Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOne thing I heard over and over again during my visit to Tehran in June was that the two sides in Iran's political divide were intent on sabotaging any US-Iran deal concluded by the other side. If President Ahmadinejad moves toward an agreement with the West over Iran's nuclear program, anaylsts told me, the centrist-reformist opposition would denounce it and work to unravel it. On the other hand, if former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi won the election, reformists told me, he would move toward exactly such a deal -- and the right-wing, including Ahmadinejad, would howl and oppose it.
Well, Ahmadinejad won, Mousavi lost -- at least, that's how the story goes -- and voila! the prediction has come true. Ahmadinejad wants a deal, and Mousavi is trying to wreck it.
Yesterday, on his web site, Mousavi issued a militant criticism of Ahmadinejad's diplomacy. Mousavi bitterly denounced the plan, supported by Ahmadinejad, to ship the bulk of Iran's enriched uranium to Russia and France for use in fabricating fuel for a medical-use reactor. That accord, announced October 1, in the first US-Iran talks in thirty years, was widely seen as a breakthrough. But Mousavi is having none of it. He said:
"The discussions in Geneva were really surprising and if the promises given (to the West) are realised then the hard work of thousands of scientists would be ruined."
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is sounding like a dove:
"As long as this government is in power, it will not retreat one iota on the undeniable rights of the Iranian nation. Fortunately, the conditions for international nuclear cooperation have been met. We are currently moving in the right direction and we have no fear of legal cooperation, under which all of Iran's national rights will be preserved, and we will continue our work."
Still, Iranian officials told the US and the P5 + 1 that it is having second thoughts about the agreement. According to various media accounts, Iran's negotiators have said that they will not ship out the bulk of the enriched uranium -- instead, they will dispatch batches of fuel, piecemeal, as they refine additional uranium. Under such a plan, Iran will retain a stockpile of low-enriched uranium that is enough, analysts say, to manufacture a single bomb. (That, of course, would require Iran to further enrich its low-enriched uranium to weapons grade, a very time-consuming and laborious process.)
In many ways, it isn't surprising the Mousavi would emerge as a staunch defender of Iran's nuclear program. In the early 1980s, it was Mousavi and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, his current backer and ally, who teamed to oppose a decision by then-Leader Ayatollah Khomeini to end the nuclear program that began under the Shah. But Mousavi's opposition to Ahmadinejad's deal is pure political opportunism. He is using the nuclear issue as part of his all-out war against Ahmadinejad's rule. It is just one example of the radioactive nature of nuclear politics in Iran -- and it reveals why the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 will be difficult and complex.
That's precisely why bluster, threats and sanctions are a bad idea. The talks are going to take a long time. In the end, they may or may not succeed. Stripped of the political back-and-forth, the fact of the matter is that nearly all sides in Iran would like a deal that protects Iran's basic right to enrich uranium, for peaceful purposes, under appropriate international supervision. But they will fight like cats and dogs over who gets the credit for it. The centrists and the reformists -- i.e., Rafsanjani and Mousavi -- do not want Ahmadinejad to gain international legitimacy by striking a breakthrough deal with the West.
Hillary Clinton, speaking to CNN from Pakistan, sensibly sounded less than alarmist about Iran's back-pedaling, even as various hawks condemned Iran's maneuvering. Said Clinton:
"We are working with the IAEA (the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency), with France, Russia ... who are all united and showing resolve in responding to the Iranian response and seeking clarification. So I'm going to let this process play out."
Still, the question must be asked, What exactly does she mean by "let this process play out." Clinton, among the more hawkish players in the administration on Iran, may well have concluded that as soon as the talks run into a roadblock, it will be time to seek tougher new sanctions on Iran -- including a gasoline and refined petroleum products embargo. Other harsh sanctions are being prepared, and knee-jerk hawks in Congress are reading legislation.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
RD
These people, the black and the green Seyyeds/Theocrats, are opposite sides of the same coin. That is why whatever they say is utter rubbish.
There are more capable Iranians, that put Iranian culture over and above everything else.
Please speak to them.
Posted by alimostofi at 10/30/2009 @ 09:48am
We have now Dreyfuss acting as the apologist defender of "Imanutjob" as somehow suddenly becoming an "honest broker" with the world.
What a joke. Iran continues to lie, hedge, and engage in double speak. Why, because they had no intention of actually backing down from their intention to develop nuclear weapons.
I can hardly wait to see the next "excuse" brought forward by the Iranians and the attempt by Dreyfuss to defend it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12am
Ali, if you read my work, you know that I am hardly a defender of theocrats! Of course, I speak to their opponents. But my argument, too, is that we need to deal with the Iran that exists, not the Iran we wish existed. And the one that exists is ruled by theocrats -- among whom, yes, there are differences. In any case, we need diplomacy, not sanctions and war.
Antisocialist, I don't whether Iran can be persuaded to "back down," and neither do you. I also don't know if the United States can be persuaded to "back down" from its foolish position that Iran does not have the right to enrich uranium. That is the whole point of negotiations. The Bush view, calling Iran evil and refusing to talk, allowed Iran to set up and spin 8,000 centrifuges and accumulate more than a ton of enriched uranium.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/30/2009 @ 10:40am
"Split" on Nukes, Robert?
You mean like "splitting" the atom.
I like it! Thats Good!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/30/2009 @ 11:17am
The Bush view, calling Iran evil and refusing to talk, allowed Iran to set up and spin 8,000 centrifuges and accumulate more than a ton of enriched uranium.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/30/2009 @ 10:40am
No, Iranian lies to the world and to the IAEA, coupled with their covert programs to make a nuclear weapon. Al Baradei's failure to disclose a memo showing that Iran was building and testing a nuclear capable weapon. thankfully, we will soon be rid of Al Baradei.
The current trial in Germany of a German with Iranian dual citizenship for selling prohibited nuclear equipment to Iran
http://tinyurl.com/kklkgu
A leaked internal memo written by the IAEA also found that Iran probably had "sufficient information" to build a bomb, and that it had "probably tested" a high-explosive component of a nuclear warhead.
http://tinyurl.com/yajcrcf
Yet you seem to suggest we should trust a pathological liar like "Imanutjob"?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 11:31am
Actually, Mr Dreyfuss, you made a salient point-
"Antisocialist, I don't whether Iran can be persuaded to "back down," and neither do you."---Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/30/2009 @ 10:40am
He doesn't care. He wants Israel (since obviously Obama won't) to bomb Iran and do it overwhelmingly and will be dismissive of any and all "collateral damage". He will never accept any negotiation or deal or treaty. He wants Iran attacked...now...and accepts no other solution.
Larry loves war and loves Israel...one slightly more than the other, but not sure which.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:41am
Good grief, I know this isn't my subject, Anti blowing Iran a new one is not going to help anything, including Israel.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/30/2009 @ 12:09pm
No, Iranian lies to the world and to the IAEA, coupled with their covert programs to make a nuclear weapon. Al Baradei's failure to disclose a memo showing that Iran was building and testing a nuclear capable weapon. thankfully, we will soon be rid of Al Baradei.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 11:31am
This little canard was handedly debunked by Gareth Porter: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48213
Posted by nkurland at 10/30/2009 @ 12:14pm
Good grief, I know this isn't my subject, Anti blowing Iran a new one is not going to help anything, including Israel.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/30/2009 @ 12:09pm
I never said that. I agree with the US, UK, France, Germany, that strong sanctions must be implemented for now.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:37pm
"I never said that. I agree with the US, UK, France, Germany, that strong sanctions must be implemented for now."-----Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:37pm
(Watch)
So, Larry, in your view, given the nature of the Iranian leadership....will "strong sanctions" work?
(Yes, he knows his answer. But will take a lot of teeth dragging to get the FINAL answer.)
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 1:24pm
When a defender of U.S. imperialist-led globalism like Thomas P Barnett concedes Iran should and will get the bomb, that Israel cannot expect to be the sole possessor of such in the region, the writimg is on the wall.
Posted by zionopp at 10/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
Posted by zionopp at 10/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
1. Barnett is a moderate/leftist who supports John Kerry
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
2. We are on the verge nuclear winter in the ME
<There is no doubt that the current nuclear race in the Middle East is largely prompted by the fear of a revolutionary Iran using an arsenal as a means of establishing hegemony in the region. Iran's rivals for regional leadership, especially Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are aware of the propaganda appeal of the Islamic Republic's claim of being " the first Muslim superpower" capable of defying the West and rivaling it in scientific and technological fields.
Mohamed al Quwaihis, a member of Saudi Arabia's appointed parliament, the Shura Council, warns of Iran's growing influence. Addressing the Shura Council earlier this month, he described Iranian interferences in Arab affairs as "overt," and claimed that Iran is "endeavoring to seduce the Gulf States, and recruit some of the citizens of these countries to work for its interests."
