So he is going to Columbia to answer a Q&A panel. He then wants to go to Ground Zero to "pay his respects" and then meet and greet victims families.

The Secret Service told him they can't protect him there and he is going anyway.

The quesiton i pose for this thread is:

Will something happen to him, and secondly will it be a random new yorker or a black op?

According to this article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html), the visit was canceled, but I can see it happening anyway (or CNN just being incorrect). In any case, the article provides some amusing sample quotes from the Columbia forum.

He's already been to Columbia, it was earliest this evening.

Will something happen to him, and secondly will it be a random new yorker or a black op?

As ignorant as our sitting leader is, there would never be a black op against a foreign leader on our own soil. The intelligence agencies would never go along with that, nor would the military; however, an incident with the aircraft once it has left American airspace would not surprise many.

It must be kept in mind, though, that the Iranian President is little more than a mouthpiece; the power in Iran rests with the Ayatollah and religious council.
Action against this little nut-job would be a huge propaganda piece for the Islamic fanatics, and would change nothing as far as Iran's political stands.

Irrespective of his nutjob status, was anyone else a little embarassed at how we treated a visiting foreign statesman?

No. He was lucky he is even allowed in this country. He is border line terrorist. Wasn't he proven to be involved in the Iran Hostage crisis? Still disputes that the holocust ever happened, fruit cake.

Considering his background, I'm suprised an "Accident" hasn't happened yet....

Irrespective of his nutjob status, was anyone else a little embarassed at how we treated a visiting foreign statesman?
Statesman (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/statesman)?

1 : one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies
2 : one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship
I think not.

But the embarassing part? Yes, I think the president of Columbia made a fool of himself. It was wrong for the ass hat to be on his college to begin with, but once he invited the dictator, he should not have mocked and insulted him.

Indicted him yes, not attack him in such a petty manner. A'jad spun that into his favor - not easily, he was obviously surprised of his initial treatment, but he scored points he wouldn't otherwise have been able to get.

Regarding an "accident" ? Come on people, grow up.

"Accidents" "happen" "all the time"....
"Slipping in the bath tub".
"Accidental discharge of a firearm".
"Brakes failing"....
The list is almost endless...
;)

Ahmadinejad has been scoring points for the last year from our own leading "statesman's" handling of Iran. A couple more from a university rep don't amount to much.

I suspect that the Columbia president was under a great deal of pressure to repudiate Ahmadinejad from university donors and vocal opponents of his presence in the US. Personally, I'm all for giving this kook his forum. He had an opportunity to reach out, try to draw some measure of sympathy from the nation, and so forth -- but all he did was make a joke of himself. Whatever points he got from Columbia evaporate under his own rhetoric.

Frankly I think allowing him to speak shows exactly how much we value free speech. Anyone who thinks he should not have been allowed to speak should rethink their views on our Constitution.

As others have said he is simply the mouthpiece and not the real power there. I am pleased with some of the very dogged and tough questions he had to face and at the same time know that were the shoe on the other foot it would never ever happen in Iran.

Interestingly, the NY Sun thought Bollinger did well (http://www.nysun.com/article/63301).

I think the bit about them not having homosexuals in Iran a bit ironic. I read that and it's just one of those "Yeah right" moments. While they say they aren't, a large portion (from what I have seen) seem to regard women as being for breeding, and men for pleasure. An interpreter I talked to assured me, it wasn't gay because, he was pitching not recieving. nevermind the fact that the pitcher an dthe catcher are on the same team...

He said there are no homosexuals in Iran which means a country without lesbians...the movies in Iran must be very boring.

It is quite sad that noone took his words seriously in the subjects where he was quite truthfull and speaking with emotion to try and himself understand why we think of his country as our enemy.

George Bush has done more horrible things as President of the United Stated then the Iranian President has ever done.

The United States has attacked many people for its own interestes where as Iran has NEVER attacked another country.

America backed Sadaam Hussein in a bloody war against Iran, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranian youths were killed fighting for their country...

Iran defends itself, held candlelight vigils on 9/11 and does nothing to attract our hatefull attention.

Bush is diverting the attention of his failed policy's on a country that it is easy to point at. Its very convenient that the news reports that Iranians are helping the insurgents in Iraq... now show me proof?

Ahmadenijad may not be a nice guy, he may be a horrible person, but at this moment i trust his word more then the monkey we have sitting in the white house. It is rediculous that you would trust a word Bush sais, and then shrug off the Iranian President.

Stop listening to this war mongering Propeganda that we hear every damn day. Iran is complying with the IAEA and wants Nuclear energy for its people... After decades of embargo's and sanctions, not being able to even recieve spare parts for its civilan Aircraft, do you blame them for wanting to be independent?

Edit - Attacking the only middle eastern country who has citizens that actually favor the United States would be the last blow to making Muslims unite in a holy war of religion. The Iranian government may dislike America, but its people love America.

I have some good friends who left Iran over the late 70s early 80s b/c of their religious beliefs. They are Jewish. They have a decidedly different view of Iran's government than you Jedd. Of course it could also have something to with many of their family were persecuted by the Iranian government and/or executed.

The grandfather tried to go back and find one of his sons; he was imprisioned and they still haven't heard from him; that was over 10 years ago. But I'm suuuuuure the Iranian government welcomed him with open arms.

Jedd, make no mistake, most Americans don't dislike the Iranian people, they have issues with the Iranian Theocratical Government.

Ahmadenijad may not be a nice guy, he may be a horrible person, but at this moment i trust his word more then the monkey we have sitting in the white house. It is rediculous that you would trust a word Bush sais, and then shrug off the Iranian President.


All politician lie. Sadly the lies that Ahmadenijad perpetrate, are very transparent.
Why would a country that is rich in hydrocarbons need nuclear power? To play like one of the "Big Boys" perhaps?

Its very convenient that the news reports that Iranians are helping the insurgents in Iraq... now show me proof?

Since you decide the news reports are incorrect, the only way to prove to you it could be going on is to take you to the border, and wait for Iranians crossing the border, into Iraq.
I'm sure you'd find an excuse for the explosive materials they'd be carrying, as being necessary for "religious ceremonies'.
The United States has attacked many people for its own interestes where as Iran has NEVER attacked another country.

Some people would point to the hostages being held in the American Embassy in Iran as an attack on another country. Embassies are typically treated as part of the sovereign nation they belong to. The interest there, seemed to be showing the United States that Iran was a force to be reckoned with.
The Iranian Government has shown itself to be duplicitous, and self-serving. Also, there's only so many times you can hear "Death to America" and not take it to heart, espically after September 11th.

Jedd, you're operating under (at least) two delusions. The first is that you act like Ahmadinejad has never spoken before -- that his visit is our first experience with him. This is, of course, not the case, and he's said plenty of provocative things about ourselves and our allies (forget for the moment whether Israel is nice or ought to exist -- Israel is an ally).

The second is the false choice you present in taking either Ahmadinejad or Bush seriously, at their words. Neither has any credibility to speak of, and both seem intent on rattling their testosterone sabres until the other blinks. Boys will be boys.

I'm pro-engagement with Iran, but think our diplomatic efforts should skirt Ahmadinejad, sidelining him in favor of those who actually have power or are involved in diplomatic efforts outside of Ahmadinejad's purview. Let him shout in an empty chamber while supporting moderate diplomatic efforts, and the already unpopular president of Iran will fade into history (much like Shinzo Abe of Japan).

