Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPresident Ahmadinejad -- who's recently been described as "the Unidentified Flying Object of Iranian and global politics" whose "antics have made Iran a laughingstock on the world stage" -- said today that Iran is ready for talks with Barack Obama.
And he didn't sound too weird, either.
"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect ... If you really want to fight terrorism, come and cooperate with the Iranian nation, which is the biggest victim of terrorism so that terrorism is eliminated. ... If you want to confront nuclear weapons ... you need to stand beside Iran so it can introduce a correct path to you. ..."The world is entering an era of dialogue and intellect. The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes."
Big stuff from the UFO, who added that the world "does not want to see the dark age of Bush repeated."
Meanwhile, Iran's parliament speaker (and hardliner) Ali Larijani said the same thing, pretty much, in Madrid:
"If they believe in some plan, they should present it through diplomatic means. Diplomacy was created for that. If Iran feels that there really exists a firm decision to solve the problems of the region, if it feels the change in the United States is a strategic change and not tactical, and that talks with Iran would help national interests and those of the region, Iran could examine it. ... Talking about negotiations should not be a juggling game in the media."
This, mind you, is not coming from former President Khatami, who decided this week to challenge Ahmadinejad for the presidency in elections this summer. This is coming from the hardliners, unquestionably with the support of Ali Khamenei, the turban-wearing Supreme Leader.
Seems like a direct response to what President Obama said last night about Iran:
I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world, that their attacks -- or their -- their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that all those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.What I've also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal, and that includes diplomacy.
And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them.
And my expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face diplomatic overtures, that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.
There's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it's not going to happen overnight. And it's important that, even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country, that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we're clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing.
So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress.
And I think that, if you look at how we've approached the Middle East, my designation of George Mitchell as a special envoy to help deal with the Arab-Israeli situation, some of the interviews that I've given, it indicates the degree to which we want to do things differently in the region.
Now it's time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently, as well, and recognize that, even as it has some rights as a member of the international community, with those rights come responsibilities.
Now, let's just hope he selects someone like George Mitchell to approach Iran with subtlety, toughness, and respect -- and not someone like Dennis Ross. Ross is widely reported to have a lock on the job, but it hasn't been announced yet. And sources tell me that iy yet may not be a done deal. Here's hoping. Somehow, I don't think the Iranians would see Ross' selection as a sign that the United States was ready to turn the page.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Iran was waiting for someone with common sense who was prepared to talk with them not at them for a change. This is a good sign and let's hope it will be followed through.
Posted by Caj at 02/10/2009 @ 10:41am
Let's hope for the world's sake that talking with the US doesn't turn out for Iran the way talking with Geithner has turned out for We the People.
Posted by sloper at 02/10/2009 @ 10:43am
Ahmadinejad better watch that "I'll talk with enemy states with no preconditions" talk...
it could cost him his election!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 10:44am
thankfully the blustering, hyper macho, threat-a-thon is over.
threats that cannot be backed up, by the way, only serve to underscore and highlight one's weakness...
enough emotional silliness...the age of rationality begins (again)...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/10/2009 @ 10:55am
Will we have to meet Armyjihads preconditions for talking?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 11:08am
Why don't we send as a respresentative over there one who is..white Israeli born female who is a practicing Jew, gay, who wants to shut down oil and gas drilling to save the planet just to test Armyjihads mettle?
Woth no preconditions, of course.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 11:11am
Hey MAASCH...what was the last policy of Dubya on Iran there, at the end?
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 11:21am
no policy.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 11:23am
thankfully the blustering, hyper macho, threat-a-thon is over.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/10/2009 @ 10:55am
until oil markets rebound sufficiently to get the ball rolling again.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2009 @ 11:34am
Lets see if Obama means what he said about openings to Iran at his press conference. He typically doesn't have much in the way of cohones and we've as yet to hear from The Lobby about his comments. I'll believe him when I see the United States out of the Middle East and diplomatic discussions underway to create a truly - TRULY - nuclear free zone, one to include Israel, in that part of the world.
Posted by john lowell at 02/10/2009 @ 12:01pm
>>>Somehow, I don't think the Iranians would see Ross' selection as a sign that the United States was ready to turn the page.<<<
Ross is clearly the favorite of AIPAC and has parroted much of their official line in his various diplomatic assignments.
Whether this parroting is due to lack of personal power or deeply felt convictions remains an open question, and I continue to think ANY Obama appointee will do "Obama's bidding", not their own.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
Hey MAASCH...what was the last policy of Dubya on Iran there, at the end?----------Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 11:21am
no policy.-----Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 11:23am
Ooh, I'm sorry...but thanks for playing-
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 20, 2008; Page A04
WACO, Tex., July 19 -- With his moves last week involving Iraq, Iran and North Korea, President Bush accelerated a shift toward centrist foreign policies, a change that has cheered Democrats, angered some Republicans and roiled the presidential campaign.
Bush sent his first high-level emissary to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran, which ended without agreement Saturday. Also in the past two days, the president agreed for the first time to set a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to join North Korean diplomats at six-party talks about ending that country's nuclear weapons program.
The maneuvers underscore how much the Bush administration has changed since 2002, when the president proclaimed Iraq, Iran and North Korea to be an "axis of evil." Now Bush is pushing forward with diplomatic gestures toward Iran and North Korea while breaking with a long-held position on troop withdrawals in the interest of harmony with the Iraqi government.
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 12:25pm
looney lowell...expert on Middle East policy-
"Gore would have invaded Iraq with or without 9/11. Trust me, he'd have listened very carefully to his masters voice if he'd been president and he would have obeyed."----Posted by john lowell at 08/01/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 12:28pm
"..when I see the United States out of the Middle East and diplomatic discussions underway to create a truly - TRULY - nuclear free zone, one to include Israel, in that part of the world.
Posted by john lowell at 02/10/2009 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You kidding...right?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 1:04pm
i dunno, mask.
i can find some pretty belligerent talk from mr. gore from way back when.......
after all, billy never ended the war in the first place.
"something" just may have come up.
most likely, 2004 elections.......
(and please don't try to find some link between me and the unfortunate mr. lowell.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2009 @ 1:06pm
Now Bush is pushing forward with diplomatic gestures toward Iran and North Korea while breaking with a long-held position on troop withdrawals in the interest of harmony with the Iraqi government.
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 12:25pm
With or without preconditions?
So Obama is keeping with the policy he inherited but, offered no conditions...while getting an ass full of conditions from Armyjihad?
This should work.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 1:07pm
that's right, john.
the u.s. must protect ITS interests, ¿right john?
who cares about the brown (oh, they're only primitives) folk underneath, ¿right john?
plus, god said it was supposed to be this way, ¿right john?
peace, shmeace, ¿right john?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2009 @ 1:09pm
that's right, john.
after all, we all know mr. bush's "policy" has worked out so well.
well, at least only your great grandkids will have to pay for it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 1:07pm
So you admit your "no policy" was wrong?
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 1:18pm
This a great time for the president to re-introduce america to the rest of the world by openly and without any pre-conditions to start to talk to the iranian government.the president has a very popular mandate from the american people and his approval rating is almost at 80%.it is time for him to show some real muscles and especially he needs to challenge and smash the power of the nazi-zionist jews who have bankrupted this country by creating so enemies for the USA.dennis ross is a zionist jew and an rdent supporter of jewish racism and fascism and must not be chosen or even given a chance to attend a meeting with the iranians.this guy just like the rest of those nazi-zionists does not give a shit about the USA and the interests of the american people.
there are many honorable and true american patriots who can represent this nation during the negotiations.no zionist jews must be allowed to dictate our foriegn policy.
soon bibi netanyahu will be the new king of the jews from new york to miami to tel aviv and his defence minister will be the former pimp from moldova(avigdor lieberman).it is time for mr president to tell these criminals to go to hell.
Posted by excalibur999 at 02/10/2009 @ 1:46pm
Such-putz-mask .. expert on absolutely nothing.
Talk about being daft, outside of your feverish but always limited mind, what in the hell is the connection you're trying to make between Gore and the war in Iraq and the Obama press conference? You trying to make love? I mean, other than the given of AIPAC slavery, there's some meaningful connection between the two? Oh, yes, I'll stand by that 8/1/08 quote, little fella. Gore would have launched the war in Iraq for the very same reasons that Bush did, and, as a matter of fact, for the same reason that Obama supported the Lebanon aggression and said nothing about Gaza: Because if he didn't the Lobby would have had his touche.
Posted by john lowell at 02/10/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by john lowell at 02/10/2009 @ 1:51pm
See...I was hoping you'd still "stand by it".
LOL
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 2:05pm
You haven't answered my question, mask. What's the connection between Gore and Iraq and the Obama press conference? You implied a link, can you manage to make it for us? Believe me, I, and I'd imagine just about anyone else beside you, here can't.
Posted by john lowell at 02/10/2009 @ 2:18pm
Obama is going to be the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter. The terrorists in Iran are going to play this sucker like a fiddle, just as the Soviets did with Carter. It'll be one foreign policy disaster after another until The Zero learns that what moves the old women in the Democratic Party makes you a laughingstock amongst the crooks and thieves of this world. The only question is, how many American and other lives will Obama's naivete cost the resto of the world before he wises up, if ever?