The Shura devoted a recent session to "the Iranian threat," insisting that unless Tehran abandoned its nuclear program, Saudi Arabia should lead the Arabs in developing their own "nuclear response." The debate came just days after the foreign ministry in Riyadh issued a report identifying the Islamic Republic's nuclear program as the "principal security threat to Arab nations."
A four-nation Arab summit held in the Saudi capital on March 11 endorsed that analysis, giving the green light for a pan-Arab quest for "a complete nuclear industry." Such a project would draw support from Pakistan, whose nuclear industry was built with Arab money.>
http://tinyurl.com/dzq9t7
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 2:25pm
Larry wants Iran bombed...and now.
Why? His love of war, his hatred of Islam, and he toes the Likud party line.
Nothing more you need to know. The rest is just filler.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 3:06pm
Israel stands ready to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as they feel that it is prudent to do so. They have stated as much recently. I think it will happen before Christmas.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/30/2009 @ 3:11pm
It have been under the impression that there was no divide among Iranians on the development of nuclear power by that country. There is no deal yet! While Iran is impressive in many ways, I am hard to impress after our confrontation with the Soviet Union. Non- proliferation agreement should should be negotiations without threats!
Posted by pjcasey at 10/30/2009 @ 3:53pm
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/30/2009 @ 10:40am
I do. Take a look at what happened to the Israeli army in the 2006 Lebanon War. The bottom line is that Iran doesn't need nukes because they are light years ahead of pretty much everyone else in asymmetrical warfare.
If I were leading Iran, I'd put together about a few hardened platoons of Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, put them on the ground in Mexico, give them a lot of money to buy access to cross the border, buy weapons and conduct infrastructure hits on the U.S. "homeland" in response to U.S. military moves within Iran. In fact, I would bet they probably have weapon stashes and Hezbollah cells already in the United States.
On the Iranian front, you already have experienced fighters that have been fighting the U.S. for six years in Iraq and know U.S. tactics - we've essentially trained them. You already have many weapons caches, harden positions - not to mention a swarm attack for Persian gulf shipping that will send our economy into a depression.
People like antisocialist don't have a fuckin' clue - and if push comes to shove, Iran might be a little bit more than neocon hawks bargained for. You might as well talk about getting the Russians or the Chinese to back down.
Let's talk about pushing the Chinese around in a world where they have ballistic missiles that are accurate enough to hit aircraft carriers. The world has moved on from WWII, and we still think we're top dog because of smart bombs and energy weapons. Expensive technology doesn't win wars. Low tech in the hands of disciplined people on the ground that can innovate wins wars - and if we push this, we're going to get another chance to learn that lesson.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 4:37pm
People like antisocialist don't have a fuckin' clue - and if push comes to shove, Iran might be a little bit more than neocon hawks bargained for. You might as well talk about getting the Russians or the Chinese to back down.
Let's talk about pushing the Chinese around in a world where they have ballistic missiles that are accurate enough to hit aircraft carriers. The world has moved on from WWII, and we still think we're top dog because of smart bombs and energy weapons. Expensive technology doesn't win wars. Low tech in the hands of disciplined people on the ground that can innovate wins wars - and if we push this, we're going to get another chance to learn that lesson.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 4:37pm |
1st you claim I exaggerate Iran's capabilities, now I don't have a clue how prepared they are.
Make up your mind.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 4:40pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 4:40pm
I know following a logical argument is hard for you, but do try. Your arguments regarding Iran revolve around childish notions that Iran has crazy mullahs desperate to develop nuclear weapons so they can attack Israel or the United States.
The argument I've laid out doesn't require nuclear weapons. It also is the response of rational actors taking the fight to the people attacking them because those people (the U.S.) are so busy starting and fighting wars elsewhere that their security at home is practically non-existent. It would be trivial to smuggle in C4, several 2-3 man demolition teams and do a coordinated attack - and no amount of fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or anywhere else is going to change that fact. It would also cause a lot of soul searching because attacks on U.S. soil would cause a rethinking of our foreign policy, particularly if troops were dying in significant numbers unheard of before as we attack Iran.
Another important detail, I'm talking about a defensive strategy. Hezbollah holds back the Israeli army in Lebanon in 2006 because they are sitting on defensive positions. Even an offensive strategy, like a U.S. attack mentioned above, would have the primary objective of forcing the U.S. to divert a larger portion of its force for border security. It wouldn't be some war of aggression idea of occupying a country - such as we have because of our outdated WWII fighting strategies.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 8:04pm
The United States should be helping Iran acquire a nuclear weapon as a strategic deterrent to the nuclear-equipped, Nazi psychotics of Israel. The other alternative is a nuclear-free Mid East, which Iran supports and Israel rejects.
As in all matters, Israel has absolutely no case whatsoever.
None.
Posted by SmashIsrael at 10/30/2009 @ 8:35pm
I know following a logical argument is hard for you, but do try. Your arguments regarding Iran revolve around childish notions that Iran has crazy mullahs desperate to develop nuclear weapons so they can attack Israel or the United States.
The argument I've laid out doesn't require nuclear weapons. It also is the response of rational actors taking the fight to the people attacking them because those people (the U.S.) are so busy starting and fighting wars elsewhere that their security at home is practically non-existent. It would be trivial to smuggle in C4, several 2-3 man demolition teams and do a coordinated attack - and no amount of fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or anywhere else is going to change that fact. It would also cause a lot of soul searching because attacks on U.S. soil would cause a rethinking of our foreign policy, particularly if troops were dying in significant numbers unheard of before as we attack Iran.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 8:04pm
No wonder you're confused, you've completely misstated my views.
I don't hold that Iran is dependent on nukes to attack Israel. They currently do so through the IRG and Hezbollah and Hamas. And those are hardly defensive positions as you stated.
Secondly, the Mullahs and nutcases like Achmadinejad believe they can survive a nuclear war. And as I've stated, the Arabs believe that also and are just as concerned as we are.
It is no coincidence that we have an uptick in terrorist arrests recently. These are mostly trial balloons using people that are easily expendable (although everyone is expendable to Muslims).
You think you are smart by half SRJ; but you really don't have a clue about me or my knowledge and connections. Nor will you ever.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
What a joke. Iran continues to lie, hedge, and engage in double speak. Why, because they had no intention of actually backing down from their intention to develop nuclear weapons.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12am
now, why am i smelling hypocrisy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 10:48pm
Israel stands ready to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as they feel that it is prudent to do so. They have stated as much recently. I think it will happen before Christmas.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/30/2009 @ 3:11pm
oh little town of bethlehem...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 10:52pm
(although everyone is expendable to Muslims).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
do you mean the muslims who dropped the atomic bombs on japan or the muslims who used white phosphorus in fallujah or the muslims who covered an entire nation with carcinogenic herbicide?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 11:01pm
but you really don't have a clue about me or my knowledge and connections.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
neither do you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 11:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
"You think you are smart by half SRJ; but you really don't have a clue about me or my knowledge and connections. Nor will you ever."
I judge arguments based on their merits. Your argue that:
1. Hezbollah kills a couple of Israeli soldiers patrolling a border (close to Shebba farms?), and Israel bombs Lebanese infrastructure and starts a full on conflict that ends in thousands of Lebanese civilians dead. But Hezbollah is to blame, apparently.
2. Wild ass speculation about Iran's President - who is basically the Dick Cheney of Iran but with less power than our Vice President - and mullahs generally that show you know next to nothing about the country.
3. While I agree with this point, I don't see how this helps you.
Not much of an argument here - certainly nothing that even gives the faintest whiff that you have clue one about what you are talking about or have any connections worth talking about.
You are right. I don't know you. I don't want to know you. Your arguments are bad, and while you hint around that you might have had some connections to DoD, CIA and others back in Vietnam, your information now is as stale as ten year old Wonder Bread, a situation only made worse by your ideological filter.
Shit, if you said something that made sense, I'd agree with you. But hardlining on Iran is stupid policy - as stupid as talking about attacking Russia, China or North Korea.
And rather than trying to address my arguments, you against resort to lame ass - "you don't know me". Try to offer a cogent argument about why we should be supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran. You can't because the only thing you got is some Old Tyme Religion centered on Israel. Your religion makes for terrible foreign policy.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
And rather than trying to address my arguments, you against resort to lame ass - "you don't know me". Try to offer a cogent argument about why we should be supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran. You can't because the only thing you got is some Old Tyme Religion centered on Israel. Your religion makes for terrible foreign policy.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
I never said we should be supporting Saudi Arabia over Iran. I don't want us supporting either one. Neither want's anything good for America.
It's not my religion that makes foreign policy. It's history of Islam and the Islamic faith itself.