Meanwhile, I found this (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_HOLOCAUST_SHOW?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) interesting: an Iranian Schindler's List of sorts, based on historical events and sympathetic to Jews.

Some people would point to the hostages being held in the American Embassy in Iran as an attack on another country. Embassies are typically treated as part of the sovereign nation they belong to. The interest there, seemed to be showing the United States that Iran was a force to be reckoned with.
The Iranian Government has shown itself to be duplicitous, and self-serving. Also, there's only so many times you can hear "Death to America" and not take it to heart, espically after September 11th.

Ah, but If the United States had not interfered with the Iranian Government in putting the Shah into power and supporting an unpopular ruler, then the Iranian people would not have stormed the Embassy and taken Americans hostage.

I am sure that if Iran took out our president, and put someone they like into power, that we would storm every Iranian embassy, and do worse then take hostages... disagree?

It is quite sad that noone took his words seriously in the subjects where he was quite truthfull and speaking with emotion to try and himself understand why we think of his country as our enemy.

George Bush has done more horrible things as President of the United Stated then the Iranian President has ever done.

... blah blah blah...

Iran defends itself, held candlelight vigils on 9/11 and does nothing to attract our hatefull attention.

Bush is diverting the attention of his failed policy's on a country that it is easy to point at. Its very convenient that the news reports that Iranians are helping the insurgents in Iraq... now show me proof?

Ahmadenijad may not be a nice guy, he may be a horrible person, but at this moment i trust his word more then the monkey we have sitting in the white house. It is rediculous that you would trust a word Bush sais, and then shrug off the Iranian President.

Stop listening to this war mongering Propeganda ... blah blah blah. I thought you were Dan Rather, not A'jad?

The second is the false choice you present in taking either Ahmadinejad or Bush seriously, at their words. Neither has any credibility to speak of, and both seem intent on rattling their testosterone sabres until the other blinks. Boys will be boys. Seriously dude, stop carrying his water. You still believe it was a 'lost in translation' moment when he said Israel needed to be wiped off the map?

This isn't Bush's war against Iran. It's civilization against this son of a bitch. Hell, the Democractically controlled congress just bitch slapped him and even France is now scolding Iran's actions.

I can't wait... Iran goes off the deep end in 2009 and it'll be all W's fault.

I am sure that if Iran took out our president, and put someone they like into power, that we would storm every Iranian embassy, and do worse then take hostages... disagree?

If it were possible to do so, then, I think that after the puppet dictator was ousted, we'd more than likely deport every Iranian out of the country.
I'm sure there would be a long period of time where the two countries would dislike each other, but I don't think taking hostages would be the order of the day, nor do I think there would be people killed.
But you think what you want...

If it were possible to do so, then, I think that after the puppet dictator was ousted, we'd more than likely deport every Iranian out of the country.
I'm sure there would be a long period of time where the two countries would dislike each other, but I don't think taking hostages would be the order of the day, nor do I think there would be people killed.
But you think what you want...

You are seriously telling me that if Iran replaced our leaders with their own puppets, and then supported them against our opposition, that the Patriotic, noose hanging, violent, Racist, Strong, Proud,(not all Americans are all of these, but it is a mix of different types of Americans) Americans would just be cool?

I call Bullshit... We would strike with such devestation.... People would be in the streets, we would riot, we would..... oh shit you know what nevermind.

We already have a government that doesnt serve our best interest and we do nothing. I take it all back.

He said there are no homosexuals in Iran which means a country without lesbians...the movies in Iran must be very boring.

Unfortunately, they have gays... they just behead them all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,943116,00.html

This is, of course, not the case, and he's said plenty of provocative things about ourselves and our allies.

So very true. All one needs to do is go to Youtube and type in Iranian President for a search to see his past comments.

Meanwhile, I found this (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_HOLOCAUST_SHOW?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) interesting: an Iranian Schindler's List of sorts, based on historical events and sympathetic to Jews.

I didn't get to read it all but that is truly interesting. Is it spin or earnest? Who knows.

Seriously dude, stop carrying his water. You still believe it was a 'lost in translation' moment when he said Israel needed to be wiped off the map? Not just some random water carrying belief; I actually presented evidence in support of my argument. I'll provide a definition of "evidence" if you require one. I think it clear from my other commentary that I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad.

I can't wait... Iran goes off the deep end in 2009 and it'll be all W's fault.There you go, carrying water again.

I doubt Iran is going to do much of anything in 2009 except attempt to solidify support of whatever allies it can cajole to its side. I doub they'd, say, go off the deep end and attack a country that didn't attack them and wasn't a threat. Ahmadinejad may continue to stick his tongue out at us and say ridiculous things until elections in August. Hopefully Khameini kicks him to the curb, and a non-deranged successor fills the presidential seat.

Its very convenient that the news reports that Iranians are helping the insurgents in Iraq... now show me proof?

Sorry Jedd but they told us we couldn't take pictures of the dead insurgents and send them home any more.

'and does nothing to attract our hatefull attention.'


- Riiiiight. This guy does more publicity than Blair.

It is quite sad that noone took his words seriously in the subjects where he was quite truthfull and speaking with emotion to try and himself understand why we think of his country as our enemy.

George Bush has done more horrible things as President of the United Stated then the Iranian President has ever done.

The United States has attacked many people for its own interestes where as Iran has NEVER attacked another country.

America backed Sadaam Hussein in a bloody war against Iran, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranian youths were killed fighting for their country...

Iran defends itself, held candlelight vigils on 9/11 and does nothing to attract our hatefull attention.

Bush is diverting the attention of his failed policy's on a country that it is easy to point at. Its very convenient that the news reports that Iranians are helping the insurgents in Iraq... now show me proof?

Ahmadenijad may not be a nice guy, he may be a horrible person, but at this moment i trust his word more then the monkey we have sitting in the white house. It is rediculous that you would trust a word Bush sais, and then shrug off the Iranian President.

Stop listening to this war mongering Propeganda that we hear every damn day. Iran is complying with the IAEA and wants Nuclear energy for its people... After decades of embargo's and sanctions, not being able to even recieve spare parts for its civilan Aircraft, do you blame them for wanting to be independent?

Edit - Attacking the only middle eastern country who has citizens that actually favor the United States would be the last blow to making Muslims unite in a holy war of religion. The Iranian government may dislike America, but its people love America.


Would it not be more enjoyable for you to just go and live there? Of course you could never make posts speaking out against the Iranian government or its leaders because it would be a difficult thing to do without a head.

Would it not be more enjoyable for you to just go and live there? Of course you could never make posts speaking out against the Iranian government or its leaders because it would be a difficult thing to do without a head.Which brings to mind a potential Iranian TV game show: Outspoken or Gay?

Which brings to mind a potential Iranian TV game show: Outspoken or Gay?

Oh, *snap*.

:eek:

Jedd is reaching terminal velocity, its just a matter of time before he explodes into a JIHAD!!!

Would it not be more enjoyable for you to just go and live there? Of course you could never make posts speaking out against the Iranian government or its leaders because it would be a difficult thing to do without a head.

The typical response when all else fails?

Newsflash... You can be American and be unhappy with your government and want change, without wanting to go live somewhere else.