Posted by pontificus at 02/10/2009 @ 2:42pm
Obama is going to be the biggest foreign policy disaster since Carter.----Posted by pontificus at 02/10/2009 @ 2:42pm
All you need now is a genie lamp, huh, PONTI?
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 2:46pm
FZ,
"who cares about the brown (oh, they're only primitives) folk underneath, ¿right john? "
Another idiotic belch from you needs clariying on a basic level.
No FZ..I just want them to come here legaly like everyone else...and not ignore my countrys culture(language)and customs..(Pay your own way)...not have 30% fill my jails with gangs, drain MediCal for health, drive without insurance or paper, depress wages for Americaans..for starters...everything else is negoiable. I am not taring all illegals with this taint, as the dems allowed illegal immigration because they wants cheap votes with empty promises and the repubs want cheap labor. I would end that practice stone cold for both if I were in charge. Either way 12 million illegals, give or take a few is a problem..WW2 never had anywhere near as many soldiers in an similar area and we invaded Europe...
If they do not want to become American, then I would work out a legal status as a guest worker..
I want them to come here to BE AMERICANS or good guests..not expect me to create Mexico here, the very thing they ran away from to come here should not be set up here...
I want them to have a stable and prospeous Mexico or come here and be prosperous Americans..ASSIMILATE, I believe is the term.
And I don't care what color they are .
Its like this Frosty..
..come to my house at the front door and a welcome mat is there....come in through all my windows whether I am home or not, eat the food, demand the I speak to your in whatever language you speak as in push 1 for English, demand civil rights like in state tutiton when my kids cannot, flood my local schools system and crush it,( you can not pay enough taxes to support the influx)...you will have a serious problem with me that will not go away
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 2:55pm
I about had a fit with Bush's Axis of Evil speech, and after the Bush Administration left office, we find out now, it gave some Republicans fits too. I do not want to see anymore trash talk, or setting pre-conditions to negotiations. I do not believe Iran is going to nuke the holy city of Jerusalem or the Palestinians because any nuclear attack on Israel would take that city and those people out too. Nuclear weapons are WEAPONS OF UNCONTROLLED MASS DESTRUCTION. No country in the Middle East can use nuclear weapons preemptively against their neighbors with out suffering collateral damage themselves. This includes Israel and Iran, because the wind always changes direction, and radioactive fallout can blow back on them. I want to see some real negotiations based on facts and not propaganda.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/10/2009 @ 3:49pm
No country in the Middle East can use nuclear weapons preemptively against their neighbors with out suffering collateral damage themselves. This includes Israel and Iran, because the wind always changes direction, and radioactive fallout can blow back on them. I want to see some real negotiations based on facts and not propaganda.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/10/2009 @ 3:49pm | i
Armyjihad stated a year or so ago that he would gladly martyr 40% or so of his own population in exchange for serving ALLAH..after all, those 40% or so would be on their way to paradise complete with virgins...for serving the will mof Allah.
I am not sure where the women or children go..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
"I do not believe Iran is going to nuke the holy city of Jerusalem or the Palestinians because any nuclear attack on Israel would take that city and those people out too."
It appears that after 60 years the good muslums in the area do not really care about the Palestinians very much in the long run, as in the middle of their loyal allies sits the largest wealth accumulation in history and Palestinians are still poor...I don't think the rest of the Arab world really gives a damn about Palestinians or the could have bought Israel or its good will long ago...but prefer agitation instead at the cost of Palestine..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
MAASCH, except for exact wording...
what's the difference between Dubya and Ahmadinejad?
"Bring it on"...war on countries that never attacked him....supported by the rural provinces and religious conservatives....God talking to him...???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 4:20pm
Oh, forgot...."leaving his country in economic ruin"???
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 4:21pm
No matter how sweetly Obama "Talks", you know what Biden said...."there is a 30% chance" of something going wrong......
Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:05pm
"President Ahmadinejad -- who's recently been described as "the Unidentified Flying Object of Iranian and global politics" whose "antics have made Iran a laughingstock on the world stage" -- said today that Iran is ready for talks with Barack Obama." ***************************************** I think Bush & the neocons (Israeli Lobby) win that prize Mr. Dreyfuss. Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush in May 2006.......wasn't he ready to talk? Interesting that a world public opinion poll doesn't share the Israel-Firster characterizations and media propaganda.
'A new World Public Opinion poll of 20 nations finds that just 2 percent say that they have "a lot" or "some" confidence that President Bush will do "the right thing regarding world affairs." Bush ranks below Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, but just edges out Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf:'
ThinkProgress.org
Ahmadinejad more trusted than Bush. Imagine that. Who is laughing now.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Ahmadinejad more trusted than Bush. Imagine that. Who is laughing now.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
I think it's Bush....it ain't his burden, or perhaps, JOY, now!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:26pm
I think it's Bush....it ain't his burden, or perhaps, JOY, now!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well...perhaps both Bush & Ahmadinejad.
News today indicates that moderate Khatami was set upon by an angry crowd.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 5:38pm
Well...perhaps both Bush & Ahmadinejad.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 5:38pm
Then, add me to the "laughing" crowd....
Since I've been much more `political', in paying attention and forecasting what lies ahead based on politics--around the end of the Bush `41 presidency--the burden of being part of the `governing' (defined as being in control of at least one `institution' like the House, the Senate) has been around our necks for all but 2 years.....now, it's fully unshackled!
MASK poo poos it...but for ALL Cons since 1981, when the B-Actor slept in the WH, we've not enjoyed what The Left has on quite a few more occasions.....
It's definitely refreshing....even as I'm paying for this `entertainment' through my financial portfolio....but it could be a whole lot worse, as the Libs' favored groups actually have to suffer the consequences of their ideologies......kiss upward mobility goodbye while Evening in America turns into DARKNESS!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:59pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:05pm
BETTING on the country getting worse???
Gee, good thing YOU guys are the "real patriots", huh?
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 8:23pm
Well...perhaps both Bush & Ahmadinejad.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 5:38pm
Then, add me to the "laughing" crowd....
.....kiss upward mobility goodbye while Evening in America turns into DARKNESS!
Posted by Happy at 02/10/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is a well adjusted man indeed who can keep his sense of humor in times of adversity.
How about Geithner filling us in on all the specifics today about his financial plan for Amerika? Wall Street nearly had a heart attack!
Soon it will be "the crying game" Happy.
Posted by OneVote at 02/10/2009 @ 8:35pm
Interesting that the world trusts Armyjihad more than Bush.....then again the world has a habit if loving tyrants, Chavez, Che, Castro, and even England was thrilled at the peace acheived.....
Armyjihad is in good company.....at one time the world trusted another man of the people.... Hitler.
My congrats to Armyjihad as he collects his Adolf man of the year award. I have no doubt he will rise to similar heights as Der Furher and bring the world to the same conclusion as his mentor did in the 30s as well as develop a "special" relationship with the worlds jews.
I just hope Sean Penn doesn't get caught in the middle...as he presents the award.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 9:49pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 9:49pm
Gee, MAASCH....why didn't Dubya DO something about that "Hitler in Teheran"??!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/10/2009 @ 10:41pm
Because Iraq in the long and short run was easier and a stable democratic secular Iraq next door to a religious nut house wild be a better play in the ME.
It give the west a solid base in the middle of the swamp if Iraq holds together. This is my guess. The whole Iraq thing is and was a strategical calculation and move that came together with the world events (syncronisity) at the time. The end has not played out yet to see if it holds.
The cost of Iran were not worth the risk when they might implode by themselves .... or with a little push from someone else.
Just my hunch... And speculation.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 12:30am
The ghostly apparition of Jimminey Peanutman Carters failed Presidency is haunting the Obamanation "occupied territory" we affectionately call the White House! Obama is having dreams of the same fools paridise that finished off the Peanutman. Keep up the good work and Billy boy Clinton will show you how to be comea multimillionaire in 2012 when you leave office in disgrace!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/11/2009 @ 01:35am
The countries that nationalized their oil companies and used the proceeds to fund social programs are in a tight spot. The glut of oil on the market is causing prices to drop, but they can't stop production. They need the money to fund the Govt. So, sell they must....Chavez is another one.
Posted by koroviev at 02/11/2009 @ 01:53am
Dreyfuss says:
>>Ahmadinejad "does not want to see the dark age of Bush repeated,"<<
If anything speaks well for Bush, it was that he represented a "dark age" for that Iranian bigot and madman. Here is why.
Under Bush the US inserted 140,000 Americans across the border in Iraqi, created a democratic regime in Baghdad, helped it prevail over an insurgency Iran supported, and over the pro Iranian Sadr militia. Ahmadinejad also found pro Iranian political parties defeated at the polls and strong anti Iranian nationalism reviving even among Iraq's Shia.
Furthermore, Iran discovered a substantial US military force on the other side of its border with Afghanistan. Bush, in short, bookended Iran between two US armies and two US friendly regimes. If Dreyfuss agrees, that that is a dark age, that's because he sees the world from Ahmadinehad's perspective, not ours.
But now Obama is reaching out an open hand. How has Iran's regime responded? 1) They sent a satellite into space showing off their long range missile. 2) They declared their Bushehr nuclear reactor would be powered-up this year. 3) The US sent a badminton team to compete in Tehran. It was refused entry visas. 4) When VP Biden gave his Iran speech in Munich a few days ago, the Iranian delegate, Ali Larijani absented himself.