That's why we can never find agreement. You have blinders to Islam and history. I still cannot fathom why you approve of people that want you dead or enslaved.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 12:35am
Thanks, Mr. Dreyfuss, and Mask, for telling 'antisocialist' to shove it. The guy's a moron and a loser, but unfortunately, he's got a lot of company. It probably is a fool's game trying to teach a pig to sing, but hey, someone has to try or we wouldn't know it to be impossible....
Antisocialist will never accept that his brand of fundamentalism is every bit as corrupt, arrogant, evil and degenerate as any 'Muslim' brand he tries so hard to smear. Hate and ignorance know only hate and ignorance. Stay in church, anti; do Jesus a favor and never mention His name again. Take your hate and ignorance to Hell, with you.
Nice piece, Mr. Dreyfuss. Keeping a clear head is not easy...... especially with loudmouths like this around.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/31/2009 @ 01:24am
Nobody, except LaRauchians and other asserted jerks, believes, or pretends to believe, that the Iranian leadership wants a deal that will deny it a nuclear arsenal.
I certainly don't know (nor do poseurs like Dreyfuss), what political or technical problems Tehran has to cope with.
Part of it is undoubtedly a desire to avoid sanctions at a time when the mullahs are an particularly shaky ground economically and vis a vis their public.
More intriguingly, there may be a problem with their UF6. It may be contaminated by molybdenum to a degree the Iranians are not yet capable of dealing with.
Molybedumn can add to the corrosive effect of uranium hexafluoride inside gas centrifuges. Additionally, having a relatively high thermal neutron absorption coefficient it downgrades the efficiency of the fuel.
The problem is not severe at enrichment levels of less than 5%, but when the fuel is at 20% enrichment the molybdenum is much more compromising.
Which may be why the Iranians want the French and Russians to do the laborious work of filtering their fuel, or better still, have it exchanged in a lump swap, for clean U235 already enriched to almost 20%.
I don't know the real truth of the matter, except that it does not involve Iran turning honest, going straight, and abandoning its quest for the bomb.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/31/2009 @ 06:37am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 12:35am
"I don't want us supporting either one."
Yes. You'd rather we make war on all Muslims, which would be rather hard to do considering that they control the vast majority of the world's oil resources.
"It's not my religion that makes foreign policy. It's history of Islam and the Islamic faith itself."
Meanwhile, on the Iranian equivalent of The Nation, a Muslim poster makes the same observation about Christianity. "Islamic faith itself" is just code for Larry's filter that reads passages out of context or without taking into account other passages that contradict it. A Muslim could do the same by cherry picking passages out of the Bible, like Matthew 10:34.
"You have blinders to Islam and history."
No, I just hold Islam (and other religions for that matter) to the same standard as the Judeo-Christians. If we are to use history as our guide, then I would likely make the atheist argument that organized religion is the source of much of the evil in this world.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/31/2009 @ 06:37am
"I don't know the real truth of the matter, except that it does not involve Iran turning honest, going straight, and abandoning its quest for the bomb."
Any thoughts on when Israel is going to turn honest, going straight, and admitting that they have nuclear weapons? Perhaps they could also sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and undergo IAEA inspections? Or, do you like your honesty only one way, when convenient?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/31/2009 @ 08:50am
I don't know the real truth of the matter, except that it does not involve Israel turning honest, going straight, and abandoning its massive nuclear arsenal and its racist policies of mass slaughter. Posted by Pirovano at 10/31/2009 @ 06:37am
..have taken the liberty of adjusting your post, Pirovano. It now reads accurately.
I'd add that the only sane measure is for an outside body like the IAEA to carry out enrichment for approved and inspected Mid East states. The commonsense solution was proposed by el baradei. It received support from Iran and was summarily rejected by the sewage of Israel.
Not that this was a surprise to anyone.
Posted by rykart at 10/31/2009 @ 08:52am
Neocon Scorecard
1) Hillary telling Paki government they are hiding terrorists & "we don't have to give you "the money."
2) Afghan elections - Hillary says we can have "legitimate elections" even though Karzai opposition doesn't participate.
3) Iran - overthrow unsuccessful - forging on as an independent state
4) Iraq - coming apart
5) Israel - Hillary tells Abbas he should complain about 3,000 more housing units in West Bank - phrased as a "restart" on peace process.
Ready for WWIII everyone?
US grows weaker day by day. We are neck deep in quicksand.
Posted by OneVote at 10/31/2009 @ 2:21pm
5) Israel - Hillary tells Abbas he should complain about 3,000 more housing units in West Bank - phrased as a "restart" on peace process.
"Abbas should not complain" - correction.
Posted by OneVote at 10/31/2009 @ 2:23pm
So in Mr. Dreyfuss's view, Ahmadinejad is a dove and this insane idea is supported by a quote which doesn't even come close to accepting the deal Iran is offered; all it does is it praises capitulation of the West to Iran. On the positive side, Mt. Dreyfuss acknowledges that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and the opposition in their approach to the world and hatred for the US and the West; so next time when the leftists try to say that Iran is a complex country with various views, they may be laughed at. It is not clear why this fact proves that sanctions and threats are a bad idea though. He is saying that the talks will be long and may or may not succeed. Sure, by that time Iran will have had its nuclear bomb (how can any reasonable person doubt that it's Iran goal considering all lies and deception?) but that doesn't bother Mr. Dreyfuss, I guess. Can anyone be sure that there is no other secret nuclear plant in Iran?
Posted by teasethegeese at 10/31/2009 @ 3:01pm
your information now is as stale as ten year old Wonder Bread,
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
bad example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hehJJmL8xE0
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/31/2009 @ 3:31pm
"how can any reasonable person doubt that it's Iran goal considering all lies and deception?"
Posted by teasethegeese at 10/31/2009 @ 3:01pm
Yes. Why on earth would anyone doubt the word of the Israelis, simply because every word out of their mouths from exodus to the present has been a lie?
Who knows? Maybe this time they're being truthful?
Sure.
And I'm Reinhold Messner!
Posted by rykart at 10/31/2009 @ 3:37pm
rykart at 10/31/2009 @ 08:52am wrote:
>> it does not involve Israel turning honest, going straight, and abandoning its massive nuclear arsenal and its racist policies of mass slaughter. <<
The lies and tricks of Iran are acknowledged by everyone, including Europe, Russia and the IAEC, and not least the Arabs, who know Irans nuclear program is not benign, and fear it.
As to Israel, it has never denied that it has a weapon program and it is careful NOT to disabuse its neighbors' assumption that it has a massive nuclear arsenal. There is no dishonesty in any of that.
Furthermore, while the Iranian program is illegal the Israeli's is not. Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, in exchange for substantial scientific and technological assistance, renounced the right to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel never signed the treaty, did not benefit from any IAEA assistance, and retains the right to a nuclear arsenal.
If any nation has sound reason to fear for its life, it is Israel. The neighbors of no other country on the globe have for sixty years sought eradication. In short, no other nation is as justified in protecting itself with a nuclear option.
Certainly not Iran. None of its neighbors aspires to erase her from the globe, or could, even if they had that ambition. Iran is immense, three times larger that France, and with 65 million people. Even hundreds of A bombs could not incinerate such a huge land mass. While Israel, 55 times smaller and with only 6 million Jews is most certainly tiny enough to make its total eradication physically doable.
Which is why Iran and Hezbullah and Syria are so keen on a nuclear option.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/31/2009 @ 5:18pm
Iran has never attacked a neighbor. Israel has attacked every country in the region except cypress, with massive destruction and horrific loss of human life, in the tens of thousands, nearly all civilian.
Iran has been receptive to a proposed nuclear free Mid East. It is sheer unadulterated racism to suggest that arab states don't have severe security concerns, particularly given that Iran's democracy was destroyed by the US and Iraq's entire country was destroyed by the US and the blood-soaked filth of Israel sit nearby, menacing both with nuclear weapons.
Strip Israel of its nukes, cut off funds until the Israelis RESEMBLE human beings and the region will be vastly more secure.
Posted by rykart at 10/31/2009 @ 5:33pm
We must press on and can't turn back. The US has opened a dialogue with Iran and must continue. Dialogue equates to progress and any progress in the Mid-East is a good thing. Carefull diplomacy is required now that Ahmadinejad has reached out to the West.
Posted by RJ. Agen at 10/31/2009 @ 5:49pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/31/2009 @ 08:50am
It is not me making war on Islam. Rather it is Islam that has been at war with the rest of civilization (with some brief pauses) for nearly 1400 years.
You want to find the word "kill" or "slay" "unbelievers" in that passage.
Again, you are defending people who want you dead. That means your continued defense of Islam makes you either suicidal or a closet Muslim.