In fact to fight for what you believe in, and to cause change when your government is unjust is the American way, It seems you have forgotten what REAL Americans fought and died for. To imply that my dissent is so easily forgotten and that perhaps id enjoy living somewhere else is the most Anti-American thing you could possibly say or do. Yet sadly it has become the new age American thing to do

The typical response when all else fails?

Actually the typical response tends to be: "OMG, I hope you dye in flamz0rz!!11"

Newsflash... You can be American and be unhappy with your government and want change, without wanting to go live somewhere else.

In fact to fight for what you believe in, and to cause change when your government is unjust is the American way, It seems you have forgotten what REAL Americans fought and died for. To imply that my dissent is so easily forgotten and that perhaps id enjoy living somewhere else is the most Anti-American thing you could possibly say or do. Yet sadly it has become the new age American thing to do

Dissent is never frowned upon, unless you aren't doing anything constructive. All I have seen from you so far, are Pro-Iranian/Anti-U.S. posts.
Unless you have a reasonable alternative, when you say something sucks, all you are doing is complaining.

Consistantly on this, and other threads, when it has been pointed out the bad behavior of 1 group of people, you excuse it by pointing to other bad behavior.
Have you never heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

Actually the typical response tends to be: "OMG, I hope you dye in flamz0rz!!11"



Dissent is never frowned upon, unless you aren't doing anything constructive. All I have seen from you so far, are Pro-Iranian/Anti-U.S. posts.
Unless you have a reasonable alternative, when you say something sucks, all you are doing is complaining.

Consistantly on this, and other threads, when it has been pointed out the bad behavior of 1 group of people, you excuse it by pointing to other bad behavior.
Have you never heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

I am not Pro Iranian, or Anti U.S.

I am Anti Bullshit, and Pro Peace

The Iranian president may be an idiot, but so is our President. Both have done bad things in their lives... But our President has done worse. Both have blemishes on their history. But our Country has more.

We only help people when it benefits us, we take what we want, we do what we want, we interfere with other people and cause hatered against us for our actions.

We think we are seen as the leaders of the free world, an icon, a shining star in the World... yet we are hated by most and feared by the rest. Perhaps you are happy with people being afraid of your country, but I am not. Iran has its problems, but the bottom line is that Iran does not invade other countries. They defend themselves only when needed. All the words in the world cannot take us away from this being a fact.

It doesn't matter what the president sais. He is the president of a country that minds its own damn business.

America would be a safer place today if we didn't stick our nose into every situation we felt needed us in the world. Imagine how we would be seen in the world if we only helped people in need.

Like in Darfur... Where our soldiers could really help people and be seen as heroes to the world. Why do we only fight when there is something to gain?

No matter how you feel about Iran, Iraq, or any other situation in the news. You cannot disagree that we are the biggest bully in the World, but we got a hell of a PR team!

Why does Iran mind it's own business all the time? Why doesn't it reach out and help those in need? Why does it allow squads of men to travel about, punishing those they deem as "Too Western"?
Why is "The Rest of the World" terrified that Iran is pursuing nuclear power?
Could it be the years of saying one thing while doing the opposite?
And could you please tell me what country has been "Bullied" by the U.S.?
This should be a riot.....

Why does Iran mind it's own business all the time? Why doesn't it reach out and help those in need? Why does it allow squads of men to travel about, punishing those they deem as "Too Western"?
Why is "The Rest of the World" terrified that Iran is pursuing nuclear power?
Could it be the years of saying one thing while doing the opposite?
And could you please tell me what country has been "Bullied" by the U.S.?
This should be a riot.....

Iran cannot afford to reach out and help others due to Economic Sanctions and Embargo's put upon it by the United States of America after they got tired of putting up with American Interference in their country and stormed their embassy telling them to basically get the hell out.

Much of the world is Also terrified that the U.S. has nuclear power.

Regarding American's Bullying the world...
In Syria in 1949, three coups took place - two of them American and one British.

Then there was the 1952 Egyptian coup that brought Gamal Abdel-Nasser to power, the infamous 1953 Iranian coup and the 1963 coup in Iraq that brought Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party to power there for the first time.

Then there was that little "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing, when the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, overthrowing the government and establishing a new, more compliant one in its place.

The following is a post in which i believe in 100%, If there are facts that you need look them up. Its not my job to report the news.

The U.S. invaded Afganistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea. Some would say we have also invaded Cuba, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and a few additional Latin American countries; although others might view these military interventions as something other than an invasion.

Second, the U.S. bombs other countries a lot, something others don't do much at all. In recent decades the U.S. has bombed Afganistan, Sudan, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Lebanon (actually, naval shelling), and North Vietnam. I may have missed a few.

Third, the U.S. is accused of overthowing, or attempting to overthrow, dozens of governments around the world. Republicans like to say we have a policy of 'regime change.' Most of the regimes to be changed are dictatorships, but many believe the U.S. was involved with coups against democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Venezuela, Haiti and Chile.

Thus, the U.S. certainly attacks smaller, weaker countries frequently. Far more frequently than any other nation.

Ignoring the rules



Particularly since Republcans gained control of the federal government, the U.S. has avoided international treaties. America dropped the Kyoto treaty, cancelled the ABM treaty, refused to join the International Court of Justice, won't join protocols on land mines and biological weapons, etc. etc. etc. Most important, however, is that most of world regards the invasion of Iraq as illegal under international law.

Global Military Empire



The U.S. also looks like a bully because we have built a global military empire. We have troops all over the world. We spend more than $500 billion a year on our military. China, the country with the next largest military budget, spends only $50 billion a year -- 10 times less.

Why does the U.S. need such an enormous military? The only possible explanation is that America wants to run the world. America will decide who lives and who dies, who rules and who is ruled, which regimes shall stand and which shall be 'changed.' Not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't too happy about this.

I supported, and still support, many of the U.S. actions mentioned above. However, the cumulative effect makes it very easy to argue that the U.S. is an international bully who cares only about its 'national interest' and couldn't care less who gets hurt in the process. We are viewed as arrogant, selfish bullies and people treat us accordingly.

So what? Do we really care? After all, we are the biggest, the strongest, and the most powerful nation in the world. If people think we are a bully, let them. The problem with this view is that our image as a bully weakens us. It provides justification for those, such as al Qaeda, who would kill us. This justification translates into support for our enemies, and a reluctance of our friends to help us. In a thousand small ways, we are weakened.

It is said that "everyone you trash on the way up will be waiting for you on the way down." One day we will falter. Perhaps the $7 trillion federal debt, growing at a half trillion a year, will drive us into bankrupcy. Perhaps the insurgents will drive us out of the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. Perhaps the volcano in Yellowstone will blow and cover half the U.S. in volcanic dust. Who knows when or why, but nothing last forever. When we falter, we will no longer be able to afford a half trillion dollar per year military and our financial strength will be demolished. If we are still viewed as a bully, things will not go well.

the obvious answer for military spending is no one messes with the guy with the biggest guns, if we had a weak military we would be messed with often.

Look at isreal, who the hell wants to get into an air battle with them.....no one.

Bullies tend not to be able to back up thier words with thier might. While I agree that if you take the above statements, and do not temper them with all the humanitarian situations the US has been a part of, you get a very bleak picture of who we are, indeed.

http://www.usaid.gov/

On the front page alone, 11 instances in which the United States is involved in helping other countries.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/middle_east/


Total USG Humanitarian Assistance Committed to Lebanon: $109,345,093
Total USG Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance Pledged to Lebanon: $230,000,000


Name another country commited to giving that kind of money away to someone that regularly attacks one of it's allies?