Dreyfuss claims to be heartened by words from Larijani which cannot be considered anything but supercilious and patronizing. It suits Dreyfuss to call him a hard liner speaking softly. He is in fact, shrewd, diplomatic and generally thought a moderate. Yet he supported Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial at Munich, by explaining that "there can be different perspective on the Holocaust."
That is the door Iran has thrown open to Obama's sunny sky.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/11/2009 @ 06:54am
Hugo ,
Well written, but then the truth usualy is...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 07:13am
So, Hugo, despite the fact that Afghanistan is seeing a resurgence of the Taliban...
and the government in Iraq is SHIIA (as is Iran)...
they're "friendly" to us?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 09:22am
Hugo ,
Well written, but then the truth usualy is...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 07:13am
Indeed....reminds you of somebody else' `Marked' writing style?
Posted by Happy at 02/11/2009 @ 10:14am
2 things
1. Remember, Libs, that while President Obama is meeting with the President of Iran, Iran will be continuing to DEVELOP their nukes.
2. DEVELOP is the operative word here, because Iran will NOT get a nuke. An American says so, and I believe him:
".....I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: September 11th we are all Americans - in grief, as in defiance. Benjamin Netanyahu ......." http://www.brainyquote.com/ quotes/authors/b/ benjamin_netanyahu.html
"......Netanyahu says Iran will not get hands on nukes By ARON HELLER – Jan 31, 2009 JERUSALEM (AP) -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's leading candidate for prime minister, said Saturday that Iran "will not be armed with a nuclear weapon."....." http://www.google.com/hostednews /ap/article/ ALeqM5hcX49mNGhMPjANq3C-wSH833a0swD962AVP00
".......Feb 11, 2009 13:44 | Updated Feb 11, 2009 15:57 Analysis: Election arithmetic puts Bibi in the driving seat By DAVID HOROVITZ ........." http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/ Satellite?cid=1233304750774&pagename =JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 10:50am
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 10:50am
SJCHER, wasn't Iran "continueing to develop nukes" (if that's your take)...
when BUSH was President???
Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 12:00pm
"If anything speaks well for Bush, it was that he represented a "dark age" for that Iranian bigot and madman. Here is why."
only problem is.....ahmadinejad is not the leader of iran.
oh well, i guess maasch was right, the truth is usually elusive....
Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 12:26pm
Mask,
I would have preferred we bombed Iran and stopped the nuke program when George W. Bush was President.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT IF HE HAD DONE THAT DENNIS KUCINICH WOULD HAVE BROKEN INTO A SPRINT TO RUN TO THE CAPITOL BUILDING TO FILE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
You on the left would have GIVEN BIRTH, HAD A COW, and GONE BESERK.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT THE INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE CAME OUT THAT SAID IRAQ NO LONGER HAS A NUKE PROGRAM.
What you will not admit is that MANY PEOPLE THINK that estimate was BOGUS and IRAN IS DEVELOPING A NUKE.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT OBAMA WILL NOT STOP IRAN FROM DEVELOPING A NUKE and THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK AN IRANIAN NUKE IS A DONE DEAL AND WE NEED TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT.
YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL ANTI-SEMETIC WINGNUTS THAT POST ON THESE BLOGS THAT THINK IRAN SHOULD HAVE A NUKE BECAUSE THEY SOMEHOW THINK ISRAEL IS A TREAT TO IRAN.
You KNOW all this but you ask these asinine questions anyway, trying to keep ahead of the ones from other threads where you get disproven and once that happens you provide no more responses.
Go back to the other thread and answer my question to you about your question about Rush.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 2:07pm
typo above,
When I said above "YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT THE INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE CAME OUT THAT SAID IRAQ NO LONGER HAS A NUKE PROGRAM. "
I meant IRAN.
No point in offering up to Mask something for Mask to ask more idiotic questions on.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 2:09pm
Furthermore, Iran discovered a substantial US military force on the other side of its border with Afghanistan. Bush, in short, bookended Iran between two US armies and two US friendly regimes. If Dreyfuss agrees, that that is a dark age, that's because he sees the world from Ahmadinehad's perspective, not ours.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/11/2009 @ 06:54am | ignore this
"Bookended" Hugo?
Give a read to:
The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy - George Friedman - 09/02/08 - Stratfor Global Intelligence
Bookend is not the word. Pandora's box is more like it.
Way Medvedev sees it:
Northern Afghanistan will be Russia's, with Karzai already onboard. Russian aid to Taliban forthcoming to weaken NATO forces and further destablize Pakistan.
Iranian support to clean up southern Afghanistan and Pak border when time is right, Iraq will be Iran's when US troops redeploy to Afghanistan, and the dominoes will fall all the way up to and including Syria - literally knocking on Israel's door.
Added benefit for Medvedev is free will in his dealings with former Soviet satellites.
One whopper of a strategic blunder on the part of sycophant Bush and his Neocon-Israel Firster handlers.
US knows whose boss now. We've already let Medvedev into the Afghan equation. We will be on "bended knee" to Iran shortly.
Israel is going to be suing for a two state solution. The Zionists can't even keep Jimmy Carter bottled up anymore. Your days are numbered and not too soon.
Posted by OneVote at 02/11/2009 @ 2:09pm
Another day, another example of hypocrisy from the left. Anyone want to bet the Bush-haters won't be making movies about Obama's rendition, torture, or Gitmo-by-another-name'?
"The purpose of power is power." - George Orwell
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 So Exactly When Does "Change" Begin, Take 45345234524523452452: Elena Kagan Says Government Can Indefinitely Detain Terrorism Suspects Let me say upfront: I am a cynic. Accordingly, I never took the "change" mantra too seriously. But I certainly thought that after eight years of frenetic liberal criticism of the Bush administration, Obama would indeed offer some important differences. But even that tiny hope has been dashed. After the recent announcements that Obama would continue the practice of rendition and that the CIA would seek approval for "harsh" interrogations "if necessary," the small space I reserve in my heart for idealism and for surprisingly good decisions (or at least decisions that fulfill promises) by politicians has diminished substantially. But after today's news, the space has completely vanished.
What happened today? Elena Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School and nominee for Solicitor General, announced that she believes that the government has the authority to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects because the country is "at war" with Al Qaeda. Because I am busy finishing edits on a law review article, can someone please explain to me how this differs from Bush's position, which liberals condemned, bashed and burned in effigy?
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 2:28pm
Down down 400 yesterday after the Porkulus plan unveiled, gold up $27 today! Big shout out to the Big Zero! Hope and change? If you mean a soon-to-be-worthless- currency, pork by the trillions, attempts at government censorship, stripping workers of the private vote, and foreign policy debacles reminiscent of the Carter years, I hear ya and I seem them coming!
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 2:49pm
Pontificus,
You asked above ".......can someone please explain to me how this differs from Bush's position, which liberals condemned, bashed and burned in effigy?........"
There is one thing I am absolutely certain of, more certain than just about anything else imaginable.
You WILL NOT get a STRAIGHT ANSWER out of MASK, on this question!!!
You WILL MOST LIKELY get AN ASININE, SURVEY-TYPE or MULTIPLE-CHOICE question BACK from Mask, that is NOT relevant to YOUR question!!!
And Phillip McCrevice may possibly call you an ASSCLOWN!!!
That is what I have learned from Libs, while blogging here on The Nation.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 3:21pm
"You WILL NOT get a STRAIGHT ANSWER out of MASK, on this question!!! "
I had been keeping a list of other things that MASK refused to answer, but it overloaded the buffer on my notepad. I think the last couple of items were "Hey MASK, what's the difference between a socialist, a liberal, and a progressive, and which one are you?" and requested responses to various quotations from Jefferson and Madison, regarding whether he agreed with them or not. I think he and CRABBIE answered with something like "yeah, but Valerie Plame was covert!". LOL
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 3:45pm
Sometimes I wonder if the Nation blogs can even be considered "on the left" anymore. I understand some rightists want to come to places like the Nation and have fun attacking leftists, but there are just SO many of them lately, that it almost seems at times like they have "taken over."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:08pm
"The purpose of power is power." - George Orwell
Orwell really said that? Doesn't sound like something he'd say - it's too cynical.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:18pm
In light of the fact that any military confrontation with Iran would be catastrophic (for the entire world), I agree with Obama that the time has come for honest and open dialogue.
Remember what JFK said: "we must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:20pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:18pm
"Orwell really said that? Doesn't sound like something he'd say - it's too cynical."
Orwell knew socialism better than anyone because he believed in it. Here's the exact quote from "1984":
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
If you watch what is going on in Venezuela, and any other state run by a socialist, you will see the same dreary play acted out over and over again. You see it again in the pure hypocrisy of Obama and his minions. The fools who voted for him on the pretexts that Bush's anti-terror measures were undemocratic will now be told some persuasive nonsense about how these policies are 'under review' and 'under discussion' and they will go on as before. These issues have served their purpose, and they will be promptly forgotten by all left-wing cult members.
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 4:35pm
FDR43,
You remarked:
".........Remember what JFK said: "we must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate."....."
You would be better served to remember other things John F. Kennedy said.
On more than one occasion I have pasted the entirety of his speech in Berlin("Ich bin ein Berliner")
That was the speech where he TOLD the communists that their communism would not be tolerated.
He did not say he was seeking dialogue with them, to negotiate some relief for people such as the citizens of East Berlin.
He told the communists their days were numbered.