I repeat again, you cannot cite a single passage in the NT that calls Christians to go out and conquer nations in the name of Jesus. You cannot cite a single passage in NT scripture that calls for taxing unbelievers, calls for killing unbelievers, calls for ruling unbelievers in this life.
I have to question the sanity of anyone who supports that murderous religion unless they are actually a member of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:11pm
straight to hell you'll go, larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/31/2009 @ 8:29pm
larry the laughingstock
Posted by SmashIsrael at 10/31/2009 @ 9:15pm
7 out of every 10 Palestinians openly admit to believing it is okay to kidnap, torture, and murder Israeli civilians.
Israel is a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic liberal democracy founded by Holocaust survivors that has contributed more to the world in terms of science and technology than any other nation despite being a barren wasteland with no natural resources constantly under attack by brutal genocidal Arab dictatorships far larger than it. Arabs in Israel enjoy a higher standard of living and a greater amount of freedom in Israel than they would in any Arab country. As such, they love Israel and do not boycott any Jewish businesses there for the sake of their Palestinian brothers. Israel has saved tens of thousands of Ethiopians. It supplies the Palestinians with electricity and clean water because they are too backwards to develop it themselves, yet is condemned for not doing more to aid savages pledged to its destruction.
Palestinians enslave and torture their women. They indoctrinate their own children.
They have their state. It is a backwards Nazi terror training camp with no clean water. It is a primitive, uneducated, unintelligent, jihadist wasteland and economic basket case that survives only with American and Israeli aid. Its people danced in the street to celebrate 9/11.
Even most Arabs hate the Palestinians and view them as beasts to be allied with only for the sake of Jew-hatred.
The Palestinians overwhelmingly favor terror, Sharia law, escalating war with Israel, killing gays, and exterminating Jews.
I have absolutely no reservations whatsoever about stating that the Palestinians are less evolved and inferior to the Israelis morally, culturally, and technologically, though not genetically.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 9:30pm
ha ha ha ha ha
What a laugh!
the filth of israel are SO JEALOUS of diaspora Jews, who made major contributions in music, art, literature, mathematics, science of the sort the vile troglodytes of Israel could not even imagine!
Where is the Israeli Schoenberg? The Israeli Einstein? The Israeli Vladimir Horowitz? The Israeli Kafka? The Israeli Paul Celan? The Israeli Mandelstam? The Israeli Heinrich Heine? The Israeli Walter Benjamin? The ISRAEli Bruno Schultz.. and on and on and on???
The Israelis are ZEROS..bacteria who have managed to produce NOTHING!
The Israelis??
A complete washout, because Israel has always been the place where Jewish losers, jewish gangsters, jewish criminals and jewish scum who can NOT compete creatively, wind up.
Philip Roth put it very well:
"Jews have a reputation for being intelligent, and they are intelligent. The only place I have ever been where all the Jews are stupid is Israel. I spit on them! I spit on them!"
Posted by SmashIsrael at 10/31/2009 @ 9:53pm
What a joke. Iran continues to lie, hedge, and engage in double speak. Why, because they had no intention of actually backing down from their intention to develop nuclear weapons.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12am
Really? So I take it you;ve read an IAEA or US intelligence report that states Iran are developing nukes or intend to develop nukes?
I know how you hate evidence and facts, but it usually helps when you are tryign to preach to non winbnuts.
Posted by Shingo at 10/31/2009 @ 10:03pm
No, Iranian lies to the world and to the IAEA, coupled with their covert programs to make a nuclear weapon.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 11:31am
As the IAEA and the 16 intelligence agencies have stated, there is no such thing.
"Al Baradei's failure to disclose a memo showing that Iran was building and testing a nuclear capable weapon. thankfully, we will soon be rid of Al Baradei."
Wrong again.
The memo is based on forged documents and a stolen laptop that was provided by the political wing of the terrorist group, the MEK, who are also a front group for the Mossad.
http://tinyurl.com/ygnnvas
As a scientist, Al Baradei is not swayed by political hacks who forge such evidence.
"The current trial in Germany of a German with Iranian dual citizenship for selling prohibited nuclear equipment to Iran"
Hahha. from the link:
"The judges agreed (the there was no basis to the allegations) and dismissed the charges."
This is one of caountless cases where the right wing hacks at ISIS have assumed that anything that has a posisble dual use purpose, contituteds eveidence fo nuclear weapons development.
"Yet you seem to suggest we should trust a pathological liar like "Imanutjob"?"
How does a pathological liar become a pathological liar when they are never found to be lying?
You're so gullible Larry. Aren't you tired of weapring egg on your face?
Posted by Shingo at 10/31/2009 @ 10:15pm
http://tinyurl.com/dzq9t7
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 2:25pm
Pure anti Iranian drivels without any basis in fact.
Palkistan has 90 nukes, India hundreds and Isrlae 200 yet Iran, who has no nukes or nuclear weaposn program, and is a signatory to the NPT, is fueling nuclear arms race?
Too funny.
Posted by Shingo at 10/31/2009 @ 10:19pm
They currently do so through the IRG and Hezbollah and Hamas. And those are hardly defensive positions as you stated.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:08pm
Both Hezbollah and Hamas are resitance groups to Israeli occupation.
"Secondly, the Mullahs and nutcases like Achmadinejad believe they can survive a nuclear war. "
Based on what evidence?
"You think you are smart by half SRJ; but you really don't have a clue about me or my knowledge and connections. Nor will you ever."
You've given us plenty fo clues Larry. Your ignorance and your enthusiatic supoort for any anti Iranina propaganda that comes your way is an ample demonstration of your knowledge (or lack of) and your so called connections.
Posted by Shingo at 10/31/2009 @ 10:24pm
Even most Arabs hate the Palestinians and view them as beasts to be allied with only for the sake of Jew-hatred.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 9:30pm
The world had the same attitude to Jews during and after WWII. I take it your proud of that chapter of Western history?
Posted by Shingo at 10/31/2009 @ 10:31pm
"Iran has never attacked a neighbor"
During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 U.S. diplomatic personnel and held them hostage; Carter's reaction was fumbling paralysis. About a decade later, Iran topped this evil. Khomeini issued his infamous Fatwa aimed at censoring, even outside his borders, any ideas uncongenial to Muslim sensibility. This was the meaning of his threat to kill British author Rushdie and to destroy his American publisher; their crime was the exercise of their right to express an unpopular intellectual viewpoint. In April 1983 Iran's jihadist proxies in Lebanon rammed a truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the Reagan administration responded by doing nothing. Months later, encouraged by Washington's inaction, Teheran issued a kill order--via its ambassador in Syria--to its allied groups in Beirut. Early one morning, an Islamist suicide bomber set off a massive explosion at the barracks where U.S. marines were sleeping and killed 241 of them. In 1985, TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver. In 1996, nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. According to a front-page story in The New York Times(6/21/98): "Evidence suggesting that Iran sponsored the attack has further complicated the investigation, because the United States and Saudi Arabia have recently sought to improve relations with a new, relatively moderate Government in Teheran." In other words, Clinton evaded Iran's role because he wanted what he called "a genuine reconciliation."
...
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:40pm
Iran, according to the State Department, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. It is a matter of public record that Iran's Revolutionary Guards harbored and aided most of the 9/11 hijackers months before 9/11 and even worked to transport them abroad and took action to stop any red flags from being raised when they did so. The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives". Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners.
In 1983, Saddam Hussein pleaded with Iran to put an end to the war between them. He unilaterally surrendered to the Mullahs, who soon declared their intention of conquering Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and exporting the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East. Hundreds of thousands died as a consequence. Iran is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israeli civilians. Iran has committed acts of war against the USA, UK, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Iran has also threatened to nuke Israel and has stated it intends to invade and annex Bahrain.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:42pm
Remember the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran? It was a cruise missile fired by an intellectually dishonest State Department bureaucracy into the heart of George W. Bush's Iran policy. In a footnote, the authors very cleverly defined the term "nuclear-weapons program" to refer only to facilities and activities explicitly dedicated to the production of warheads; then they revealed that Iran had once operated such a program but had abandoned it in 2003. "Iran Abandoned Nuclear-Weapons Program in 2003" became a headline the world over, as the authors knew it would. Of course, even as those headlines were published, Iran was ramping up its enrichment efforts at sites that could be devoted to civilian or military use. It was these nominally ambiguous sites that had prompted fears in the first place -- and the new information that Iran had as recently as 2003 operated an EXPLICIT weapons program, if presented non-tendentiously, would only have heightened them. As presented, it tricked the public into thinking the time was right to release a flock of doves in Tehran's direction. The revelation of the Qom site and further displays of Iranian bellicosity (cf. its recent missile tests) confirm the foolishness of the strategic view that motivated this NIE. But time favors the proliferator, and the price has been paid.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:46pm
During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 U.S. diplomatic personnel and held them hostage
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:40pm
The last time I looked at a map, the US was not a neighbor of Iran and the kidnapping of the 52 hostages was not at attack on the US. BTW, all 52 hostages were returned alive and unharmed.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 03:06am
Iran, according to the State Department, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:42pm
This is the height of hypocrisy, given that the State Department is itself a sponsor of terrorism, supporting the terrosit groups the MEK (listed by the very same department as a terrosit group) and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups like Jundulla and Fatah al Islam.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 03:11am
Remember the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:46pm
Too well.