Bullies tend not to be able to back up thier words with thier might. While I agree that if you take the above statements, and do not temper them with all the humanitarian situations the US has been a part of, you get a very bleak picture of who we are, indeed.

http://www.usaid.gov/

On the front page alone, 11 instances in which the United States is involved in helping other countries.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/middle_east/


Name another country commited to giving that kind of money away to someone that regularly attacks one of it's allies?

There is some good that America does in the world, but unfortunatly its hard for people to see the good when it is done silently and the bad with a loud bang.

America is not Evil, Its government is simply run by people who have their own agenda's and dont always do whats right. Just like every country, the only difference is that the whole world is watching us.

the obvious answer for military spending is no one messes with the guy with the biggest guns, if we had a weak military we would be messed with often.

Look at isreal, who the hell wants to get into an air battle with them.....no one.

Who messes with China?

Name another country commited to giving that kind of money away to someone that regularly attacks one of it's allies?

1. Lebanon does not regularly attack anyone.
2. I can name one country that blocked all attempts to end the Israel Lebanon war in the UN security council, resulting in huge human and infrastructural costs.

Who messes with China?

i dunno taipei or someone..

Tawain messes with China or vice versa

As contrast to Ahmadinejad's visit, here's an article (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,811257,00.html) describing the visit of the head of a one time "Evil Empire": Nikita Khrushchev. It includes visits with Eisenhower and a white tie dinner at the White House, as well as a visit to FDR's grave. The visit wasn't without its sore spot, however:"I Cannot Find Words." In mid-meal Mrs. Khrushchev passed up a note to her husband informing him that there had been a change in schedule for that afternoon: the Khrushchevs were not going to be driven to Disneyland, as they had requested, because the city police could not guarantee their safety. Disneyland is in another county. The city police had added that nobody agreed with them more than Khrushchev's own security detail.

Nikita Khrushchev, ruler of 200 million people, addressed himself to the Disneyland issue, his voice beginning to shake, but only slightly. "We have come to this town where lives the cream of American art," said he. "And just imagine, I, a Premier, a Soviet representative, when I came here to this city, I was given a plan, a program of what I was to be shown and whom I was to meet here."

Khrushchev's face turned darker; he began to shake his head, clench his fists, pound the table, as the audience looked on in amazement. "But just now," he said, "I was told that I could not go to Disneyland. I asked: 'Why not? What is it? Do you have rocket-launching pads there? I do not know.' And just listen, just listen to what I was told, to what reason I was told. We, which means the American authorities, cannot guarantee your security if you go there.

"What is it? Is there an epidemic of cholera there or something? Or have gangsters taken hold of the place that can destroy me? Then what must I do? Commit suicide? That is the situation I am in —your guest. For me the situation is inconceivable. I cannot find words to explain this to my people!"

The typical response when all else fails?

Newsflash... You can be American and be unhappy with your government and want change, without wanting to go live somewhere else.

In fact to fight for what you believe in, and to cause change when your government is unjust is the American way, It seems you have forgotten what REAL Americans fought and died for. To imply that my dissent is so easily forgotten and that perhaps id enjoy living somewhere else is the most Anti-American thing you could possibly say or do. Yet sadly it has become the new age American thing to do


No this is not the typical response when all else fails, I'm not sure as to what failure you speak of or who failed here. I believe that peaceful dissent against a government is healthy and very often justified, what I do not believe in is someone comparing the likes of the President of Iran and his blatant support of killing homosexuals in his own country, his support of jailing and torturing of those who show peaceful dissent against his government...the list is long and horrific.

Iran has simply traded one horrific government (The Shah) for another (The Ayatollahs) you know it and so does the rest of the world, it's not that big of a secret.

It is also no secret here that I hold a great disdain for the Bush administration, but Bush is still my president whether I like him or not and his record is far from the horrific human rights abuse that the leaders of Iran are known for.

Now, I'll address this comment you made:

It seems you have forgotten what REAL Americans fought and died for.

I served in the Marine Corps from 1979 - 1985, I lost many friends who were killed because they were simply placed between warring factions in the middle east. I served with the 1st Battalion 8th Marines from 1982-1984, when you get a chance look that up and please do tell me what real Americans fought and died for. When and where did you serve?

No this is not the typical response when all else fails, I'm not sure as to what failure you speak of or who failed here. I believe that peaceful dissent against a government is healthy and very often justified, what I do not believe in is someone comparing the likes of the President of Iran and his blatant support of killing homosexuals in his own country, his support of jailing and torturing of those who show peaceful dissent against his government...the list is long and horrific.

Iran has simply traded one horrific government (The Shah) for another (The Ayatollahs) you know it and so does the rest of the world, it's not that big of a secret.

It is also no secret here that I hold a great disdain for the Bush administration, but Bush is still my president whether I like him or not and his record is far from the horrific human rights abuse that the leaders of Iran are known for.

Now, I'll address this comment you made:



I served in the Marine Corps from 1979 - 1985, I lost many friends who were killed because they were simply placed between warring factions in the middle east. I served with the 1st Battalion 8th Marines from 1982-1984, when you get a chance look that up and please do tell me what real Americans fought and died for. When and where did you serve?

I can compare President Bush to whomeever i feel fit to compare him to. Bush is not my president, he is a Thief who stole this country and does not deserve niether my loyalty or my support. His poor handling of the country confirms my opinion and thats really all there is to say about that.

Regarding your military Service...

You fight for what you believe in, and as a soldier who risks his life to defend our country you have my respect, However you do not get my trust, and i will not take what you say as truth based solely on this.

My statement was actually directed at you who is a soldier, and was in regards to the original Soldiers of America when they fought against Britain in a civil war for our Independence. I see a big difference between the military today and that of the past.

Today the Military is the hand of the government... Back then the Government was the hand of the Military. We fought against our government for what we believed was right. This does not exist anymore, and anyone who sais or does anything to step up and make a change is labled Anti-American. So once again i repeat Did you forget what REAL Americans fought and died for?

Actually the typical response tends to be: "OMG, I hope you dye in flamz0rz!!11"



Dissent is never frowned upon, unless you aren't doing anything constructive. All I have seen from you so far, are Pro-Iranian/Anti-U.S. posts.
Unless you have a reasonable alternative, when you say something sucks, all you are doing is complaining.

Consistantly on this, and other threads, when it has been pointed out the bad behavior of 1 group of people, you excuse it by pointing to other bad behavior.
Have you never heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

Actaully, Sixee, I have been more interested in Jedd's replies to this and related threads than yours, as you seem to have reverted to your previous manner of tossing off oneliners and little substance.

As for there being no homosexuals in Iran, I think the Iranian President may have some homo-erotic leanings, based on the amount of time his head is up his ass. For every somewhat rational thing I have heard from him he has offset by three or more statements seemingly designed to push buttons of anyone not of the Muslim faith.

He has said that Iran will disregard U.N. resolutions regarding their nuclear program, but will pursue oversight through the proper channels via the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N.'s own watchdog, so that should mollify critics unless there is another agenda. That does not seem unreasonable, as at this point the U.N. really has no business talking about sanctions without proof something has been done that constitutes a violation of some sort.

