has* the US put in power that subsequently "turned on them?" I'd be interested in hearing your assesment, as well as your thoughts on the reasons why the US may have had at that particular moment in history, to act in that manner.

 

Let's be honest. You don't really care. No matter what I put below this you will rationalize away and make it irrelevant to your argument.

 

Cough... Iraq... cough...

 

I'm sure that Saddam didn't have all those ideas of murder and torture when we helped him gain power in 1979.

 

Bin Laden and others associated with Al Queda recieved training and weapons to help in their fight against Russia.

 

3. If he wasn't honest about what, in particular, would he appear as an ally? If he made no statements concerning the Holocaust or 9/11, yet continued to provide the same kind of support for Hezbollah, various insurgent groups in Iran, still called for the destruction of Israel,etc - his perception in the US would be substantially different?

 

A ton of money comes from Saudi Arabia to support various terrorist organizations. Are they not allies? I know, OFFICIALLY the Saudi government has nothing to do with this, so it is ok. Never mind tha tthey could stop this money through controversial actions like freezing bank accounts of citizens and so forth...

 

I guess we only have to worry about the world enemies that stand up and give us a public "F*ck you" while we play house with others who are more like our official enemies than we would like to admit.

 

I'm not going to convince you of anything. That's ok.

 

But I'm sure that the US government is always doing the right thing, so I'm just going to shut up and take my place in line like a patriotic citizen.

[JayB]

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread.

 

In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

[fenderfour]

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread.

 

In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

 

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives.

 

FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation.

[joblo7]

speaks a lot more truth than busch/chainy duet.

 

of course, the hollow coast has been eggs-zajerated.

of course, the manhattan renov project is that.

of course, we are the all-conquering-imperialist-regime.

of course, we will invade iran.

of course, you will believe 'your' 'leaders'.

of course, every mfjo paper in the land will tell you what to believe.

of course , you will follow.

 

free speech is .

[joblo7]

oh yeah,

of course, he is our new 'fake' enemy.

of course, we will free more war funds.

we love war.

 

we are sooo off course.....

[JayB]

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread.

 

In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

 

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives.

 

FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation.

 

I am not sure that anything that you've contributed merits consideration as an argument, actually. You have stated certain convictions that you hold, which appear to be articles of faith, concerning the relationship between government policy and popular opinion in the USA.

 

The "American's (except for an elite cadre that includes - incidentally - me) Are Government Controlled Drones" riff is tired as hell, easily refuted, and evinces the very absence of critical thinking which it has ostensibly been put forward to lament and bemoan.

 

American public opinion frequently runs counter to both the wishes of, and the policies championed by, the Executive Branch and/or Congress. This suggests that the policies established by the government, and the manner in which the government advocates for, or defends them - is but one of many variables that influence whether or not the public supports any given policy.

 

And yes, of [yaaaaawn] course we are all free to question the policies established by our government, and the motives and judgments behind them. Ditto for the reasons why our fellow citizens support a given policy or take exception to it. However, if you want to have a sincere discussion which furthers the inquiry into the reasons why someone has elected to do one or the other, the rhetorical stance you've chosen "Everyone else believes what the government tells them to..." seems like an especially poor means to achieve this end.

 

 

[JayB]

speaks a lot more truth than busch/chainy duet.

 

of course, the hollow coast has been eggs-zajerated.

of course, the manhattan renov project is that.

of course, we are the all-conquering-imperialist-regime.

of course, we will invade iran.

of course, you will believe 'your' 'leaders'.

of course, every mfjo paper in the land will tell you what to believe.

of course , you will follow.

 

free speech is .

 

Serious questions:

 

1)Where were you educated?

2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English?

 

[joblo7]

speaks a lot more truth than busch/chainy duet.

 

of course, the hollow coast has been eggs-zajerated.

of course, the manhattan renov project is that.

of course, we are the all-conquering-imperialist-regime.

of course, we will invade iran.

of course, you will believe 'your' 'leaders'.

of course, every mfjo paper in the land will tell you what to believe.

of course , you will follow.

 

free speech is .

 

Serious questions:

 

1)Where were you educated?

2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English?

dont go off topic just yet.

read it again.-

ctp belief, differ rant is not wrong by deaf-a-nation.

[cj001f]

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread.

 

In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

 

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives.

 

FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation.

 

I am not sure that anything that you've contributed merits consideration as an argument, actually. You have stated certain convictions that you hold, which appear to be articles of faith, concerning the relationship between government policy and popular opinion in the USA.

 

The "American's (except for an elite cadre that includes - incidentally - me) Are Government Controlled Drones" riff is tired as hell, easily refuted, and evinces the very absence of critical thinking which it has ostensibly been put forward to lament and bemoan.

 

American public opinion frequently runs counter to both the wishes of, and the policies championed by, the Executive Branch and/or Congress. This suggests that the policies established by the government, and the manner in which the government advocates for, or defends them - is but one of many variables that influence whether or not the public supports any given policy.

 

And yes, of [yaaaaawn] course we are all free to question the policies established by our government, and the motives and judgments behind them. Ditto for the reasons why our fellow citizens support a given policy or take exception to it. However, if you want to have a sincere discussion which furthers the inquiry into the reasons why someone has elected to do one or the other, the rhetorical stance you've chosen "Everyone else believes what the government tells them to..." seems like an especially poor means to achieve this end.

 

 

why not just cut to the chase and say "you suck"?

 

the strained verbiage is but buffoonery

[joblo7]

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread.

 

In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

 

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives.

 

FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation.

 

I am not sure that anything that you've contributed merits consideration as an argument, actually. You have stated certain convictions that you hold, which appear to be articles of faith, concerning the relationship between government policy and popular opinion in the USA.

 

The "American's (except for an elite cadre that includes - incidentally - me) Are Government Controlled Drones" riff is tired as hell, easily refuted, and evinces the very absence of critical thinking which it has ostensibly been put forward to lament and bemoan.

 

American public opinion frequently runs counter to both the wishes of, and the policies championed by, the Executive Branch and/or Congress. This suggests that the policies established by the government, and the manner in which the government advocates for, or defends them - is but one of many variables that influence whether or not the public supports any given policy.

 

And yes, of [yaaaaawn] course we are all free to question the policies established by our government, and the motives and judgments behind them. Ditto for the reasons why our fellow citizens support a given policy or take exception to it. However, if you want to have a sincere discussion which furthers the inquiry into the reasons why someone has elected to do one or the other, the rhetorical stance you've chosen "Everyone else believes what the government tells them to..." seems like an especially poor means to achieve this end.

 

 

why not just cut to the chase and say "you suck"?

 

the strained verbiage is but buffoonery

 

ignorance camouflaged under a bed 'o fluff.

[joblo7]

 

dearest jayb et al.

 

i dance little circles,

upside-down

on the roof of your brain;

my free hands

transforming

cubicles you normally use

into circles

and ellipses .

[mattp]

I'm not sure what the term is, though, for someone who argues that we should support repressive regimes even when they are not on our side, and doing so is contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests.

 

The term is obvious: traitor. A good example is the Bush administration. That regime is the house of Saud.

[jclark]

two points:

 

1. All you pro Iranian &^#%$er's move to Iran and follow this brave little maniacal lunatic. He has "chutzpuh" after all.

 

2. I know that some of you could not possibly conceive of the notion that America is correct in it's disapproval of said maniacal lunatic, but now FRANCE and GERMANY have sided with us. Doesn't that appeal to your softer side. Hey maybe the international community minus our good friends China and Russia are on to something!

[No. 13 Baby]

Mmmmm . . . strained verbiage!

 

Xq956JmU1LE