Thus JFK, along with Ronald Reagan, defeated the Soviet Union.
JFK did not seek to discuss the topic of communism with the Soviets.... He told them their way would not last and would not be tolerated.
Listen to the speech. Read the speech. It is perhaps the greatest speech in history.
Many people, here in the U.S., did not really hear what JFK said, including some of the next Presidential administrations, who sought detente with the Soviets.
JFK told the Soviets their communism was history... it would only be a matter of time.
No negotiation on that topic... negotiation out of the question... only one thing would be tolerated... the end of Soviet communism....
And eventually it was gone, just like JFK said it would be.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 4:47pm
1984 and Animal Farm were attacks on Soviet-style totalitarianism. As you pointed out, Orwell was also anti-capitalist; that is, he was a democratic socialist who opposed both capitalism and communism. That quote from 1984: it is expressing the view of totalitarians (such as the Soviet types parodied) that power is its own reward. That doesn't mean that Orwell was saying that that is how it always MUST be with power and all who exercise it - rather that that IS the case with certain totalitarians. A belief in democratic socialism (which Orwell had) is inconsistent with such a cynical attitude.
By the way, to avoid any confusion, I am a liberal Obama supporter.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:19pm
Every President, from Truman (who invented the ideology of containment of communism) through to reagan gets some credit for "defeating" communism. I don't think Reagan gets any more credit than any other. As for negotiation and the JFK quote, I figure if Reagan (the most strident anti-communist Prez we've ever had) was willing to negotiate with the U.S.S.R., then certainly Obama should be willing to negotiate with Iran.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:23pm
JFK hoped (ideally) communism would disintegrate (as it eventually did).
However, looking at it more pragmatically, he realized that that might not occur, and therefore, it behooves us to TRY to get along as much as possible. he called for detente - see his sppech at washington University in 1963; he stated that he hoped to "make the world safe for diversity" and "in the end we all breath the same air, we are all mortal." In effect, he was (combing that speech with berlin, which is a great speech too), that we must have a twin pillar approach: "wait out" the communists until their system (hopefully) collapses, while simultaneously, try our best to keep tensions to a minumum, negotiate treaties reducing armaments on both sides, and in egneral, try to avoid a nuclear holocaust (for obvious reasons to anyone with even a smattering of humanity).
So, yes, I believe if JFK were around today, he would agree with Obama that we should engage Iran with dialogue.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:28pm
Negotiation, peaceful coexistence, detente, etc is, generally speaking (usually, though not always) preferable to war.
I assume even the most rabid right-wing gung-ho hawk would agree that an all-out war with Iran would be a disaster for humanity.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:31pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:28pm
"That doesn't mean that Orwell was saying that that is how it always MUST be with power and all who exercise it - rather that that IS the case with certain totalitarians."
Yes, Orwell was of the same feeling as most socialists today - NEXT TIME WE'LL GET IT RIGHT - IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK OUT THIS WAY!!!
The problem is, it always does. After awhile, any faith, when proving universally misplaced in practice, becomes a mere delusion.
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 6:30pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:31pm
"I assume even the most rabid right-wing gung-ho hawk would agree that an all-out war with Iran would be a disaster for humanity."
Of course, and you know this because George Bush, among others, told you so. However, you should be a little more careful in resisting the propaganda you are fed. 'Right-wing gung ho hawks" exist only as demons in liberal imaginations. "Right wingers" have no more love of war than any liberal, and since it is 'right wingers' who do most of the fighting (damn few liberals in the ranks) they have reason to fear it more than most.
The problem is that us traditional liberals know more than you idealists that in the real world, weakness or the appearance of same invites attack and aggression. Neville Chamberlain, no doubt a hero to the left in his time, showed weakness to Hitler and invited the most bloody war in history, a lesson the left still refuses to learn. Another example, Reagan, so often demonized by the left, was one of the strongest defenders of our national interests against the Soviets. Many was the lefty who predicted that Reagan would start World War III, and I have never, in my life (until Bush was elected), seen a man so hated and vilified by the shrill left. And in the end, he proved them all wrong; the Soviet Union collapsed on his watch, but not before the most sweeping Peace Accords in history were signed by him and Gorbachev. These facts completely repudiate the dogma continously and erroneously repeated on the left.
Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 6:49pm
According to AP today: Ahmadinejad says Iran is "ready for talks with the United States". Of course, during his speech, there were chants of "Death to America", and the usual ritual burning of the US and Israel's flags. I hope Obama doesn't wear a flag pin when he goes hat-in-hand to Iran. He might get pummeled.
Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 7:56pm
FDR43,
I do not see the same context from JFK's Berlin speech that you do.
You tie it to other statements that I do not see as related to the question of the Soviets.
I do not believe that JFK was hoping for an eventual collapse of the Soviets...... he was telling them the jig was up......their way would not endure....their communism would not be tolerated and would be brought to an end.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 9:26pm
gee, the warmongers seem upset.
BOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 10:49pm
Again, notice the Bush 28% Clubbers say "Get TOUGH with Iran"....yet THEIR guy did this-
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 20, 2008; Page A04
WACO, Tex., July 19 -- With his moves last week involving Iraq, Iran and North Korea, President Bush accelerated a shift toward centrist foreign policies, a change that has cheered Democrats, angered some Republicans and roiled the presidential campaign.
Bush sent his first high-level emissary to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran, which ended without agreement Saturday. Also in the past two days, the president agreed for the first time to set a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to join North Korean diplomats at six-party talks about ending that country's nuclear weapons program.
The maneuvers underscore how much the Bush administration has changed since 2002, when the president proclaimed Iraq, Iran and North Korea to be an "axis of evil." Now Bush is pushing forward with diplomatic gestures toward Iran and North Korea while breaking with a long-held position on troop withdrawals in the interest of harmony with the Iraqi government.
((Something THEY would call "weak"! They really need to figure out that they're on the Fringe...even compared to DUBYA!!!!...heheh))
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 09:36am
Iran does not have nuclear weapons.the zionist jews in israel have the capacity to attack any country in the world with those deadly weapons and yet nobody dares to ask them to dismantle those weapons.the whole world is aware that israel actually has it,s nuclear missiles aimed at europe and the middle east and that proves that the world is being taken hostage by these criminals and gangsters,
The shameful and treacherous american jewish orgs are in the forefront of anti iranian propaganda in this counry.the aim of these traitors is very simple.to create more wars on behalf of zionism and engulf the world and in particular the USA in anarchy,death and destruction.these dangerous criminals have already cost the USA it,s prestige and have wrecked the nations economy and now they want another war with IRAN and perhaps other countries.
Posted by excalibur999 at 02/12/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 10:49pm
"gee, the warmongers seem upset. BOO!"
What's the matter, FROSTY? Pissed because your wife didn't give you your allowance today? LOL
Posted by pontificus at 02/12/2009 @ 11:58am
The shameful and treacherous american jewish orgs are in the forefront of anti iranian propaganda in this counry.the aim of these traitors is very simple.to create more wars on behalf of zionism and engulf the world and in particular the USA in anarchy,death and destruction.these dangerous criminals have already cost the USA it,s prestige and have wrecked the nations economy and now they want another war with IRAN and perhaps other countries.
Posted by excalibur999 at 02/12/2009 @ 11:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep. Such as US (Israel) support for PJAK - a "good" Kurd terrorist organization.
funded in part by
'The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-293) is an Act of Congress that appropriated $10 million and directed the President of the United States to spend that money in support of groups opposed to the Iranian government. Supporters hailed the Act as an important step in overthrowing of Iran's theocratic government, and instituting a liberal democracy in its place[citation needed]. Opponents claimed the bill was a first step towards a US-led invasion of the country.[1][2] However, proponents claim that the act reduces the likelihood for the use of the US military to "promote democracy" in Iran[citation needed]
In response to the passage of the bill, President George W. Bush lauded the Congress "for demonstrating its bipartisan commitment to confronting the Iranian regime's repressive and destabilizing activities." [3]'
Source: Wikipedia..............
Watch the Kurds as our proxies be the sacrificial lambs once again for the Zionists. Very sad and shameful.
You want moderation in Iran......stop doing Israel's bidding.
Posted by OneVote at 02/12/2009 @ 12:01pm
excalibur999,
About your last post:
As Frosty Zoom says: "Bonk"
You have provided another classic example of unadulterated B.S.
You seem to have it backwards regarding Israelis and being "taken hostage"
Remember the Munich Olympics? Who took who hostage there?
Posted by sjchermak at 02/12/2009 @ 12:13pm
"Armyjihad stated a year or so ago that he would gladly martyr 40% or so of his own population in exchange for serving ALLAH..after all, those 40% or so would be on their way to paradise complete with virgins...for serving the will mof Allah.
I am not sure where the women or children go..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/10/2009 @ 4:00pm "
Of course you won't be having any link to this news...Propagandists like you are the real problem..who have no shame in spreading lies..
See the link below, and disappear from this forum, or try to get some new updates from MegaPhone, GIYUS or Hasbara Brigade:
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media
Posted by freenation at 02/12/2009 @ 2:01pm
freenation,
There is tons of anti-Israel propaganda out in the public domain.
I guess that is OK?
Why is it wrong for those favorable to Israel to try and get their point across? According to you it is, but you haven't explained why.
You haven't explained why free people in free societies only have the right to try and get their points across if their points are those you agree with.