Iran sits on a shitload of oil, but does not have the refinaery capacity to make use of it themselves, and so import most of their own energy supplies. It is reasonable that they would want to pursue another energy resource which would be both less expensive and without the chance of running dry as oil fields can.

Iran's Pres. is a little nutjob, and has no real power. He has said really stupid, insulting things, totally disregarding history. He has also been alleged to have been involved in the Embassy attacks and hostage taking against America. For those reasons, it is easy to disregard him, and I pretty much do. But I do not disregard the religious leaders over there that pull his strings, and I figure much of what he is saying is what those leaders want us to hear, and so for that reason it is important to listen; you cannot understand an enemy if you will not listen to what they say and try to know how they think.

Personally, I still consider Iran an enemy country because they attacked us, through our Embassy, and murdered and kidnapped our citizens. That has not been resolved as far as I am aware. If they want nuclear energy and are willing to have proper oversight of the program, we really are in no position to do anything about that. Bush has depleted our military resources too far at this point to consider another front.

But, if they do pursue a nuclear weapon, knowing their past inclinations toward terroristic action, I fully support action to disable that threat, no matter which country(s) take the action.

And ditto for Syria.

(Sorry if I have repeated anything already posted by others; have not had a chance to catch up on all of today's posts.)

Regarding the Republican leadership and the way treaties have been handled, I have been very disappointed in this as well Jedd. We have had a number of opportunities to show leadership on the world stage and instead have had big business lobbyists and campaign contributions make the decisions not to act.

As far as our involvement in "coups" and revolutions around the globe, I am also in agreement that we have done so. BUT, it was the people who supported the Shah that we supported. Iran supports Hezbollah in much the same way, attempting to manipulate the political leadership of Lebanon. This is what countries do, rather than the old style of invading and occupying which was the old fashioned way of changing things around the world......ooops, I forgot Bush and Cheney tend to be old-fashioned.

Anyway, yes we have used our resources to mainpulate and support forces that wished to change the way their country was being run. Sometimes it was a good thing, and sometimes we got our hands bitten. Powers do those things, and I do not see that changing in the near future.

I wish my country would spend more of it's "capital" in places like Darfur, and Rwanda, but maybe some of the Mid-east countries that are making so much money from their oil can adopt a philanthropic approach. After all, a large number fo those being killed are practicing Muslims; they just happen to be darker than the average Arab or persian.

Anyway, this is all fun debate, but you will not be changing many minds here, Jedd, anymore than Sixee will be changing yours. We all have a mindeset, and we tend to look for that which reinforces.

My mindset for instance, is that Bush robbed this country of it's chance to gain some vengeance for the 9/11 attacks by not staying focused on the pursuit of OBL, and letting Cheney lead him by the nose to Iraq. If we were to go after another country, it should have been Saudi Arabia, which did and still does funnel way too much money to those who wish us ill.

Sorry for the rambling.

Actaully, Sixee, I have been more interested in Jedd's replies to this and related threads than yours, as you seem to have reverted to your previous manner of tossing off oneliners and little substance.


Sorry, I find it difficult to be substantive when discussing the relative value of Iran VS U.S.

I have been in the Middle East, and I have seen first hand the society over there.
I have lived here in the U.S., and if I had a choice, I'd live here, for obvious reasons...

Call this a semantics question, but you do realize that all the middle eastern countries arent the same right? I been all over Central America, and all the countries are vastly different.

Also as far as spending, miltary action and what not, unless i am mistaken, non of the middle eastern countries, moreso for the conversation at hand, Iran, are on the UN security council which has prompted and initiated some of the things listed in previous posts. Granted we had something to gain, but isnt that the point of joining together in a group, to accomplish like goals.

Call this a semantics question, but you do realize that all the middle eastern countries arent the same right? I been all over Central America, and all the countries are vastly different.

Also as far as spending, miltary action and what not, unless i am mistaken, non of the middle eastern countries, moreso for the conversation at hand, Iran, are on the UN security council which has prompted and initiated some of the things listed in previous posts. Granted we had something to gain, but isnt that the point of joining together in a group, to accomplish like goals.

I see a difference as in, we have oil to gain if we attack Iraq, and we have nothing to gain if we send troops to help secure Darfur. Thats really all i mean in that regard.

I see a difference as in, we have oil to gain if we attack Iraq, and we have nothing to gain if we send troops to help secure Darfur. Thats really all i mean in that regard.

And as disgusting and embarassing as it is to acknowledge, I am sure Bush and Cheney look at it much the same way.

I really should return here more often.

Jedd's anti American and omg revolting Pro stance on many aspects of Iran are so ripe for plucking.

I'l make time tonight...

Fandros Finglaflin

And where exactly is all this oil we're getting from Iraq? I haven't seen any.

I know that not all Middle Eastern countries are the same.
I have been to Cypress, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
As far as I know, the other countries that make up the Middle East are very much the same as the ones I have visited, in that their attitudes towards civil liberties tend to be the same.
They also treat women very similarly, the same with homosexuals. Non-Muslims have a different way they are treated, as well as those that are Jewish. Each country displays differing tolerance and intolerance on the above mentioned issues.

And where exactly is all this oil we're getting from Iraq? I haven't seen any.

Dick Cheney is taking a bath in it from what I've been told....
:eek:

And where exactly is all this oil we're getting from Iraq? I haven't seen any.It's paying for the war, dontcha know.

I really should return here more often.

Jedd's anti American and omg revolting Pro stance on many aspects of Iran are so ripe for plucking.

I'l make time tonight...

Fandros Finglaflin

So I am Anti American? Wow

If I am Anti American does that make you Anti World?

yes he hates everyone the same.

/chuckle

I don't hate anyone...

I happen to have spent too much time in that ugly sandbox backwater area called the Middle East.

I pity the "other than dominant men" subspecies that is anything but the ruling strata over yonder.

Just get weary of the psuedo politicos such as Jedd who spout all the rhetoric of an AntiAmerican but lack the chutzpah to back it up.

The ruling powers in Iran are bankrupt, they fund groups that target women and children you insipid fool.

Bush and Mr Pres of Iran are not the same....

Gah, you just aren't worthy of old school Ayonae ro ire are you?

Fandros

They can't be totally bankrupt, we used to sell them missiles to fund the murder of women and children in Nicaragua.

Yeah... I'm sorry, I love America, but you're personally attacking him for voicing an opinion that isn't so unpopular outside of our country. A little uncalled for in my opinion.

Iran sucks. No one is arguing it doesn't. While we don't blatantly kill American civilians, we have at times adopted a realpolitik attitude towards our foreign policy, and many people have lost their lives. This is simply a fact. Americans make knee-jerk value judgements, and somehow the ensuing logic is that killing homosexuals domestically is worse than funding civil wars and dropping thousands of bombs on innocent people with no capacity to defend themselves (Hi Cambodia).

It's not so much the stuff we do, it's the complete ignorance of most Americans regarding these policies that makes TheWorld™ not like us so much. American Exceptionalism be damned. Our shit stinks too.

/insert coming checklist Iran V. US (BAD STUFF THEY DID!)

/chuckle

I don't hate anyone...

I happen to have spent too much time in that ugly sandbox backwater area called the Middle East.

I pity the "other than dominant men" subspecies that is anything but the ruling strata over yonder.