That's the same NIE that Dick Cheney tried to suppress for 12 months.
That's the same NIE that Dennis Blair, head of all US intelligence, testifying before the Senate, stated was still valid.
That's the same NIE that is valiadated by countless IAEA Reports.
That's the same NIE that the all 16 US intelligence agencies stated was correct the same week the US made their statement about the allegded hidden facility at Qom.
"In a footnote, the authors very cleverly defined the term "nuclear-weapons program" to refer only to facilities and activities explicitly dedicated to the production of warheads"
Rubbish. The reports referred to all activities relating to nuclear wepoans proliferation.
Even the allegation of the existence of a program in 2003 was based on evidence the CIA regards as dusbious and unreliable.
The revelation of the Qom site came when Iran declared the existence fo the facility, which at this stage is nothign but a hole in the ground, a full 18 months sooner that Iran were required to declare it as per their obligations under the NPT.
In fact, the US probably lied about their claim that they knew about this facility for 3 years, otherwise it would have been included in the 2007 NIE.
I love it when wingnuts try to tackle this subject. It's so easy to slap them around.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 03:19am
In 1983, Saddam Hussein pleaded with Iran to put an end to the war between them. He unilaterally surrendered to the Mullahs, who soon declared their intention of conquering Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and exporting the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/31/2009 @ 10:42pm
Apart from teh fact this is complete rubbish, it's amazing that the same person who has repeatedly cited Iraq's attack on Iran as a reason to get reason rid of Saddam, now arugues that it was Iran's fault?
In fact, what really happned was that in 1983, the US stepped in and convinced Iraq not to surrender but to escalate the war with their help.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 04:24am
"and the kidnapping of the 52 hostages"
It qualifies as an act of war.
"the State Department is itself a sponsor of terrorism"
Why do you hate America?
"In fact, what really happned was that in 1983, the US stepped in and convinced Iraq not to surrender but to escalate the war with their help."
No, though America did start seriously supporting Saddam when Iran vowed to occupy Iraq and then do the same to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:49am
The truth is that Iran and Afghanistan are the only countries whose governments were involved in 9/11.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:51am
The truth is that Iran and Afghanistan are the only countries whose governments were involved in 9/11.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:51am
iran -- al qaeda???
••
uh, viceroy, you've missed one very big country on your list.
••
uh, viceroy, u.s. foreign policy uses terrorism as one of its main tools. after all, isn't a 9 year old boy terrified every time he hears the drone flying overhead?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 12:12pm
"and the kidnapping of the 52 hostages"
It qualifies as an act of war.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:49am
uh, viceroy,
does "overthrowing the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq" qualify as an act of war, too?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 12:14pm
rykart at 10/31/2009 @ 5:33pm wrote:
>> Iran has never attacked a neighbor. <<
Nor has Burma; for that matter not has Korea. Korea has fought a civil war, but that is also true for Iran. It does not keep the regime in Tehran from being a dangerous abomination, no less so than the mad regime in Pyongyang.
>> Israel has attacked every country in the region <<
That is untrue. Israel has ever fought defensively, not aggressively. She was attacked, at her inception, by 7 Arab countries. In May 1967 Egypt and Syria drew up their armies and declared publicly, Israel's final moment was at hand. Prime Minister Eschkol pleaded with Jordan not to join in. Egypt assailed Israel in October 1973 on Yom Kippur. Nasrallah publicly regretted provoking the July 2006 IDF response against Hezbullah in Lebanon. Hamas fired thousands of missiles and mortar rounds into Israel's villages, prior to the Cast Lead operation against Gaza.
When will you folks understand that refusing to recognize a neighbor, refusing to make peace after having made war, insisting on declaring that neighbor undeserving of life and cold meat at the next opportunity - has consequences.
When will you rykart, Shingo, SmashIsrael, OneVote, srjenkins, etc., learn that your patent lies and rancid illogic amount to a devestating judgment.
Your recourse to errant dribble establishes that you you have no truths, no facts, no reasoned argument wherewith to duel. Never has a cause been so lame, so abjectly reduced to bilious illogic and twitching hate, so helpless before the facts.
Posted by Pirovano at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm
Your recourse to errant dribble establishes that you you have no truths, no facts, no reasoned argument wherewith to duel. Never has a cause been so lame, so abjectly reduced to bilious illogic and twitching hate, so helpless before the facts.
Posted by Pirovano at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm
very bad writing.
cheesy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 1:25pm
frosty
You were expecting Seneca?
The guy SUPPORTS Israel.
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by rykart
antisemitic slime. ignored antisemitic slime.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/01/2009 @ 1:34pm
uh, viceroy, does "overthrowing the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq" qualify as an act of war, too? Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 12:14pm
How about shooting down a civilian Iranian airbus, killing 290 passengers including 66 children, an act for which the crew of the Vincennes was awarded special commendation for bravery?
If the Iranians played by anything resembling US standards, the capitol building and state department would have been reduced to a pile of twisted metal and bone fragments after this 'act of war'.
Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 1:35pm
antisemitic slime. ignored antisemitic slime. Posted by emile duBois at 11/01/2009 @ 1:34pm
Hey..instead of using "anti-Semitism" merely as an explanation of criticism of Israel, why not expand it to include criticism of anything?
People who don't like beets are anti-Semites
People who criticize the cardinals' batting average are anti-Semites
People who hate cold whether---obviously, anti-Semites.
If you don't get invited to the yearly clambake---blame antisemitism.
Your lottery ticket didn't win the million dollar jackpot? It must have been rigged by anti-Semites!
If the dog bites the mailman, say in a firm voice: "BAD anti-Semite! DOWN anti-Semite!"
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 1:59pm
Kate Moss won't go out with me, the vile anti-Semite!
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 2:15pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:51am
"It qualifies as an act of war."
We did the ame to Iranian diplomats in Iraq.
"Why do you hate America?"
I don't, just American policies. Washington/the State Departments and the CIA is not America.
"The truth is that Iran and Afghanistan are the only countries whose governments were involved in 9/11."
Lies.
Iran had no involvement whatsoever in 911. Not even the Bush Administration trid to make that claim.
In fact, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our allies, were the only countries involved in 911.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 2:22pm
That is untrue. Israel has ever fought defensively, not aggressively.
Posted by Pirovano at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm
This has been debunked y 2 Israeli Prime Ministers and Moshe Dayan.
The 1948 war was already under way in 1947, with Israelis terroritst groups attacking Palestinian populations.
Menachem Begin, Yitzak Shamir and Moshe Dayan all stted that it was Israel that started the 1967 war.
The 1973 Yom Kippur war was simply a continuation of the 1967 war, following years of pleading by Nasser to negotiate the Sinai.
Olmert testified to the Wonigrad Commmision that Isreal had planned the attack on Lebanon at least 6 months earlier.
For 4 months between July and November of 2008, Hamas fired no missiles and mortar rounds into Israel's villages. Israel vilated the ceasfire on the 4th of November (the day of the US eletions), killing 6 Palestinians, to incite Hams into a responseso that it could carry out another pre-planned war, Cast Lead.
It does help when you actaully look at the RTEAL FACTS, not Zionist Hasbra.
If you need furhter help understanding the fact, feel free to ask. I know that some of you are very ignorant.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 2:30pm
The truth is that Iran and Afghanistan are the only countries whose governments were involved in 9/11.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:51am
The truth is that there is that this is false and that not even the Bush Adminstartion ever made such a claim, let alone the 911 Commission.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 2:33pm
No, though America did start seriously supporting Saddam when Iran vowed to occupy Iraq and then do the same to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 09:49am
Rubbish.
Iran never vowed to occupy Iraq and never even tried to. As has been pointed out, Iran has nto attacked or invaded any other county in 300 years.
Iran never vowed to attack Saudi Arbaia either.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by Pirovano at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm
"Your recourse to errant dribble establishes that you you have no truths, no facts, no reasoned argument wherewith to duel. Never has a cause been so lame, so abjectly reduced to bilious illogic and twitching hate, so helpless before the facts."
I'm not dueling. You're defenseless, a special needs child who needs the fork slapped out of his hand before he buries it in his own eye.