You haven't explained why it is not OK for people with competing views in a free society to put forth their points in the arena of ideas (NOTE: MASK - yes, Rush has used that phrase, that is where I got it from) and then obviously the best ideas win the day.
You haven't defined why thought opposite of what you apparently believe is automatically cateogorized as lies.
You have a lot of explaining to do and questions to answer.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/12/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/12/2009 @ 12:13pm
EXCAL is just the mirror image nuttiness of you "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran" types.
Same crap, different nouns and place names.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 2:56pm
Mask,
What you say is wrong.
"EXCAL" is not the mirror image of Conservatives who support Israel and are for a strong national defense and pro-actively dealing with evil people bent on terror.
There appear to be 3 types:
1. "EXCAL" and others such as syfriendly who are virulent haters of Israel.
2. You, Frosty Zoom, and plenty of others who profess to be in the middle and proclaim we essentially are to do nothing when there is evil, we are to rely on "dialogue" and "negotiations" and "consensus" and "peace". British PM Neville Chamberlain was like this prior to World War II.
3. We Conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and pro-actively dealing with evil people bent on terror, and who support Israel, a nation that just wants to live in peace with it's neighbors, who are hell-bent on destroying it.
#1 group is obviously wrong- they support the evil doers.
#2 group is wrong - the pacifism and desire for peace sound good on the surface, but it usually results in the #1 group getting their way.
#3 group is right - #3 group approach leads to freedom, real peace, liberty, and opportunity.
It is good I have clarified this for you.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/12/2009 @ 3:26pm
sjchermak
I just want american tax money to be spent on americans and their needs such as healh care and education and not be given to a group of people who have been terrorizing an entire region and most of the world for the last 60 yrs.the people of the usa do NOT owe the zionists nothing.actually the zionists are lucky so far since america has been bankrolling their exitence since 1948.we simply are asking our representatives to pay full attention to this country,s needs first.is there anything wrong with that?am i wrong to say that americans must not be sacrifised for the sake of others? we have already given israel almost a trillion in economical and military aid and the results of this stupidity have been tragic for our country.if you are interested in bankrolling zionist terror and apartheid then leave and go work for them for free.once again we do not owe those guys NOTHING.let them get their money from the rich jews all over the world. The USA belongs to americans not the zionists.
Posted by excalibur999 at 02/12/2009 @ 6:45pm
excalibur999,
You say that the USA belongs to Americans:
OK, well then - I as an American think this fellow American deserves my support:
".....I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: September 11th we are all Americans - in grief, as in defiance. Benjamin Netanyahu ......." http://www.brainyquote.com/ quotes/authors/b/ benjamin_netanyahu.html
excalibur999, you are a complete jerk and have no idea what you are talking about. Your description of the situation in the Middle East doesn't square with reality.
Your anti-semetic attitude is, unfortunately, reality.
That is why, because of people like you, Bibi deserves my support. It is the least I can do for someone who supports me.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/12/2009 @ 8:38pm
Posted by excalibur999 at 02/12/2009 @ 6:45pm
Contrast this (via sjchermak):
".....I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: September 11th we are all Americans - in grief, as in defiance. Benjamin Netanyahu ......." http://www.brainyquote.com/ quotes/authors/b/ benjamin_netanyahu.html
With Palestinians' "grief" beamed around the world by CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOJCQr1Now
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 10:09pm
Both Fringes are nuts.
So much so that, again, even DUBYA was opening talks to Iran.
So you're a fringe of the fringe, SJCHER.
Same as EXCAL and SYFRIEND and the nutters who think Hamas are Washington and Jefferson.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 10:35pm
In 1953, the CIA had the first democratically elected head of state of Asia murdered and replaced by a tyrannical monarch who gave the US and Britain all the cheap oil they wanted and had tens of thousands of dissidents imprisoned, tortured or assassinated.
Since the 1979 revolution, official US policy towards Iran has been "regime change".
This has to change. It is not acceptable or justifiable on any grounds.
Actions speak louder than words.
Iran is not a threat to world or regional peace but it is US and Israel's hegemonic will that is at the source of the regions violence.
US needs to normalize its behaviour and act with civility and respect towards the peoples of the world.
It needs to stop threatening and/or destroying any one that does not willfully submit to any or all of its whims.
Normalizing relations with Iran and stop reverse its regime change policy will bring a lot of good will towards the US and will be a major step in the pacification of world relations.
Next step will be to ask Israel to withdraw its illegal settlements, respect UN resolutions and give Palestinians their State has based on the international consensus.
Peace
Posted by Karim_B at 02/12/2009 @ 10:55pm
excalibur999 at 6:45pm spoke of: -
>> a group of people who have been terrorizing an entire region and most of the world for the last 60 yrs. <<
It could be presumed that by "a group of people ... terrorizing an entire region", you meant the Israelis and the M/E. But your accusation extended to "most of the world". Now that could not possibly have been the Israelis. By 1967 they were still only 2.6 million. Just terrorizing the Middle East must have been a handful for so few. They were clearly not up to tormenting most of the world as well. Which means, you meant someone else by that "group of people", eh? You were charging the Jews of messing with the whole world.
Funny how you guys eventually lets the mask drop, Lillian is another example.
Incidentally, this Cong. Rpt , http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
- shows that you are also wrong about the $s. During their early years, and most crucial fights, the Israelis got no more financial assistance from the US than other countries her size.
Moreover, the US embargoed Israel in '48. The Arab countries had complete armies equipped by the British. The Jews had to scrounge in Europe's junk yards for WWII equipment. That refusal to sell Israel weapons was why she fought the Six Day war with British Centurian tanks and French Mirage fighters.
At the same time Israel was a crucial US ally throughout the Cold War. She kept the Soviets' proxies from seizing the Gulf oil fields. Nasser famously said, the road to Riyadh goes through Tel Aviv. There was never a US base in that strategic areas. We had the IDF working for us.
BTW, I don't think you are an American. Yanks are not religious bigots. You don't even have dual loyalty. Your sole allegiance is Jew hatred. You are a true foreigner.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 08:17am
Yanks are not religious bigots.-------------Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 08:17am |
Hugo Pirovano...allow me to introduce you to lvliberty/antisocialist-
"Would you vote for a Mormon for public office? Y/N"----Posted by MASK 12/06/2007 @ 7:41pm
"No"----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/07/2007 @ 01:26am
BLOG | Posted 12/06/2007 @ 12:30pm Governor Romney, You're No Jack Kennedy by John Nichols
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 09:08am
Yanks are not religious bigots. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 08:17am
Really? So you've polled/surveyed every Yank? Wow. I wish I had your positive outlook on Yankees and that much time on my hands.
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2009 @ 12:30pm
Yes, Orwell was of the same feeling as most socialists today - NEXT TIME WE'LL GET IT RIGHT - IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK OUT THIS WAY!!! Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 6:30pm
1) Many democratic socialists (including Orwell then, and many today) condemned Marxist-Leninism as "false socialism." In other words, it was NEVER actually socialism. They opposed it, therefore. They hoped that an alternative, real socialism is possible, distinct from both communism (and of course capitalism, which they also oppose). I (FDR43) am not a socialist - but I won't allow you to misrepresent democratic socialism. (The hope - however naive - for an alternative to both Soviet totalitarianism and capitalism.)
"Right wingers" have no more love of war than any liberal, and since it is 'right wingers' who do most of the fighting (damn few liberals in the ranks) they have reason to fear it more than most. Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 6:49pm
2) You mean right-wingers like George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney, all of whom (unlike say, John Kerry) volunteered to go to Vietnam? Chicken hawks!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:46pm
P.S. Right-wingers, generally speaking, ARE less reluctant to go to war, to think of war as a solution to whatever geopolitical problem there is; this is an attitude of theirs, yes. This is evidenced by the entire Iraq fiasco. Liberals (such as myself) are generally more reluctant to go to war - needless to say, I think we are right and you (and the right) are wrong) - war should always be a last resort. Of course, the infamous "chicken hawks," as noted, like to send OTHERS to war, but not fight themselves.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:51pm
And to get back to my original point, even hawkish types (JFK, Reagan) believed in negotiating with enemies and potential enemies.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:46pm
What's interesting is, in the wake of his abyssmal Presidency, how many of the Right who say that "socialism is Marxism is Stalinism is Maoism"....no difference....and "leftists always excuse the failures of socialism with 'It's never REALLY been tried'"...
are the same ones who say that "Bush wasn't a REAL conservative! REAL conservataism hasn't been tried in years...if ever!"
And never see the hypocrisy!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
Mask,
What annoys me personally and particularly is, not only do they (right-wingers) conflate Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism, but (even more abusurdly and unfairly), liberalism and socialism!
Of course, to some extent, they do this purposely, in order to try to discredit liberalism.
Of course, some on the left engage in a similar sort of demogoguery, when for example they called Reagan (or Bush) "fascists." But that is the state of American political discourse, I guess.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:41pm
Mask, another point: There ARE different types and kinds of socialism, as well as different kinds of capitalism for that matter.
One can be opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, and favor liberal/Keynesian capitalism. If you oppose laissez-fair capitalism, does that mean you oppose ALL capitalism (of any kind)? No. In a sense, the question of whether it IS capitalism or not, is largely irrelevant. Same with socialism - one can be opposed to Soviet "socialism" (whether it was truly a type of socialism or not), and favor ANOTHER kind. The real point is, you think it a bad system and oppose it.