Just get weary of the psuedo politicos such as Jedd who spout all the rhetoric of an AntiAmerican but lack the chutzpah to back it up.

The ruling powers in Iran are bankrupt, they fund groups that target women and children you insipid fool.

Bush and Mr Pres of Iran are not the same....

Gah, you just aren't worthy of old school Ayonae ro ire are you?

Fandros

Hey you keep supporting dropping bombs on Women and Children from afar and under the cloak of "accidents happen"....

I personally detest all of it. I dont single out a person who straps a bomb to his chest and kills over a president who drops bombs from afar and sits safely in his white house.

Fact of the matter is, no matter what you say, how mad you get, and how much you will insult me. Iran hasnt attacked anyone, and America has. Bottom line!

Iran hasnt attacked anyone, and America has. Bottom line!

Persian Empire anyone?

2 History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#History)

2.1 Early history and the Median and Achaemenian Empires (3200 BCE – 330 BCE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Early_history_and_the_Median_and_Achaemenian_ Empires_.283200.C2.A0BCE_.E2.80.93_330.C2.A0BCE.29 )
2.2 Third Iranian Empire: Parthian Empire (248 BCE – 224 CE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Third_Iranian_Empire:_Parthian_Empire_.28248. C2.A0BCE_.E2.80.93_224_CE.29)
2.3 Fourth Iranian Empire: Sassanid Empire (224 – 651 CE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Fourth_Iranian_Empire:_Sassanid_Empire_.28224 _.E2.80.93_651_CE.29)
2.4 From the fall of the Sassanid Dynasty to the Safavid Empire (652–1501 CE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#From_the_fall_of_the_Sassanid_Dynasty_to_the_ Safavid_Empire_.28652.E2.80.931501_CE.29)
2.5 The birth of modern Iran: Rise of the Safavid Empire (1501 – 1920) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#The_birth_of_modern_Iran:_Rise_of_the_Safavid _Empire_.281501_.E2.80.93_1920.29)




Kind of hard to build an empire without attacking anyone....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Are you serious? You guys will grasp at anything...

I talk about modern day, and you bring up ancient civ... I bring up Ancient Civ, and you shrug it off...

If you want to bring up bloody conquering pasts, then what about when the British came to America to colonize it and slaughtered Indians and stole their lands to establish what is now the Home of the Free?

How about the fact that The Persian Empire detested and outlawed Slavery? Yet America reveled in it for so long?

http://mohammad.buzznet.com/user/journal/6542/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

Really, any argument that depends on pre-Islamic Revolution Iran fails.

So we want to then compare a country with only 30 years worth of history then?

When Israel came up, people didn't limit that discussion to just the last 50 years on either side. There's a lot more than the last 50 years involving Persia that is relavant to why the middle east is like it is now. The relationship between Mesopetamia and Persia goes well back before Iran's revolution.

So Iran hasn't attacked anyone in the last 30 years, at least overtly, WOW. Iran's history and development as a middle eastern power is full of wars of conquest. Just because it's not the most recent occurance doesn't make it irrelavant.

The United States has attacked many people for its own interestes where as Iran has NEVER attacked another country.


It's hardly grasping at straws Jedd. You said in all caps that Iran has NEVER attacked another country, which frankly isn't true.

You can't fault the Ahmadinejad for the Shah's actions, nor credit him for those of Cyrus the Great. With Israel, people did little more than note that that piece of land has been fought over for thousands of years. I don't recall anyone blaming David for the bombing of Lebanon.

If we're comparing Bush's actions (or the US') to those of Ahmadinejad (or Iran), then the prior rulerships are entirely irrelevent.

Or perhaps the US is, in fact, a brutal font of imperialism because of George III's handling of the 1798 Rebellion and, therefore, anything Iran's QUDS do (and Xerxes did) is fine.

I talk about modern day, and you bring up ancient civ... I bring up Ancient Civ, and you shrug it off...


Then we back a country that will kill anyone and everyone for a piece of land that never even belonged to them.
Well if you are talking Ancient Civ, than yes, Israel at one point DID belong to them.

So we are going back to Ancient times? Alright...
Here is you not wanting people to talk ancient times about Israel. This is completely counter to your comment that you brought up ancient civ about Israel and you shrugged it off. You didn't bring it up, L2 and a couple others did.

If we're comparing Bush's actions (or the US') to those of Ahmadinejad (or Iran), then the prior rulerships are entirely irrelevent.


I agree with that to a point, but at that point no one can bring up the Iran hostage crisis except to incriminate Ahmadinejad in his participation. The first Gulf War can't be brought up. Vietnam can't be brought up. The first World Trade Center bombing can't be brought up.

Of course this gets rid of a ton of backstory that leads us to where we are. And if we can really attempt to be this exclusionary of history. The US has only ever attacked two countries, Iraq and Afganistan!

You're missing the discriminating factors. If you compare Bush vs. Ahmadinejad, then whatever occurred prior to their administrations isn't particularly relevent. Depending on the argument, it makes more sense to compare Iran and the USA directly, in which case it, again, doesn't matter what the Shah or Xerxes did, any more than it matters what George III or Elizabeth did.

Arguments still need to have some validity, though. It'd be quite a stretch to claim that events during the American Civil War justify the hostage crisis (which is a post-revoutionary event, so valid in US v. Iran comparisons).

You can't fault the Ahmadinejad for the Shah's actions, nor credit him for those of Cyrus the Great. With Israel, people did little more than note that that piece of land has been fought over for thousands of years. I don't recall anyone blaming David for the bombing of Lebanon.

If we're comparing Bush's actions (or the US') to those of Ahmadinejad (or Iran), then the prior rulerships are entirely irrelevent.

Or perhaps the US is, in fact, a brutal font of imperialism because of George III's handling of the 1798 Rebellion and, therefore, anything Iran's QUDS do (and Xerxes did) is fine.

Exactly!

Well if you are talking Ancient Civ, than yes, Israel at one point DID belong to them.


Here is you not wanting people to talk ancient times about Israel. This is completely counter to your comment that you brought up ancient civ about Israel and you shrugged it off. You didn't bring it up, L2 and a couple others did.

You are missing the point completely...

When i dont bring up Ancient times, you bring it and make it an excuse... When i counter you with an Ancient piece of history you say it doesn't apply...

Personally I could care less about Iran and our relationship with them. I would be more concerned about our relationship with South America...the women are much hotter.

Personally I could care less about Iran and our relationship with them. I would be more concerned about our relationship with South America...the women are much hotter.


Kim Kardashian -- Iranian

http://www.starpulse.com/Actresses/Kardashian,_Kim/

I especially enjoyed that the second headline link on that page was "Kim Kardashian didn't urinate on Ray J." ;)

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/09/04/kim_kardashian_didn_t_urinate_on_ray_j/

I especially enjoyed that the second headline link on that page was "Kim Kardashian didn't urinate on Ray J." ;)

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/09/04/kim_kardashian_didn_t_urinate_on_ray_j/

BTW it turns out I am wrong and she is Armenian!!! damn... but anyways, Iranian girls look like that too :)

Here!!!

http://entertainment.webshots.com/album/75079254LBVVVH

You are missing the point completely...

When i dont bring up Ancient times, you bring it and make it an excuse... When i counter you with an Ancient piece of history you say it doesn't apply...