When you want to offer up a reasonable argument besides this masturbatory rhetoric about how Israeli is the pinnacle of this or that and everyone else is either an anti-Semite or incapable of reasoning, you might have an interesting discussion.
I don't you are capable of it - because you're a fuckin' idiot.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/01/2009 @ 3:15pm
"does "overthrowing the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq"
In reality, the Iranian people staged the coup. It would have been impossible to carry out without Iranian popular support. Some Iranians favored Socialist Communist leaders, others favored the Shah. America simply offered aid and support to one side in a civil war, the side that won and was more popular.
"uh, viceroy, you've missed one very big country on your list."
I favor destroying the government of Saudi Arabia as well, but it doesn't even come close to Iran's extreme belligerence. Also, the fact that Osama and the Saudi regime are enemies should be obvious.
"We did the ame to Iranian diplomats in Iraq."
We rounded up Iranian terrorists that infiltrated Iraq to kill Americans. Iran was the aggressor in Iraq, not America.
"Iran had no involvement whatsoever in 911."
Iran and Afghanistan were involved in 9/11. This is a matter of public record according to the 9/11 Commission.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:45pm
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem".[29] This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[35]"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:47pm
"The guy SUPPORTS Israel"
Why would anyone support a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic liberal democracy founded by Holocaust survivors that has contributed more to the world in terms of science and technology than any other nation despite being a barren wasteland with no natural resources constantly under attack by brutal genocidal Arab dictatorships far larger than it?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:54pm
Vermin of Israel-- latest installment:
http://tiny.cc/vE0rV
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 3:55pm
"Vermin"
Calling all Israelis vermin shows you are a fanatical Jew-hater.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:57pm
Not calling Israelis vermin shows that you are a Nazi sympathizer and disgrace to the Jewish history of humanitarianism.
Also, you're a slob.
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 4:11pm
10 out of 10 Nazis agree:
Israelis are subhuman vermin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 4:22pm
America simply offered aid and support to one side in a civil war, the side that won and was more popular.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:45pm
Rubbish.
America oevrthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and replaced him with a tyrannical and murderous dictator.
"I favor destroying the government of Saudi Arabia as well, but it doesn't even come close to Iran's extreme belligerence."
Iran are onyl belligerent in so far as not being puppets of Washington. You obviously believe that America owns the world.
"Also, the fact that Osama and the Saudi regime are enemies should be obvious."
Osama is also enemies with the Iranians, which is why the conspiracy theory that Iran had any role in 911 is ludicrous. Unlike the Saudi's however, Iran does not support Al Qaeda.
"We rounded up Iranian terrorists that infiltrated Iraq to kill Americans. Iran was the aggressor in Iraq, not America."
Rubbish. All the "Iranian terrorists" we ever rounded up we had to let go because we had no evidence against them.
The US did seize 2 or 3 Iranian diplomats who were legally in Iraq on diplomatic business.
The US Embassy in Tehran was a well known epicenter of CIA activity, so it could be argued that the Embassy was a terrorist head office.
"Iran and Afghanistan were involved in 9/11. This is a matter of public record according to the 9/11 Commission."
The 9/11 Report made no such claim.
Iran are enemies of Al Qaeda, and helped us go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. On the other hand, we were supporting Al Qaeda up until 911 and are still supporting Al Qaeda groups as they launch attacks against Tehran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:35pm
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem".[29]
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:47pm
Where are the news reports citing these statements?
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:36pm
Why would anyone support a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic liberal democracy founded by Holocaust survivors that has contributed more to the world in terms of science and technology than any other nation despite being a barren wasteland with no natural resources constantly under attack by brutal genocidal Arab dictatorships far larger than it?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:54pm
Israel was not founded by Holocaust survivors. In fact, David Ben Gurion, the father of Israel, stated that it was mroe important to create Israel that to save Jewish children from burning in German ovens.
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." -- David Ben-Gurion
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:39pm
"Where are the news reports citing these statements?"
In the Name of God: The Khomeini Decade, by Robin Wright.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 4:40pm
10 out of 10 neo Nazis agree that Israelis rocks.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:41pm
In the Name of God: The Khomeini Decade, by Robin Wright.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 4:40pm
Robin Wright is a lying neocon.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 3:54pm
BTW. Israel is not a secular, pluralistic, multi-ethnic liberal democracy, but an ethnocentric, apartheid, religious theocracy.
Israel has not contributed much at all to to the world in terms of science and technology. It's true that many Jews have, but nearly all of those Jews were non Israeli and what's even worse, is that the skilled workers of Israel are abandoning Israel to live in Westen countries.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:45pm
Neo Nazis love Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990228.html
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 4:48pm
hey, viceroy.
you gonna sign up?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 5:01pm
Your recourse to errant dribble establishes that you you have no truths, no facts, no reasoned argument wherewith to duel. Never has a cause been so lame, so abjectly reduced to bilious illogic and twitching hate, so helpless before the facts.
Posted by Pirovano at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm
Accuse your opponent of that of which you are guilty.
'bilious illogic and twitching hate'
Very "intellectual" discourse sir. Well done.
Posted by OneVote at 11/01/2009 @ 5:58pm
An Inconvenient Truth:
East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are superior to all other groups in their performance in all areas save for athletics. Blacks are inferior to all other groups in their performance in all areas save for athletics.
This can only mean one of three things:
a) Non-East Asians and non-Ashkenazi Jews are victims of racist oppression by the evil white man. b) Blacks are genetically the least evolved humans; East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are genetically the most evolved humans. c) Blacks are culturally the least evolved humans; East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are culturally the most evolved humans. I hope it's option c, and I think we all know answer a is untrue.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:00pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:00pm
Wow, just....wow.
Your not just an Islamophobe, but a white supremacist. I woudl be fascinated to see the scientific study that these conclusions were based on. I take it there is such a study? or did you just copy this from Stormfront?
BTW. There's o such thing as a race called Ashkenazi Jews.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 9:14pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:00pm
Thanks nut.
You sing those old Nazi anthems with stirring conviction!
Of course, the German Nazis had a heck of a lot better cause to claim they were some "master race" given Germany's spectacular achievements in literature, mathematics, physics, music...all of which put the Israeli Nazis utterly in the shade.
Intellectually outflanked on every other front, the only choice Israelis had was to to prove they could out German the Germans in terms of ruthlessness, racism and barbarity.
Here, if no where else, they have succeeded.
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 9:20pm
"a white supremacist"
Aren't I at least an east-Asian supremacist, Shingo?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:42pm
"There's o such thing as a race called Ashkenazi Jews"
So, you believe that there are such things as separate races in the human species?
Isn't "separate but equal" an illogical or at least highly unlikely fallacy?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:47pm
So, you believe that there are such things as separate races in the human species?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:47pm
There are races, cut the Ashkenazi Jews are not a race.
"Isn't "separate but equal" an illogical or at least highly unlikely fallacy?"
For those who believe in the notion of superior and inferior races, like the Nazis, then perhaps. I don't happen to be one of them.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 10:09pm
"For those who believe in the notion of superior and inferior races, like the Nazis, then perhaps. I don't happen to be one of them."
Actually, modern anti-racists do not agree with you that there are "separate but equal" races in the human species, because they see that as absurd. The Nation, for example, and Christopher Hitchens, hold that "the human species is not subdivided into races". I'd like to think that, but it's probably just wishful thinking.
Hell, the Nation holds that gender (!!!) is a social construct as well. I've always personally preferred the female gender to the male one myself, however.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 10:17pm
Actually, modern anti-racists do not agree with you that there are "separate but equal" races in the human species, because they see that as absurd.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 10:17pm
Firstly, I asked you for a link to the study that supports your theory of the superiority of certain races, which you have failed to do.
Secondly, you claim the existence of modern anti-racists, without citing any.
From this, one has to conclude that you are simply making up this verbal diarrhea as you go along.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 10:27pm
Jews are pretty much characters out of Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings. They were invented, we now realize.
As someone meeting the definition of a Jew, I think that's great actually. Jews can finally join humanity and rid themselves of some appallingly childish rituals and affinity with a Nazi state carrying out atrocities in our name.
The Jewish tribe had a pretty good run. We should let it die a dignified death, along with the tooth fairy and other comforting illusions. This will mark the true emancipation of Jews. Regretfully, that time is not yet upon us. But it will come.
Posted by rykart at 11/01/2009 @ 10:30pm
"Secondly, you claim the existence of modern anti-racists, without citing any."
I just cited two.
"With the enactment of California's Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That's in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent.
When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of "diversity" and equal representation find that outcome offensive.
To deal with the Asian "menace," the UC Regents have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5 percent of students based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won't have to take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so heavily in admission decisions. This is simply gross racial discrimination against those "dull" Asian students who "study, study, study" in favor of "interesting" black, white and Hispanic students who don't "study, study, study.""
East Asians are more academically successful in every city in every state in America. This is true in every European country. South Korea, Japan, and China have higher IQs than Europeans and Americans.
Why?
Racist oppression by the evil white man OR genetics OR cultural values?
It has to be one or the other!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 10:39pm
When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 10:39pm
This has nothing to do with race.
Asian people excel in academia because education is highly valued in such societies and high education in necessary in order to compete in the job market.
While this is to be applauded, it doesn't prove that East Asians people are superior to anyone becasue of their race. Their success if a consequence of cultural and social values.
Of course, academic excellence does not guarantee a balanced and healthy lifestyle. Many Asian people I've known, have studied and worked themselves to the point of emotional and psychological breakdown.
Now, getting back to your theory about superiority, do you have a study or don't you?
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 11:09pm
I'll sidestep rykart's gigantic assertions that show a shocking disregard of...um...history...and echo Shingo on at least this point: I don't believe that races actually exist in any meaningful sense. There's certainly no such thing as a "Jewish race." That rhetoric was used by people who sought to divide "the Jews" (to which absurd stereotypes were attached) from "the superior race," whomever that happened to be (depending on the country in which that categorization was made).
So in sum:
1) Rykart is insane 2) Rightwingnutcase is aptly named 3) Racism is stupid
Posted by Thrawn at 11/01/2009 @ 11:16pm
"getting back to your theory about superiority"
I have no theory. My point is that either racist oppression by the evil white man OR genetics OR cultural values makes blacks the stupidest of all ethnic groups and East Asians the smartest. I see you favor option 3. Since that's your view, I trust you'll repudiate your past support for multiculturalism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:16pm
Since that's your view, I trust you'll repudiate your past support for multiculturalism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:16pm
So based on the higher enrollment and participation of Asian students in universities, you came up with a theory that East Asians, and Askenazi Jews are superior races of people.
You are so deranged and extreme in your views, that it begs he question of what you are doing on this forum. You have taken a thread about Iran's nuclear program and turned it into a debate about racial superiority. You truly are a vile piece of work.
And no, I won't repudiate my ongoing support for multiculturalism. My life would be far less interesting were it not for multiculturalism.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 11:25pm
By the way, I recommend John Derbyshire's new book, We Are Doomed, which touches on this topic. I'm not sure he's right, and he is a religious loon, but he's very witty and entertaining and insightful at times.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:26pm
I have not stated that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are superior races of people.
I have stated that either their culture or genetics makes them smarter than others.
You said that one's culture shapes one intellect, but that cultures that promote primitive stupidity are nonetheless equal to cultures that promote academic excellence.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:30pm
"You are so deranged and extreme in your views, that it begs he question of what you are doing on this forum"
I'm here to upset leftists with logical arguments.
Liberals believe that reality is whatever they want it to be; all they have to do is join hands with enough like-minded people and reality will mold itself to their will. They believe that race and gender are social constructs, that all differences are imagined, that all individuals are equal, that all ideas are equal, that all beliefs are interchangeable, that nothing means anything, that there is no right or wrong answer to any question, that all people are interchangeable, that blind irrational whims and emotions should dictate public policy. Mocking them by saying "So, races are "separate but equal"?" is just too funny to resist, given how strong their emotional response will be and how offended and angered and challenged and troubled and defensive the self-deceptive bipolar animals become at such a statement. They are just too damn good at insulating themselves from reality to resist the urge on my part to try and burst their bubble.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:42pm
I have stated that either their culture or genetics makes them smarter than others.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:30pm
Obviously there's no evidence that genetics plays a role in academic achievement, and what's more, you have failed to even address what makes Ashkenazi Jews superior.
Also, culture doesn't shape intellect, it shapes one's education, but intellect is not dependent on education, thus no culture can be said to promote primitive stupidity. For example, the US has among the finest educational institutions in the world, yet also boasts the most ignorant and isolated population in the developed world.
In fact, Americans as so brainwashed and ignorant that CNN has had to produce 2 version of it's news programming, one for the world and another for US consumption, which caters to the limited awareness of America's population.
Posted by Shingo at 11/01/2009 @ 11:43pm
"boasts the most ignorant and isolated population in the developed world."
Note that no country in Africa is part of the developed world and that South Africa is closer to that ideal than any other.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:51pm
If all cultures and races are equal, how come it would only have taken a couple weeks to liberate France if it was conquered by a dictator like Saddam?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/02/2009 @ 12:00am
Note that no country in Africa is part of the developed world and that South Africa is closer to that ideal than any other.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 11:51pm
Africa, like the Middle East also happen to be the 2 most exploited regions in the world. South Africa was built on slavery, theft of resources and racial segregation - in other words, your idea of heaven.
Posted by Shingo at 11/02/2009 @ 12:02am
Africans were better under colonialism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/02/2009 @ 12:06am
Note as well that Africa is the continent richest in terms of natural resources.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/02/2009 @ 12:17am
Note as well that Africa is the continent richest in terms of natural resources.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/02/2009 @ 12:17am
Which is precisely why it is exploited, as is the Middle East.
"If all cultures and races are equal, how come it would only have taken a couple weeks to liberate France if it was conquered by a dictator like Saddam?"
What a weird question? What part of France is Saddam from?
Posted by Shingo at 11/02/2009 @ 12:29am
Posted by Thrawn at 11/01/2009 @ 11:16pm
At least you got one thing right. Race is not a scientific concept.
Perhaps Jews were smart enough to recognize this fact, so they took to calling themselves "a people" which essentially amounts to the same calumny in different packaging. Some have even tried to marshall dubious genetic studies to establish this peoplehood, but as Schlomo Sand has brilliantly demonstrated, these "people" and their supposed history are a fabrication, designed to gain political advantage and gather sympathy for the lunatic state of Israel:
http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel
Posted by rykart at 11/02/2009 @ 07:36am
Agan, as always with rightwingnutcase....here are his own words--
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
"Muslims contribute nothing to the world in terms of science and technology."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 2:02pm
"Muslims are many times more likely to be rapists than other groups."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
"But, they were too primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent to defeat the Jews despite their superior numbers."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
"I'm no racist, but I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, sure. I'll be afraid once a single black country is militarily stronger than a single white country."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/27/2009 @ 9:48pm
The Iraqi Time Bomb posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 10/27/2009 @ 08:28am
Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 07:50am
Africans were better under colonialism.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/02/2009 @ 12:06am
of course they were, viceroy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 08:14am
Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 07:50am
ah, the wisdom of the viceroy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 08:18am
THE US AND IT'S FRIENDS ARE EXAGGERATING THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM. THE WORLD WITNESSED WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF IRAQI WMD.NO AGENCIES, INCLUDING AMERICAN NEVER PRODUCED ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THIS MATTER. LET THEM GET RID OFF THEIR NUKES FIRST.IRAN IS A SIGNATORY WITH THE IAEA.BEFORE GOING AFTER IRAN, MAKE THE REAL NUCLEAR COUNTRIES INDIA,ISRAEL,PAKISTAN AND NORTH KOREA SIGN THE NPT WITH IAEA.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/02/2009 @ 09:17am
WHEN SOMEONE CRITICIZE ISRAEL, THEN HE IS LABELLED AS ANTI -JEW. WHY THIS ILLEGAL COUNTRY REMAINS AS ONE OF THE MOST HATED NATION EVEN AFTER 60 YEARS OF IT'S CREATION? IT'S DUE TO THEIR ACTIONS.THERE IS NO POINT IN CRITICIZING A MIRROR, IF ONE'S FACE IS NOT GOOD. VISIT.WWW.GILAD.CO.UK This comment is dedicated to rightwingnutcase.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/02/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 08:18am
Pure cognitive dissonance, Frosty.
How does a neo-con hate Muslims? Or a Islamophobe support neo-conservative "ideals" for the Middle East?
They're mutually exclusive.
Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 12:08pm
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border."----
This is one hypothetical way of eliminating the terrorist threat to America.
The alternative way to do this is to invade and occupy Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Libya and Egypt as well.
I've also said:
"I've never said all Muslims are "evil". Quite the contrary. I've never met an American Muslim I didn't like. The people of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are actually heroically brave (though the Saudis and Afghans are barbarians)."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 2:19pm
The most important thing to do when occupying these countries, perhaps for decades, is to reform their educational systems so that they no longer breed jihadists. We will state:
"Islam, as it is a religion of individuals, is not to be interfered with. Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with."
We will write the Constitutions and laws of these countries for their people, as we did with the Japanese. We will give them the exact same rights and freedoms that we enjoy. When the Afghans object, say, to giving women equal rights and separating the state from religion, we will FORCE them to accept such rules. We will not apologize for our presence or allow Afghanistan to declare itself an "Islamic Republic".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 2:34pm
The most important thing to do when occupying these countries, perhaps for decades, is to reform their educational systems so that they no longer breed jihadists.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 2:34pm
We don't have the resources or capability to occupying these countries for decades. The US days of empire are coming to an end.