Look, I personally know a democratic socialist. I said to him once (back before I understood), "don't you think that when Lenin started out, he had the same high hopes that you do, of creating a perfect society, etc?" He replied: "No, because (whether it was a type of socialism or not), what THEY (the Marxist-Leninists) were after/wanted (as laid out in writings, speeches, etc) was VERY different than what I want, what MY vision is." In other words, whether Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism were, in the broad sense, both socialism or not, they were (and are) SO different that to conflate the two is unfair and absurd - democratic socialists HATED Soviet-style communism. You CAN do that, and simultanouesly oppose capitalism.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:52pm
The most famous example in history is, of course, Orwell.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:54pm
You can't say "we" will get it right this time, IF what is is you want to create is radically DIFFERENT than whatever it is you are comparing it too.
And the differences between Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism ARE that different. There is so little in common, that it is not fair to equate them as being the same thing.
And again, some conflate them purposely, because they want to discredit ALL socialism.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:57pm
A democratic socialist has as much intellectual and moral obligation to defend Marxist-Leninism as a liberal does to defend laissez-fair capitalism!
(And of course, democratic socialists don't defend it - they totally condemn it, just as liberals totally condemn laissez-fair capitalism.)
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:46pm
"1) Many democratic socialists (including Orwell then, and many today) condemned Marxist-Leninism as "false socialism." In other words, it was NEVER actually socialism. They opposed it, therefore."
Yes, this is a hoary old variation on the utopian dream. "It failed miserably, and it was horrifically authoritarian to boot - so it couldn't have been REAL SOCIALISM!!! Real socialism works!! You know, the real socialism we talk about in our political science classes? It works GREAT there!"
Delusions, my friend. Delusions. Socialism as a political systme fails because it fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens to the product of their labors. If you can deprive a person of his property, then his life and liberty are forfeit as well. All socialistic systems, sooner or later, devolve into slavery. Even the American Founding Fathers could have predicted that, 250 years ago. But the utopian dream lives on...and on....and on...built on the graves of its victims.
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:41pm
"What annoys me personally and particularly is, not only do they (right-wingers) conflate Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism, but (even more abusurdly and unfairly), liberalism and socialism!"
Oh, so we're conflatin' somethin?
Tell you what - why don't you ask MASK what the differences are between a liberal, a progressive, and a socialist - then ask him which one he is. Maybe you could get an answer out of him, because he has always refused to provide one. And there's a few more he habitually dodges as well...but let's see how you do with that one first.
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 3:32pm
I am not a socialist (of ANY kind).
But the point is, what democratic socialists believe in is very different than what Marxist-Leninists believed(d) in.
Different types pf socialism HAVE existed you know. If the British socialists were truly socialists (some debate there), then the socialism they implemented was no Stalinist nightmare at all. Some socialisms are so much better than others, and there are so many kinds and types, that to conflate them all, to act as if one calls oneself a socialist means you are (in effect)defending Stalin or something, is grossly unfair. Harold Wilson had as much in common with Stalin as John McCain does with Adolph Hitler!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:43pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:43pm
"Different types pf socialism HAVE existed you know."
Yes, I know. There are the ones that have not worked very well, and then there have been (and are) the living nightmares. There's nothing wrong with conflating them all together, because they all have the same thing in common: depriving individuals of their property rights 'for the good of society'. But the American founding fathers could have told you that this type of system would never work because the natural rights of man include the rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the ONLY legitimate purpose of a government is to safeguard those rights - all of them equally. And like a three legged stool, without support for all three, the society collapses. There's no need to discuss the many types of socialism because they really all boil down to the same unworkable idea.
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 3:55pm
FDR43
You said "......(unlike say, John Kerry) volunteered to go to Vietnam? ......"
It certainly appears Kerry went to Vietnam so he could have something afterwards (having been to Vietnam) to bolster his political career.
How many political candidates accepting their parties' nomination for the office of President have ever started their speech with "I'm (candidate name), reporting for duty!"
Answer: 1 (one) (John F. Kerry)
And hee was out of there (Vietnam)fast, well before the normal length of his tour of duty, with his superior officers glad to see he was gone.
Yes, I KNOW I am engaging in Swiftboating, which is forbidden by the Left. Guilty as charged!!
Posted by sjchermak at 02/13/2009 @ 4:00pm
I know a democratic socialist professor -we argue a lot, because our views are so different! Sure, occassionally, we converge in a broad sense - we were both against the war in Iraq for example - but then again, he was against going to war in Afghanistan while I was for it. He was against the NATO campaign in Kosovo - I was for it. You see, the radical left opposes ALL use of American military power. (Liberals such as myself do sometimes favor it.)
I presume you want specifics though - I shouldn't have to do this, as obviously there are deep and considerable differences between socialists and liberals - but since you are baiting me, what the heck, I'll bite.
Socialists are against capitalism - liberals believe in it (or at very least, what you might call a mixture of socialism and capitalism). The point is, socialists hate capitalism - ALL capitalism (of any kind, to any degree). Liberals believe in private property - socialists don't. Liberals believe in a non-classless society - socialists (most of them) don't. Liberals believe there are some genuinely good things about capitalism - socialists don't. Liberals believe in equality of opportunity - socialists believe in equality of results. (An important distinctiion and difference.) Liberals believe capitalism is not innately or intrinsicly racist - socialists (some or many of them) believe it is. Liberals want SOME control and planning in the national economy - socialists want TOTAL and COMPLETE control and planning. Liberals think American motivations on the global stage are sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes a mixtrue of both - socialists think they are always purely bad and evil. Liberals are against monetary reparations for African-Americans for slavery - socialists are for them.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:07pm
There are many many differences, in terms of specific policy positions. If not, I would have spent all my time in grad school arguing with Marxist and socialist professors.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:10pm
Founding Fathers said "pursuit of happiness," not property.
They changed it from Locke, remember?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:12pm
You know, I basically agree with you - I am not a socialist.
We both believe in capitalism - yet interestingly, there are LARGE differences between us.
In other words, two people can believe in different KINDS of capitalism, and yet still have (in many ways) very different political views and goals.
Similarly, one can be a socialist and be totally opposed to Marxist-Leninism.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:15pm
Liberals believe in working within the existing system (because it's not a totally bad system).
Socialists believe it is innately and totally evil, and cannot be reformed, that there is no such thing as a "good capitalism."
Liberals do.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:18pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:07pm
Thanks for the honest response, and you know what? I think I'll clip it for future reference. Just as an aside, I think that by your standards, The Nation is a socialist magazine. Let me know what you think.
One more point, however. It is the contention of major historians like Paul Johnson that once a society goes down the path towards socialism (which in its first stages is always 'liberal' by your standards - a kind of political Gresham's law takes over, with the society's top producers generating less and less, and the top consumers consuming more and more, until there is no more wealth to redistribute. From that point on, the State must use ever more strenuous methods of coercion to extract wealth from the populace. Thus, though one may call ones' self a liberal, it's really more accurate to describe yourself as a lukewarm socialist, because the process you contribute to has no natural stopping point once you compromise the right of a person to his or her own property. Madison himself stipulated this in a famous quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Since he had a major hand in writing it, you can be sure the American Constitution was never intended to be an instrument justifying the redistribution of wealth by the State.
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 4:19pm
Liberals were split on the First Gulf War - some were for it, some against.
ALL socialists were (and are) against it.
It is true, in the broad sense, that liberals and socialists are ideological counsins of a sort.
Then again, conservatives and fascists are ideological cousins of a sort - but so what? Does that mean conservatives have to defend or explain fascism?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:22pm
"Then again, conservatives and fascists are ideological cousins of a sort"
Oh really. How so?
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 4:28pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 4:12pm
"Founding Fathers said "pursuit of happiness," not property.
They changed it from Locke, remember?"
Yes, they, or actually Thomas Jefferson, did. It is an article of faith, moreover, among certain academics, that because he did, Jefferson was a proto-socialist. But even a casual perusal of Jefferson's contemporary and later writings shows little support for this, and actually documents quite strongly that he considered property rights to be a natural right of man, and that the role of the government was to protect said right.
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 4:41pm
k330k and Mask wrote:
>> "Would you vote for a Mormon for public office? Y/N"----Posted by MASK 12/06/2007 @ 7:41pm
"No"----Posted by LVLIBERTY <<
Liberty answered correctly. That was an illegitimate question. An American does not vote for a Mormon or a Presbetyrian or a Catholic or a Hindu.
An American evaluates the various qualities of competing candidates and chooses the one he/she feels most comfortable with. All things being equal that may well be a neighbor of his own denomination, but all things are almost never equal.
For that reason politicians never flourish their religion. They never appear as the Baptist candidate, or the Catholic candidare, because they know Americans don't like that and won't vote for that. They know, being of a particular faith, or not being of a particular faith is NOT the main thing for Americans. Making religion THE criteria for a vote, which is what that question did, is resented and rejected, which was Liberty's response.
You don't grasp that. You are so avidly ideological that you will even side with 999, who you know is a swine, against Liberty, who you know is a decent fellow.
999 would prefer to kill you, if you are his bete noire, a Jew, whereas Liberty, if you are his bete noire, a socialist, will defend your right to your opinion (and to your religion, including the Mormon religion).