You are saying 'you,' but I hope that isn't directed at me specifically, because I don't recall telling you that the past didn't matter.

You are saying 'you,' but I hope that isn't directed at me specifically, because I don't recall telling you that the past didn't matter.

I would have to look back to see who, but in general i mean the people who are trying to counter my arguments.

And in response to what you said about Ahmadenijads role in the Hostage taking at the U.S. Embassy. You would also have to implicate the U.S. in the coup leading to this event.

Why is the U.S. not accountable at all? They were expelled from the country for their support and involvement of the theft of Democracy and oppression put forth by the leader they instilled into power.

Folks seem fixated on Aminadanutjob. Why?

The Iranian people are ruled by the religious council. The Ayatollah(s) decide what is going to be done in Iran, and where the country's funds will be spent, and which countries they will do business with, and what the University will teach, and so on and so on and so on.....

The council was funding Hezbollah long before this pres was seated. There were plenty of behind closed doors meetings with foreign diplomats that I bet this current Pres still is unaware of, and agreements for trade and economic and miltary exchanges were all pretty much in place long before the last election in Iran.

This guy is the counterpart to Bush. He talks a big game, but has not the power to put it into play unless those that pull the strings allow it. That is no different than in the U.S. Congress forgets this sometimes, but it does look like they are regaining their collective memory.

Thankfully, Bush's gaffes have not been so completely off the wall as to deny documented history.

Here is pretty much an account of what happened in Iran. The source isnt the most fair and balanced you will find, but with research you will find most of it to be true. The key is to look at the instability and the theft of Democracy that the U.S. was responsible for creating in Iran.




In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

The coup was led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. Kermit Roosevelt had help from Norman Schwarzkopf’s father: Norman Schwarzkopf.

The CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh's government through bribery, libel, and orchestrated riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals.

Some 300 people died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

Mossadegh was overthrown, sentenced to three years in prison followed by house arrest for life.

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy.

After the 1979 revolution President Jimmy Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. Fearing the Shah would be sent back to take over Iran as he had been in 1953, Iranian militants took over the U.S. embassy - where the 1953 coup was staged - and held hundreds hostage.

The 50th anniversary of the coup was front-page news in Iranian newspapers. The Christian Science Monitor reports one paper in Iran publishing excerpts from CIA documents on the coup, which were released only three years ago.

The U.S. involvement in the fall of Mossadegh was not publicly acknowledged until three years ago. In a New York Times article in March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that "the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

You have to remember, Persia was part of the British Informal Empire (like Argentina and China), we had meddled in internal affairs since the successful War of 1856-7 (and before then to counter Russian intrigue). We built the infrastructure and created the finance sector, advised the government and to the close of the nineteenth century almost partitioned the country with the Russians. We invaded during both World Wars to ensure supplies and oil to Russia, and thus could not let go so easy toward end of Empire in the post-WW2 world.

Just a little context :P

Personally I could care less about Iran and our relationship with them. I would be more concerned about our relationship with South America...the women are much hotter.

I'd have to agree on both parts. (would + rep ya but need more spreading around.)

Iran can shrivel up and die as far as Im concerned which has been pretty much the policy towards them until they started trying to split atoms and feed weapons to insurgents. Let them keep rattling there pacifiers. Irans pres is a good speaker but he is very bias at the sametime in his views and is just a figure head like our Pres Id bet with just less power.

As for comparing history you can really only take some of it so far, Peoples beliefs change like regimes. Or we would still view the Japanese as monkeys the Germans as murderers the Russian communist threat as the end of the world. Its just a new threat America can just do nothing, but hey it isnt good for the economy.

Even Hillary Clinton said the Weds. night she wouldnt pull out Iraq until 2013 at the earliest and Obhama echoed the thoughts. The elect me we will be out in 6 months has all but disappeared. It isnt going to happen I say let the French drop the first bomb on Iran there the ones scared of a nuclear missle threat more than the US. Or we can just let Isreal do all the dirty work.

I say let the French drop the first bomb on Iran there the ones scared of a nuclear missle threat more than the US. Or we can just let Isreal do all the dirty work.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/africa/web.0604iran.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p17s01-cogn.html

This is why Iran will not be attacked by any european country Including France.

They could simply occupy and take the oil. Rough? Sure but I bet the US would join them since they like oil more than anyone.

This is just a guess but I wouldn't say never!!

You have to remember, Persia was part of the British Informal Empire (like Argentina and China), we had meddled in internal affairs since the successful War of 1856-7 (and before then to counter Russian intrigue). We built the infrastructure and created the finance sector, advised the government and to the close of the nineteenth century almost partitioned the country with the Russians. We invaded during both World Wars to ensure supplies and oil to Russia, and thus could not let go so easy toward end of Empire in the post-WW2 world.

Just a little context :PWell this just makes it easy then. Britain is the proximate cause of both nations' aggression. Iran and the US should just nuke England, and the moral set will reduce to null.

They could simply occupy and take the oil. Rough? Sure but I bet the US would join them since they like oil more than anyone.

This is just a guess but I wouldn't say never!!

Iran is alot harder to occupy then Iraq... Even with outdated military equipment and such, Iran would be a hard country to invade. You have many different climates to prepare for... From desert, to Snowy Mountains. You have a military that unlike Iraq's wont run and surrender or hide when attacked. You also have to deal with whoever ends up opposing such an attack, such as Russia or China.

Do you think China wants France to control Iran's Oil? Nuh uh!

You have a military that unlike Iraq's wont run and surrender or hide when attacked.
Heh, I was watching Fox news a few months back, Ollie North estimated it owuld take us a whole 3 hours to neutralize their navy once a conflict started. I think he might have been exaggerating a bit, I'd give them at least 4 they're crafty and shit.

No, No, No....

Iran =/= Iraq. Anyone who says Iran will be pacified in 3 hours is either smoking crack from a monkeys ass or just plain out lying to people.

The Iranian people rose up mass, millions of volunteers for the human wave attacks repelled the Iraqi attacks.. That is one generation removed. A generation that has basked in the glory of that defense the way we bask in the glory of WW2.

Any attack on Iran would be a nightmare. Maybe we could get away with bombing the shit out of select targets... but thats about all. We do not have the ability to hold any land in Iran.. Take land? Sure... but we would have no way to hold it, without instituting a full draft in the US and pouring a few million troops in order to completely dominate the country.

Reading comprehension ftw!

I said their Navy could be destroyed in about 3 hours, and even then the comment was a bit tounge-in-cheek but hey way to go! No mention of pacifying Iran in my post.

meh quick read on my part...

but was more reacting to Ollie Norths comments than yours.

Did anyone else catch the Saturday Night Live "music video" Andy Sedakis (sp) did for/with Ahmandidablah? I was laughing my ass off.

President Imadinnerjacket?

Priceless (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBQxbxAcLg).

I hope this gets some play back home.

That's pretty damn funny.

Lol

Thanks Akipt for the link. Have to spread around some, or I would rep ya'.

Iran the pinnacle of modern day freedom!

Link! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071001/wl_mideast_afp/iranfashionsocialcompanybenetton;_ylt=AjNjHaKWB6ys sYmYGmklIAnxrGIF)

And Jedd wonders why we think they're as backwards as some of our redneck hicks.

Iran the pinnacle of modern day freedom!