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 4:26pm
True. That's why I suggested mass deportation as an alternative.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 5:23pm
What do you suggest we do with home grown terrorist like McVeigh and co?
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 5:40pm
"of course they were, viceroy."
The view that Africans were better off under colonialism is objectively true, and African Americans who embrace reason rather than emotion (all 5% of them), such as Walter Williams, acknowledge it as a fact of reality. The problem is that self-hating white liberals and black enablers appeal to blind irrational whims and tribalistic emotions, and consider them superior to logic in deducing the objective nature of reality. As such, even such self-evident assertions as "White colonialists never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, which include: hacking to death, boiling in oil, setting on fire and dismemberment" are immediately condemned as racist even though they can be empirically proven. Emotion leads leftists to assume that reality is whatever they feel like they want it to be, which is why they reject such a claim, even though they ironically imply racism is on the side of the facts of reality when they assert that the facts of reality should be dismissed as false simply and only because they might lead one to a racist conclusion. Of course, the best argument against racism is that it is a collectivist fallacy and that no one individual can be held to account for the actions of another, but liberals never make such an argument because they are collectivists. In any case, the worst thing that ever happened to Africa was that it was given independence when it clearly wasn't ready for it and simply could not handle it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 5:54pm
"What do you suggest we do with home grown terrorist like McVeigh and co?"
Shoot them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 5:57pm
The view that Africans were better off under colonialism is objectively true..
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 5:54pm
For white South Africans yes.
You'll find that in polls, the majority of South Africans would nto go back to apartheid given the choice.
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:03pm
Each South African day sees an average of 59 murders, 145 rapes and 752 serious assaults out of its 42 million population.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:05pm
Each South African day sees an average of 59 murders, 145 rapes and 752 serious assaults out of its 42 million population.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:05pm
The number of murders, rapes and serious assaults also sky rocketed in Baghdad since the invasion. Are you now arguing that Iraqis were better off under Saddam?
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:24pm
The inconvenient truth is that tens of millions of blacks have needlessly died in Africa as a result of the whites giving them independence. Sadly, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a black-majority country that has a black-run government that has ever demonstrated to even the slightest degree possible that blacks are capable of running countries.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:27pm
"Are you now arguing that Iraqis were better off under Saddam?"
The sad truth is that Arabs, though not Iranians, have never demonstrated that they are capable of rational governance and politics.
Everything that happened once Saddam's regime collapsed was going to happen whenever his regime collapsed, however, and as such Iraq was clearly doomed to face anarchy and genocide absent an international intervention.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:32pm
The truth is that Jews and East Asians, followed by whites and other Asians (from Indochina, Philippines, Singapore, India and other countries) may not be inherently superior to blacks, Arabs, and Latinos, but they certainly behave as though they are.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:37pm
The inconvenient truth is that tens of millions of blacks have needlessly died in Africa as a result of the whites giving them independence.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:27pm
Tens of millions? Where does that number come from?
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:48pm
"More than 80 million Africans may die from AIDS by 2025, the United Nations said in a report to be released Friday, and infections could soar to 90 million -- or more than 10% of the continent's population -- if more isn't done soon to fight the disease."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:54pm
"More than 80 million Africans may die from AIDS by 2025, the United Nations said in a report to be released Friday, and infections could soar to 90 million -- or more than 10% of the continent's population -- if more isn't done soon to fight the disease."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 6:54pm
That's becasue the US drug companies have sued drug companies in Africa from manufacturing generic aids treatment drugs.
In fact, Bayer, knowingly sent HIV infected blood to third would countries and Europe, which ended up killing thousands of children. No one in the US was prosecuted for it.
AIDS is a massive problem in India too. Do you consider them black?
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 6:58pm
Blame America!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:04pm
"The truth is that Jews and East Asians, followed by whites and other Asians (from Indochina, Philippines, Singapore, India and other countries) may not be inherently superior to blacks, Arabs, and Latinos, but they certainly behave as though they are."
It's not America's fault that blacks behave the way they do.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:05pm
Blame America!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:04pm
When they are responsible, yes I do. I prefer that to being a an apologist for criminality and murder.
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 7:19pm
Blame America!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:04pm
When they are responsible, yes I do. I prefer that to being a an apologist for criminality and murder.
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 7:19pm
Shingo, why don't you use terrorism to protest America's governmental policies?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm
Shingo, why don't you use terrorism to protest America's governmental policies?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 7:50pm
Are you feeling a bit battered are you rightwingnutcase or are you stalling for time?
Posted by Shingo at 11/03/2009 @ 8:04pm
Shingo, why do you hate Jews so much? What did Jews ever do to you?
Anyway, you're probably right about neoconservativism being an abstract utopian ideal that works only in the theoretical realm. Even if the terrorist threat could be militarily eliminated, destroying it would cost more American lives than leaving it alone. Mass deportations are the simplest solution.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 11:43pm
Mass deportations are the simplest solution.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 11:43pm
yep, back to europe with you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 11:48pm
Europeans tend to be civilized. We'll tell the Muslims that we'll welcome them back once they decide to civilize themselves, though that will probably never happen.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 11:55pm
In fact, as a general rule, we should only take immigrants from countries that have shown they have civilized people who are capable of contributing to civilization. There is no reason to take any immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, or most of Latin America. Europe and Asia are superior.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/04/2009 @ 12:00am
At the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities -- at an annual cost to American taxpayers of $6.8 billion. A Government Accountability Office study of 55,322 incarcerated illegal aliens found that they had been arrested a total of 459,614 times (about 8 times apiece) for some 700,000 criminal offenses (roughly 13 offenses each). Human Events contributor Mac Johnson estimates that illegal aliens murder between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the United States each year; Iowa Congressman Steve King places the figure much higher, at nearly 4,400. According to a "conservative estimate" by Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute, the illegal alien population in the U.S. includes approximately 240,000 sex offenders who commit about 131,000 sex crimes annually. Sixty-three percent of those offenses are committed by people who were previously deported. The website Gangs Or Us estimates that the violent gang MS-13, which originated in Central America, currently has more than 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 separate cliques in 33 U.S. states. According to one study, mostly illegal-alien Hispanics were involved in about one-fourth of all fatal traffic accidents, meaning that their involvement in such events exceeded their representation in the overall U.S. population by a factor of 5. Moreover, illegal aliens are involved in DWI arrests at a rate that is 3 to 6 times greater than their representation in the population.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/04/2009 @ 12:42am
At the 750 SAT level, where schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford recruit many of their incoming students, the situation looks even more ethnically skewed. In 2004, for instance, 25,403 students nationwide scored 750 or higher on the verbal SAT, and 31,316 scored at this level on the SAT math. But more than ninety-five percent of these very high scoring students were either White or Asian. In the entire country that year only 303 Blacks scored 750 or higher on the verbal SAT (1.2 percent of the total), while only 203 Blacks scored that high on the SAT math (a mere 0.6 percent of the total). The situation with Hispanics was only moderately better. The message here is clear: if elite colleges seek to enroll the most academically talented and accomplished, they will be drawing from a pool that is overwhelmingly White and Asian (and among the Whites disproportionately Jewish). If they are unwilling to have an entering class that is only 1-3% Black or Hispanic, they will have to resort to huge racial preferences, even if they try to conceal this fact from the public -- or lie about it, as they almost invariably do.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/04/2009 @ 01:13am
Europeans tend to be civilized.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/03/2009 @ 11:55pm
The total number of casualties in World War I, both military and civilian, were about 37 million
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed.
etc.
yep, civilized.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 08:46am
In fact, as a general rule, we should only take immigrants from countries that have shown they have civilized people who are capable of contributing to civilization. There is no reason to take any immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, or most of Latin America. Europe and Asia are superior.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/04/2009 @ 12:00am
"With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 08:47am
viceroy, you've got a lot of growing up to do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 08:54am
I do love how crazies like rightwingnutcase pretend to care about Muslims and Arabs, claiming we went into Iraq to liberate them from Saddam, while simultaneously advocating that we force all Arab Muslims to leave this country.
Concern for the welfare of Arabs and Muslims is only of use when it comes to justifying militarism in the region.
Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 8:29pm
Concern for the welfare of Arabs and Muslims is only of use when it comes to justifying militarism in the region. Posted by Shingo at 11/04/2009 @ 8:29pm
The same of course is true regarding our imitation concern over the fate of women in Afghanistan--cause of great hand-wringing when we decide it's time to start bombing this starving nation.
Posted by rykart at 11/05/2009 @ 11:58am