My point stands. While there are religious bigots in America, ex999 is an example, Americans reject religious bigotry. Were you not such a hopped up ideologues you'd not contest that.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 4:53pm
I hope you're right, but given the signs so far, I don't see Obama standing up to the zionist war / propaganda machine. Ahmadinejad is a rational, decent and probably nice guy compared to moral degenerates like Avigdor Lieberman and Nitanyahu and their racist ilk, but even Obama seems terrified to admit it. We've been taken over by an organized crime syndicate that makes the Nazis look like rank amateurs. Good luck. Obama, you're gonna need it. That is, if you even WANT to do the right thing.
Posted by DejaVu at 02/13/2009 @ 9:22pm
And the differences between Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism ARE that different. There is so little in common, that it is not fair to equate them as being the same thing. And again, some conflate them purposely, because they want to discredit ALL socialism. Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 2:57pm
Here's a simple way to differentiate the two:
Socialists seek a commonality of mediocrity.
Marxists seek a commonality of misery.
Posted by twillie at 02/14/2009 @ 12:07am
DejaVu at 02/13/2009 @ 9:22pm wroteL
>> Ahmadinejad is a rational, decent and probably nice guy<<
Right, Ahmadinejad, whose regime puts Bahais in prison by the hundreds, hangs their women, including a 17 year old girl, for teaching Bahai children Sunday school, and who promises to wipe Israel off the map, is rational, decent, and probably nice.
This guy, at Morningside Heights, brazenly told the students of Columbia University that Iran has no homsexuals. Well, they hanged one last week.
Israel's democratic politicians, who support religious toleration, free speech, gender equality etc., are held up invdidioiusly to this Iranian nobleman.
What an extraordinary, moral pervert and skrewball this DejaVu must be!
No, not extraordinary at all. He is just one of your ordinary Dreyfuss readers and The Nation adepts.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/14/2009 @ 12:13am
The Zionist Hugo_Pirovano Posted: "Israel's democratic politicians, who support religious toleration, free speech, gender equality etc., are held up invdidioiusly to this Iranian nobleman" Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/14/2009 @ 12:13am
Zionist Hugo_Pirovano,
Only a Zionist thug can come up with such outrageous statement. Give us an example of your noble Israeli politicians you Zionist jerk?
Is Avigdor Lieberman one of them? Isn't he the fascist who wants to expel Arabs out of Israel?
Is Ehud Barak, the butcher of Gaza children, another one of your Democratic Israeli politicians?
How about Ehud Olmert; the criminal who is holding 12,000 Palestinians prisoners without charge, many of them kids and who are tortured on regular basis, Is Olmert one of your democratic Israeli Politicians?
You F**ken Zionists must be out of your minds to expect such lies to pass unchecked. You have taken this Nation for granted for too long. Just because you control few expedient thugs in our Congress; it doesn't mean that you can brain-wash the rest of us forever.
Posted by CripThink at 02/14/2009 @ 3:53pm
Posted by CripThink at 02/14/2009 @ 3:53pm
Dude, you are twisted! Last I heard, the terrorists in Gaza were lobbing rockets at random into civilian areas in Israel. How do you go from that to calling the Israelis butchers for trying to put a stop to it? What are they FEEDING you people, anyway? Have you been watching that Mickey Mouse that tells Palestinian kids that jews are pigs that must be slaughtered? It sure sounds like it!!!
Posted by pontificus at 02/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
Dude, you are twisted! Last I heard, the terrorists in Gaza were lobbing rockets at random into civilian areas in Israel. Posted by pontificus at 02/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
Zionist Pontificus,
I take it that Zionist sympathizer like you never heard of the inhumane siege imposed by your Israeli Nazi on Gaza since 2005. The Israeli criminals have controlled Gaza's airspace, territorial water and all border crossings to Gaza; creating Warsaw Ghetto look alike. I guess your Israeli buddies have learned the Ghetto creation from the Nazi very well. The victims of the holocaust have mastered the art of starving other people. So, stop lying about being the victim, Israel's criminality is public knowledge. Evacuate Religious settlements from Palestinian land and quit your biblical fantasy of resurrecting the Greater Israel and no one will toss fertilizer-made rockets at you.
Posted by CripThink at 02/14/2009 @ 8:18pm
Posted by CripThink at 02/14/2009 @ 8:18pm
"Evacuate Religious settlements from Palestinian land and quit your biblical fantasy of resurrecting the Greater Israel and no one will toss fertilizer-made rockets at you."
Same old same old. The poor Palestinians have no other recourse than to attempt to blow up innocent civilians at random, because of 'religious settlements in Palestininan land'. Ever heard of negotiation and diplomacy? I guess not. Human evil is so banal.
Posted by pontificus at 02/15/2009 @ 12:59pm
Ever heard of negotiation and diplomacy? I guess not. Human evil is so banal. Posted by pontificus at 02/15/2009 @ 12:59pm
Zionist Pontificus,
You are either a naïve Zionist or a bluffing Zionist; and the later is the most likely scenario. Mahmud Abbas has given Israel all it wanted and negotiated peace with them since Oslo in 1993. What did Abbas get in return? The Jewish settlements increased four folds in the occupied Palestinian territories the military checkpoints have grown to 620 and the demolition of Palestinian homes goes on unabated. Why should Hamas waste time by following Abbas' vicious model of the so-called peace negotiations? Your ex Zionist Prime Minster Yitzhak Shamir summed up the Israeli attitude when it comes to peace negotiations when he stated: I don't mind negotiating peace with Arabs, so long as, such negotiations never ended. You may go ahead and play your deception to some Fox News audiences; America is beginning to wake up and understand the racist and deceptive nature of Israel.
Posted by CripThink at 02/15/2009 @ 2:34pm
CripThink at 3:53pm said:
>>You F**ken Zionists …<<
I am a Zionist.
The Jews returning, after 2000 years, to the land of their fathers, to the land of the bible, to the land which they made famous, and from which they were driven, returning, after fertilizing the world with their genius, and their moral genius, is breathtaking. History has nothing like that. Only the most scurvy and twisted brutes are not delighted and awed by this demonstration of human courage, will, endurance.
Where are the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, where are the people of Sumaria, Babylonia, Assyria, Phoenicia, Persia, etc., etc., etc.? Gone, long gone, replaced by nations with different cultures, religions, languages. Only the people whom King David and King Solomon ruled 3000 years ago, are still here, and are now back at their ancestral hearths, in the land of their bible, speaking their old language, practicing their old religion, celebrating their old rites and holidays.
There is nothing grander in human history.
Its modern frame makes this spectacle even more breathtaking. The Holy Land is the size of New Jersey while the lands all around are twice the size of the United States and hold most of the worlds' oil riches. The Jews are some six million and their Muslim neighbors are 370 million. But it is those Arabs and Iranians who dread that relative handful, fear them, feel themselves outnumbered and bullied, cannot accept the idea of living side by side with so few.
And much of the world's people agree and sympathizes with such as Hamas, though it explodes crowded city buses, hides its warriors among civilians and in ambulances, and shoots rockets into peaceful villages.
Of course that makes me proud to be a Zionist and proud that most of the US is Zionist.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
CripThink at 3:53pm said:
>> Isn't he [Avigdor Lieberman] the fascist who wants to expel Arabs out of Israel? <<
The last one with a right to discuss fascism is a supporter o Hamas, Saddam Hussein and the Baath, and of Iraq's insurgency, which considered democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, hateful to God.
You side with the worst fascists since the Nazis hanged democrats from meat hooks; that makes you one of them. That you think you are in a position to grow indignant about fascism is ridiculous.
As to Lieberman, he is not one of my favorite politicians, but my country is the US. It is 300 million people strong and stretches form the Atlantic to the Pacific. It has friendly neighbors to the north and south and is the world's sole superpower. From my perspective a Lieberman who wants to deport boisterous Arab Israelis is offensive.
But suppose the USA consisted of just 7 million people living in New Jersey, and the rest of the continent was of a different religion and culture and bitterly opposed to our existence. And suppose 1.4 million of those 7 million in the US were the ethnic brothers of those outside who wanted us dead, and periodically rioted on their behalf, how would I then feel about ethnic cleansing?
Yes, many of Israel's Arab citizens side with the nation's enemies. Some Israeli Arab Knesset members keep visiting Syria and there make speeches urging the Arabs not to slacken in their fight against Israel. They then return to their seats in Israel's parliament, protected by parliamentary immunity.
What is amazing is that Lieberman still only commands a minority of Israel's voters. It is astonishing that a country so threatened from outside, remains so tolerant of its domestic supporters of its tormentors.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/15/2009 @ 4:36pm
Ok then; Zionist Hugo_Pirovano,
You are proud of maintaining the purity and supremacy of the Jewish race since 3000 years, even if it meant screwing up and murdering the indignant Palestinians. Does that make you worse than Hitler who also advocated preserving the Arian Christian race and screwed up your Jewish ancestors in the process? And you call this great experiment. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Your explicit fascist views clearly disqualify you from criticizing Saddam Hussein, since like Saddam, you are advocating deporting Palestinians who disagree with your Pure Jewish-Only state model; even Ahmadinejad didn't go that far.
Zionists of your type, with your fervent zeal and chauvinistic views should not call themselves Americans. It has been proven time and again that Zionists like you have always put Israel's interest ahead of the American Interest. People of your type are serving time in federal prison for selling America's military secrets to their first loyalty (Israel). Let me name few: Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Ben-Ami Kadish, Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman. Go ahead Google these names; these traitors used to be Americans but in fact stabbed America in the back. Those are part of the Zionist minority whose allegiance is to Israel and not to America; don't call yourself part of the 300 million Americans
Posted by CripThink at 02/15/2009 @ 6:55pm
President Obama said again, "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons". Gates said, "Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons". CIA chief Leon Panetta said, "I think there´s no question Iran is developing nuclear weapons". But there´s no evidence, ZERO. 16 US Intelligence Agencies and the UN inspectors in Iran can´t find any evidence for that claim. Are Obama, Gates and Panetta mad ??? Or what is going on ? As there´s no evidence the UN sanctions against Iran are illegal. Have they all gone mad, nuts, bonkers, etc. ???
Posted by claus at 02/15/2009 @ 7:19pm
Posted by claus at 02/15/2009 @ 7:19pm
"Have they all gone mad, nuts, bonkers, etc. ???"
Sure they have. They're all crazy, you're the only sane one.
Posted by pontificus at 02/15/2009 @ 11:35pm
Claus, sounds like you have a good point. Isn't it just a case of semantics. These statements speak to folks' belief that what is known and not known about Iran is consistent with actual plans / intent / early steps.
You can sort of read the NIE report either way -
The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Tehran halted an alleged nuclear weapons program in fall 2003, and that it remained halted as of mid-2007.
Gates and the others you mentioned would probably just assert that they went from more overt prior to Desert Storm to less overt...
The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so.[1]
Gates et al clearly discount the first half of this, as merely meaning so far we haven't caught them, while emphasizing the second part as representing a gathering storm.
For my money, we need to stop anyone and everyone and simultaneously dismantle, move toward total disarmament. I trust guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney with nukes about as much as Ahmejidihad (spelling!?).
Posted by winyahn at 02/16/2009 @ 12:40am
<i>Posted by winyahn at 02/16/2009 @ 12:40am </i>
Your relative trust in Cheney compared to Achmedinejad seems a little skewed, but more importantly irrelevant seeing as how he doesn't hold public office anymore...Also, total global disarmament (which is necessary for domestic disarmament to be at all rational) is impossible.
<i>Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/15/2009 @ 4:36pm </i>
I think this is an interesting point. I would (and I know, this may just give Crip a heart attack) actually agree with him on this one point, that deporting Arab citizens who agree with surrounding countries is simply wrong. If they take action to back that up, that is of course an entirely different story; clearly a country is justified in not letting someone plotting against it remain a citizen.
That said, however, I do think Hugo makes a fair perspective point. Though we may still say that Lieberman's advocacy is objectively wrong, we do so lacking a particularly clear perspective. Though I think the balance of power is a bit different from how Hugo paints it (Israel is hardly weak and few of the surrounding nations are actually likely to ever invade), the surrounding countries are hardly allies. Though the temptation Lieberman faces can be seen as a temptation to do wrong, it is also one that is probably much more understandable when you try to step into his shoes. That said...it's still wrong.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/16/2009 @ 10:45am
"Then again, conservatives and fascists are ideological cousins of a sort"
Oh really. How so?
Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 4:28pm
They are both on the right.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 1:06pm
claus at 7:19pm wrote:
>> there´s no evidence, ZERO. 16 US Intelligence Agencies and the UN inspectors in Iran can´t find any evidence for that claim. <<
Do you operate an espionage service? The UN and the US and French and others believe the Iranian nuclear weapon development is continuing and are extremely worried.
On Feb 12, Greg Miller reported in the LA Times, "the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb... President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's ‘development of a nuclear weapon' ".
Yes, in Nov 2007 a US intel finding concluded, the Iranian weapon design program was suspended in 2003. But not why and for how long. Had the Iranians given up their A bomb ambition? Did they run out of money? Or had they, like the Libyans, bought a good design from the Pakistani proliferator, Khan?
In January DNI McConnell said that Iran is 2 to 3 years away from a missile that could reach Europe, and continues to enrich uranium. The outgoing DCIA Hayden said that he feared the Iranians would soon have the bomb.
In Dec the technical report of a French parliamentary committee affirmed, "there is no longer doubt" about the military purposes of the Iranian nuclear program, and that it will be up and running in two to three years.
Last year the IAEA in Vienna displayed a document from a Dr. Fakrizadeh, of an Iranian Project 110 and 111. It described a missile launch, and a warhead exploding at 650 yards up, the height at which the Hiroshima bomb was detonated. Project 110 is believed to be Iran's nuclear warhead effort, and Project 111 is making it work with an Iranian missile.
Yet you say, there is ZERO reason for concern.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/16/2009 @ 8:44pm
CripThink @ 6:55pm wrote:
>> You are proud of maintaining the purity and supremacy of the Jewish race since 3000 years, even if it meant screwing up and murdering the indignant Palestinians.<<
I said nothing about supremacy or race. You, not I mention, purity. How ridiculous. There are Jews from Morocco and Ethiopian. Defense Minister Mofez is from Iran and looks it. Bar Lev came out of the Balkans. Blond Ariel Sharon is Russian. Ben Gurion was a Pole. People as well traveled as the Jews, and ever as the giving and weak, can't and don't put stock in racial purity. Their purity is about obeying the Torah to the letter. They fuss about separating meat and milk, cleaning the kitchen cupboards for Passover, wearing fringed garments, tsitsis, etc. That is not racial, and even if it were, it would not be comparable to the Nazis who consider Aryans, superior human beings. The Jews believe that they have been chosen to preserve the Torah, to keep its purity, so that it will be in tact when the world wants it. They take pride in performing this onerous duty. But that does not make them superior, merely obedient, nor does the Torah promise them special rewards, in heaven or earth.
Racial purity doesn't exis in the bible. The patriarchs find their wives in far away places. Moses' wife is not a Hebrew, he himself may not have been one. Ruth, not a Jew, has a book of the bible devoted to her. King David and Solomon had many concubines from far away places, their children became Jews. Solomon had relations with the Queen of Sheba, David bedded the wife of his captain, the Hittite. Esther had children, one presumes, from king Ahasuerus who was not a Jew. What happened to all those children? Presumably they became Jews. And you think the Jews have a fetish about racial purity!
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/16/2009 @ 9:03pm
CripThink at 6:55pm said:
>>Your explicit fascist views clearly disqualify you from criticizing Saddam Hussein, since like Saddam, you are advocating deporting Palestinians who disagree with your Pure Jewish-Only state model; even Ahmadinejad didn't go that far.<<
That you stick me with words and ideas I did not utter, in order to call me a Nazi, does not make me one. But it does make you a contemptible jerk. Incidentally, Saddam, whom you, not I, supported, did not deport his foes, he murdered them. He gassed the Kurds of Halabja. He buried hundreds of thousands of Shia who opposed him.
As to Lieberman, he is talking about ceding the swats of land where the villages of Israeli Arabs are concentrated, to the Palestinian National Authority. But, as the only Arabs in the Middle East to enjoy both a decent standard of living as well as full human rights the prospect of being governed by Fatah or Hamas does not appeal to them. They like despising Israel, but they don't despise the high standard of life, and freedom it gives them.
As to persecuted minorities, where is your concern for the Darfurians being murdered and expelled by Arabs? The Palestinians are driving out their Christians. The Saudis don't allow Hindus, Buddhists, Jews into their country, Christians only for short visits, and they may not bring a bible or wear a crucifix. That does not bother you.
As to Ahmadinejad, he denies the Bahais the right to exist because the Bahai's prophet post dates Mohammed who predicted, there would be no prophets after him. Moreover, their central shrine is in Haifa. As a result Bahais, followers of the most benign religion in the world, are imprisoned in Iran, and their women hanged for teaching their faith to their children. But you defend and support Ahmadinejad.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/16/2009 @ 9:30pm
CripThink said:
>>People of your type are serving time in federal prison for selling America's military secrets to their first loyalty (Israel). Let me name few: Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Ben-Ami Kadish, Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman.<<
I googled those names, as you suggested. The last 3 are not in prison. They have not been tried or convicted.
Larry Franklin is in prison. But he is a devout Catholic. A specialist on Iran, he revealed to Rosen and Weissman details about the trouble the Iranians are making for the US in Iraq. They repeated this to an Israeli diplomat. Franklin broke the law and is in jail for disclosing classified information, but not in exchange for money, and not out of disloyalty.
Rosen and Weissman are Jews but they are not in jail, and may not be tried. But even if they are, for informing foreigners of what they knew to be sensitive US govt information, they did not do it for money, or to harm the US.
Kadish is an 84 year old former US army engineer recently charged with handing information (not for money) to Israel, 23 years ago. He is innocent, until proven guilty.
Pollard confessed to giving Israel, out of Zionist sympathies, US intelligence on Syria and other opponents of Israel. His crime was not treason. Treason is defined as helping the enemies of the US. Israel is not an enemy of the US. The US spies on friendly countries, and they spy on us. But when we catch someone spying for Britain, or France, or Germany or they catch one of our spooks, what happens is a slap on the wrist. Pollard has been behind bars for 24 years.
You, who despise the US, are furious that those Jews, "stabbed America in the back." But Nicholson, Haansen and the Walkers who betrayed our submarine secrets and spies for money don't worry you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/16/2009 @ 9:52pm