Link! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071001/wl_mideast_afp/iranfashionsocialcompanybenetton;_ylt=AjNjHaKWB6ys sYmYGmklIAnxrGIF)

And Jedd wonders why we think they're as backwards as some of our redneck hicks.

It isnt cool that women dont have the choice to wear what they want to wear, but in Islam a women is not supposed to "sell herself" meaning that they are not supposed to dress a certain way to appeal to men.

The reason they even wear the headscarf and cover their body is because a man is not supposed to fall for a woman because she is hot... but rather because he loves who she is.

Is it right? not to me... Is it oppression? a form of oppression maybe. But if you call yourself Muslim then you already follow these rules laid down by the Koran. The government is enforcing religous law.

The reason they even wear the headscarf and cover their body is because a man is not supposed to fall for a woman because she is hot... but rather because he loves who she is.


Islam: Getting fugly Middle Eastern women married since before Christ was born.....

Sorry, I couldn't help myself....

Islam: Getting fugly Middle Eastern women married since before Christ was born.....

Sorry, I couldn't help myself....

Since before Christ was born?

The government is enforcing religous law.

But isn't that ... horrible?
When was the last time you had a chat with your deity and he told you, specifically, what to do and what not to do? Religion is a very gray area. Why should the government know more about it than the individual?

Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush started enforcing these Jewish/Christian "laws":
Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
Leviticus 11
7 "and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8 "Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Slavery is A.O.K., working on Sunday and eating a ham sandwich are up there with murder and punishable by death, and homosexuality ... well lets not go there.

Religion is a powerful thing and can be very useful on an individual level and its teachings are certainly ones that we should strive for... but when you get people in charge of Religion telling you what you should/should not do and should/should not believe thats when it all seems to go to shit. If God, Allah, Adonai, Jehovah, Buddha, Tao, Ra, Zeus want us to follow their rules - shouldn't we let them enforce or punish them? Because last I checked, the leaders of Iran haven't had a dialog with any of the above.

Since before Christ was born?

Actually I believe to Qur'an has a number of references to Jesus and came after his birth and death. Muhammad was born around 600 AD if I remember correctly.

Since before Christ was born?
Ugh, it was meant to be funny, not factual......
:confused:

But isn't that ... horrible?
When was the last time you had a chat with your deity and he told you, specifically, what to do and what not to do? Religion is a very gray area. Why should the government know more about it than the individual?

Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush started enforcing these Jewish/Christian "laws":
Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
Leviticus 11
7 "and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8 "Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Slavery is A.O.K., working on Sunday and eating a ham sandwich are up there with murder and punishable by death, and homosexuality ... well lets not go there.

Religion is a powerful thing and can be very useful on an individual level and its teachings are certainly ones that we should strive for... but when you get people in charge of Religion telling you what you should/should not do and should/should not believe thats when it all seems to go to shit. If God, Allah, Adonai, Jehovah, Buddha, Tao, Ra, Zeus want us to follow their rules - shouldn't we let them enforce or punish them? Because last I checked, the leaders of Iran haven't had a dialog with any of the above.

I agree with you 100%, unfortunatly its not up to me to decide how they run the country. I think Iran will have its own form of whats happening in Burma happen eventually. There are alot that want change in Iran, and they will work hard to make it happen. One day the government will go too far. I dont think they will survive that mistake when the people rise up.

One thing to remember though is that many do not feel oppressed in Iran. My grandmother lives here in the U.S. and loves her country, whenever she visits or whenever she stays there for an extended period she has nothing negative to say. She follow Islamic law and believes in everything they say and do. She doesnt feel like she has no rights, and she doesnt feel like she shouldnt have to cover her hair and such. Maybe she is just old fashioned and these young kids want more for their lives. The only reason she lives here is because her children live here. She would go back in a heartbeat.

I think it comes down to perception alot more then anything. From our eyes its horrible and oppressive and disgusting. From theirs its just unfair, inconvenient, and a pain in the ass.

Jedd, the problem isn't the religious rules. It's the fact that the government enforces them; and they oppress just about any other form of religion. How many Baptist/Protestant/Catholic/Mormon/Etc Churches do you think there are in Iran? Oppression is bad. There of course has to be a balance, and I think it lies somewhere between our American prudish feelings on sex and Europe's "open mindedness" But, the Islamic states take it way too far.

Jedd, the problem isn't the religious rules. It's the fact that the government enforces them; and they oppress just about any other form of religion. How many Baptist/Protestant/Catholic/Mormon/Etc Churches do you think there are in Iran? Oppression is bad. There of course has to be a balance, and I think it lies somewhere between our American prudish feelings on sex and Europe's "open mindedness" But, the Islamic states take it way too far.

It does take it too far, and i wont argue that point. The only thing you will really find me take an opposite stance on is, who has the right to make the change.

Edit: wrong thread. IRAN SUCKS!

Edit: wrong thread. IRAN SUCKS!

But does it swallow? That is the question

Well, it would seem society over there is trying to make the change. Much like here where we have moved from our standards to a different set. In some cases more open, and in some worse. But the point is, the people decided what was socially acceptable and what was not. Not the government. We take our various religious/personal values and find a "middle ground" of sorts. When you have the goverment stepping in with a heavy hand like they do in Iran; it prevents the natural culture changes that societies go through. It usually backfires too.

[QUOTE=Jedd Corpse]
The reason they even wear the headscarf and cover their body is because a man is not supposed to fall for a woman because she is hot... but rather because he loves who she is.
QUOTE]

I donnt think they really have much choice in who they marry.

Good thing the world doesnt revolve around what you think...

Arranged Marriages

In traditional Iranian families, arranged marriage proceedings begin with khaastegaari, or formal marriage proposal, by a delegation (usually of parents and elders) from the man's side. During the initial meeting, various aspects of the marital contract (e.g., the bride-price and dowry) are discussed.

In modern families, particularly among the upper and middle-class urban families, the couple intending to marry usually takes the initial steps based on mutual choice and leaves the formalities of khaastegaari to their parents. Arranged marriages in the form known in other Asian countries such as India or Pakistan (marriage decisions made by parents at an early age of their children) are rare, except among very traditional families.

All religions are basically the same thing; the focus of faith in a higher power or being, something outside of ourselves that is responsible for guiding and shaping our world and day to day existence.

Where we get the varied religions from is the "prophets" who claim to have the "true knowledge" and pass along their variation of the way to be one with that higher power. The need to believe in something larger than ourselves seems innate to man's psyche. Unfortunately, more lives have been lost in fighting over which is the correct way to believe, than for any other cause in our planet's history.


And, WTF is up with YouTube already having the SNL skit censored?!? So much for freedom of speech. I did not expect anything that so publicly mocked the Iranian President to be available for very long, but less than 48 hours was almost startling. I would like to know if it was SNL's move to have it taken down, the comedian himself, a complaint from Iranian diplomats, or the Bush thought police.

And, WTF is up with YouTube already having the SNL skit censored?!? So much for freedom of speech. I did not expect anything that so publicly mocked the Iranian President to be available for very long, but less than 48 hours was almost startling. I would like to know if it was SNL's move to have it taken down, the comedian himself, a complaint from Iranian diplomats, or the Bush thought police.
It's copywritten video bootlegged on YouTube. Of course it'll get DMCA'd down pretty quickly. No black helicopters involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfiaxPsvnTU