Words and Pics

The Statement

 "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The Reality

Two Iranian Teens getting hanged in the City of Mashad in Iran, for you know, being Gay.

And, the Inevtiable Conclusion:

   

Ahmadinejad apologists, this is what you defend!

0 comment on Words and Pics

  1. nominally challenged
    September 25, 2007 at 9:27 am

    It’s a bit of a shame that Columbia didn’t arrange for this photo to be screened above AJ’s head while he was giving that answer. That would have been poignant.

    Reply
  2. Frenchman
    September 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    While AJ’s comments regarding homosexuals in Iran was disgraceful, but of course no more so then his treatement of them, as in the horrifying picture of those two poor boys, let’s be clear on the source of this hatred and treatment which boils down to religion. Given his sprinkling of his religion in his speech praising the allmighty, how honestly would you expect him to respond. While I am no expert on Iran, what I do know is that there are extremely heavy religious influences in their govt. Let’s also be clear that many other Islamic nations also treat homosexuals with the same horrible intollerance.

    Sorry while I consider AJ be a despot, I found many of his points in yesterdays speech valid ones. So easy for the US to poin the finger at Iran making all kinds of claims, but he did raise issues regarding the US’s interference in the Middle East that hold a lot of water.

    This opinion that America is so virginic in all of it’s forays in the Middle East are ridiculous at best.

    I was expecting a tirade of propaganda yesterday from AJ instead, while choosing not to hide under a blanket of judgement, I heard some, I say some, reasonable assertions that are valid to many people’s in the Middle East and need to be taken into consideration by the US govt or the French for that matter, because not nearly on the same scale, it, like so many other nations have pillaged parts of the Middle East for their resources.

    I am not exhibiting support for AJ, but for the entire focus by so many to be on his comment regarding homosexuals and nothing else is indicative of the problem we have in the US with our pontificating govt officials and media.

    For the President of Columbia to start things off with his verbal bashing made him look like a childish idiot especially when he was obviously a big decider in AJ’s invitation. No matter what you think of a guest, you don’t invite them just to set them up.

    I am not excusing AJ for what he has allowed to go on in his country but let’s be clear that Homosexuals suffered this kind of treatement in the Middle East long before AJ’s arrival.

    It pisses me off that our own stupid leader Bush refuses to know thyne enemy, because who knows what could be accomplished. If anything, I was slightly embarrased by the way AJ was treated only because all of the US’s biases are already known by the rest of the world so voicing them like the President of Columbia did was unecessary and childish.

    Let’s be clear if the House of Saud ever showed up for the same discussion at Columbia they would be shown respect and yet they are guilty of decades of homosexual ill treatement, chopping off hands for theft, capital punishment, treatement of women ( who are not allowed to drive ) etc etc etc.

    What is the difference between AJ and the house of Saud ? No need to answer that right ?

    Islamic law dictates these punishment and treatement, not AJ and if you expect him to fight against the Islamic establishement when our democrats can’t event push the Republicans up against the wall, then too many are living in the clouds.

    Again, I make no apologies for the attrocities that occur in so many radical countries in the ME, but lets be clear on the reasons and let’s act like adults and show that we are the bigger peoples.

    All that was accomplished yesterday was to give AJ more power because he did handle himself properly in that speech and I have no doubt gained more supporters he made not have had prior where it counts, in his own country and in the ME.

    Reply
  3. VA Gamer
    September 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Typical hand-wringing Frenchman. You can’t even state what you believe without qualifying it and watering it down. Are there any men left in your country?

    One of the biggest problems that I see with European foreign policy is that your only available tool is diplomacy. All you are able to do is talk. You have been talking to Iran for years about its nuclear program, but you have not solved anything. That is because Ahmadinejad knows that you cannot or will not follow up your words with action. Europe is toothless.

    I sincerely hope that the US exhausts all diplomatic efforts with Iran in making sure that they do not develop nuclear technology. US diplomacy has a much better chance of succeeding then European diplomacy. After Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran knows that the US has the fortitude to back their threats with action.

    Finally, Frenchman, why the hell does it matter what Ahmadinejad says? He is telling you exactly what you want to hear, and you are lapping it up like a helpless puppy. If you want to know what Ahmadinejad and Iran is all about, just look at the news coming out of Iran. Look at that horrible photo of those two young boys about to be hung. Read the news coverage of religious apes beating WOMEN because they are not properly covered.

    Reply
  4. Toady
    September 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    like so many other nations have pillaged parts of the Middle East for their resources.

    Frenchman;

    With oil at $80 USD a barrel, who exactly is being pillaged here?

    Reply
  5. Dave
    September 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    I will give you a pass on this Sandmonkey. I think it was on your first post ever on this blog where you said:

    I am a free-market libertarian and I am kinda disturbed by his handling of the economy, the deficit, government expansion or the gay marriage thing.

    However, why is it all the right wing blogs have decided to take this particular statement by Ahmadinejad as the one to pick on? What have the right wingers have done for the gays recently in the US? For christ sake even LGF decided to post this.

    Reply
  6. Hammam
    September 25, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    This blog more and more each day reminds me of a freaking bathroom. Come and defecate on the sandmonkey blog, bathrooms are fun, bathrooms are needed. Hence Ceramic Cleopatra for your shitter rooms etc. Hence meryt tv and zionist handouts to this blog bathroom.
    El blog da zay el hammam bezapt

    Reply
  7. tedders
    September 25, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    “What have the right wingers have done for the gays recently in the US?”

    We don’t execute them. We don’t say they don’t exist. We don’t ban them from living together or living as a couple. We let them gather and practice their lifestyle. We tolerate them and give them all the protection of the Bill of Rights and US law. That’s just what every citizen gets. Jeesh! Should they have more rights than a hetrosexual citizen? What kind of topsy turvy world do you live in?

    Reply
  8. Olive Picker
    September 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Well, Ahmadinejad is a prime example of what you get when you put in office someone with religious convictions so deep that he literally lives by them.

    Give me a scoundrel any time and twice on Sundays. They are less dangerous in the long run.

    And tedders, I don’t think acknowledging power of attorney in the case of homosexual couples is having more rights than the heterosexual ones.

    Reply
  9. JT
    September 25, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    It pisses me off that our own stupid leader Bush refuses to know thyne enemy, because who knows what could be accomplished. If anything, I was slightly embarrased by the way AJ was treated only because all of the US’s biases are already known by the rest of the world so voicing them like the President of Columbia did was unecessary and childish.

    Typical Frenchmen, going after the President of Columbia for having the courage to condemn Ahmadinnerjacket’s barbaric regime, and finding a way to blame Bush for it all. It is no wonder France is so incredibly spineless. Are you in the US by any chance? If so, why migrate here when you can live in your ideological utopia aka Eurabia?

    Reply
  10. tedders
    September 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Anyone of legal age can acknowledge anyone they choose as power of attorney.

    Reply
  11. ella
    September 25, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Hey Frenchman

    But some things need to be said again and again.
    I think that if some country is having a signs “Death to america” in arabic during military parade one day before Ahmadinejad flew to USA the government of that country do not want ” to work hand in hand for a future filled with peace, justice and brotherhood,peace”
    As for Columbia, it’s decision to give Ahmadinejad a platform to speak does reminds one of the words Churchill said in 1933 – the year Adolf Hitler came to power – of the resolution passed by Oxford University that”this House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country.” The words were “Abject, squalid, shameless”

    Reply
  12. Dave
    September 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Wow Tedders you proved my point .

    We tolerate them

    That speaks more volume than anything else.

    Reply
  13. Roman Kalik
    September 25, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    Dave? “tolerance” isn’t a negative-meaning word in 50% of its uses, same with its other forms. So don’t try to make of it something that it obviously isn’t.

    Reply
  14. Twosret
    September 25, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    Frenchman,

    Good post man. I read on other blogs from people who speak Farsi that AJ didn’t say they don’t have homosexuals he said they don’t have the same problem of homosexuals the same like the US.

    I think it was very cheap shot of the University president to insult him to show some brave guts to AIPAC a good stunt for Columbia University.

    As for AJ he is my favorite clown :)

    Reply
  15. nominally challenged
    September 25, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    Dave:

    why is it all the right wing blogs have decided to take this particular statement by Ahmadinejad as the one to pick on?

    Because it was an ice-breaking faux pas which earned him derisive laughter, on the one hand, and because it belies the strange love affair that some on the left seem to have with AJ, simply because he is anti-Bush. Your enemy’s enemy is not necessarily your friend.

    The question of what the right-wing has ever done for gays is pertinent, but can surely be no excuse for left-wing support (or even tolerance) of someone like AJ.

    Frenchman:

    Given his sprinkling of his religion in his speech praising the allmighty, how honestly would you expect him to respond.

    I would expect him to respond honestly. He was not asked whether or not there are gays in Iran. He was asked to comment on Iran’s treatment of gays. If he were being honest, he would say, openly “we do not tolerate homosexuality and we have executed homosexuals in the past”. Is he ashamed of doing so? If not, then why not admit it? After all, it is well documented. If he is such a religious man and believes so strongly in his convictions that his way of dealing with homosexuality is correct, then he need not hide behind vague statements of the existence or otherwise of ‘this phenomenon’.

    And given that the question was about Iran’s execution of homosexuals, it makes absolutely no difference if he meant to say ‘we don’t have any homosexuals’ or ‘we don’t have the same problem of homosexuals as the US’. Neither of these is an honest answer to the question asked, and apologists for him should be ashamed of themselves for essentially sanctioning executions based on sexual preference.

    As for the practises of Saudi Arabia and other countries – these are of course no less reprehensible. But it was not a Saudi representative speaking at Columbia yesterday, so the comparison is irrelevant. We’ll have to wait until one does, in order to see whether they receive the same treatment. But I doubt they would ever put themselves up to be ridiculed in quite the same way as this clown did.

    Reply
  16. JT
    September 26, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Good post man. I read on other blogs from people who speak Farsi that AJ didn’t say they don’t have homosexuals he said they don’t have the same problem of homosexuals the same like the US.

    They don’t have this “problem” because they killed all the ones they could find. Same difference, Einstein.

    Reply
  17. Frenchman
    September 26, 2007 at 2:21 am

    To Va Gamers, It really is an absolute given that those who disagree with my point of view consistently jump on the French thing. The only thing I will comment on vis a vis your comments is to date there has been no diplomacy from the US govt towards Iran, only tough words and please man, the US does not have the resources to get into yet another war. Instead Bush uses the childish ” nah nah nah, I can’t hear you approach “.

    To Ella, you missed my point, no matter what you think of anyone, if you invite them to speak you shut the fuck up and let them speak. You don’t act like an insolent child and spit fuel on a fire that is so obviously burning. It is called decorum. Every point was more than adequetly made with the questions posed to AJ after his speech. The objective is to be better and act with more dignity.

    Nominally challenged, I am sorry, if you don’t see a double standard in our policy against Iran and our policy for Saudi Arabia, then I understand how my point might get lost on you. You know as well as I that neither our media or our govt would ever take the house of Saud to task for there horendous human rights violations. Your call to wait and see is simply wasted because we have already seen all of the cheeks kissing and palm pressing exhibited by our govt officials whenever they come to town.

    As for your point regarding AJ’s honesty. It’s quite simple, as far as his radical version of Islam is concerned homosexuality for the lowest of the low, so it should come as no surprise that he refuse to admit it in a public forum. It really doesn’t differ that much to the Republican view that homosexuality is a choice. It’s called denial and oh so many in the West suffer from the same problem. My point was simply to say it was not a surprise that AJ took that approach.

    Unfortunately, as usual I am confronted with a bunch of right wing zealots on this site who have nothing more to add to my comments than, stupid ignorant Frenchman. I guess, in the same way I was not surprised by AJ’s comments, I am not surprised at some of your responses. It is your own denials that have set the US back decades.

    Reply
  18. Twosret
    September 26, 2007 at 3:38 am

    JT,

    No they still have many of them do you want me to hook you up? :)

    Reply
  19. Twosret
    September 26, 2007 at 3:56 am

    “going after the President of Columbia for having the courage to condemn Ahmadinnerjacket’s barbaric regime”

    Courage? what Courage? you invite a guest speaker in a University pretending you are civil and believe in freedom of speech and then you insult the guest before he opens his mouth. AJ’s views are well known before he was invited to the University, this is a cheap show as obviously the president got stuck with his decision and didn’t want to upset the Israeli Lobby as they threatened to stop funding the University or a desperate attempt to attention.

    In both cases the President on the University should leave his role and go and do a wrestling match with the Rock he will get better attention without upseting the Israeli sluts :)

    Reply
  20. JT
    September 26, 2007 at 5:10 am

    No they still have many of them do you want me to hook you up?:D

    Okay, I’ll go slower this time. They killed off all the homosexuals they could find. If there are more, those people aren’t letting the regime know about it.

    Courage? what Courage? you invite a guest speaker in a University pretending you are civil and believe in freedom of speech and then you insult the guest before he opens his mouth. AJ’s views are well known before he was invited to the University, this is a cheap show as obviously the president got stuck with his decision and didn’t want to upset the Israeli Lobby as they threatened to stop funding the University or a desperate attempt to attention.

    In both cases the President on the University should leave his role and go and do a wrestling match with the Rock he will get better attention without upseting the Israeli sluts :)

    Ahmadinejad had his say. He had the entire stage to himself. He answered the questions in his own way with plenty of time to spin his answers however he wanted. The university allowed him his free speech, although they didn’t had to since the US Constitution does not apply to a murderous Islamic madman who has expressed a desire to destroy both the United States and Israel. Ahmadinejad expressed his views, so why can’t the President of Columbia? Acknowledging the barbarity of the Iranian regime does take a measure of courage, especially given Bollinger’s position as President of the university, as well as his known dhimmi status.

    …this is a cheap show as obviously the president got stuck with his decision and didn’t want to upset the Israeli Lobby as they threatened to stop funding the University or a desperate attempt to attention.

    Throwing your theses out there hoping something will stick. Did it ever dawned on you that perhaps it was the alumni, parents and students of the university, and other supporters who expressed their disgust of Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad and not the Israeli Lobby? Has it ever occurred to you that if the Israeli Lobby does indeed pull the strings, that there would not be so many anti-Semites at that university? I judge a person’s level of intellect by the extent to which they subscribe to the conspiratorial propaganda that the Jews control the United States, and I cannot help but find you lacking.

    Reply
  21. JT
    September 26, 2007 at 5:12 am

    Twosret,

    No they still have many of them do you want me to hook you up?:D

    Okay, I’ll go slower this time. They killed off all the homosexuals they could find. If there are more, those people aren’t letting the regime know about it.

    Courage? what Courage? you invite a guest speaker in a University pretending you are civil and believe in freedom of speech and then you insult the guest before he opens his mouth. AJ’s views are well known before he was invited to the University, this is a cheap show as obviously the president got stuck with his decision and didn’t want to upset the Israeli Lobby as they threatened to stop funding the University or a desperate attempt to attention.

    Ahmadinejad had his say. He had the entire stage to himself. He answered the questions in his own way with plenty of time to spin his answers however he wanted. The university allowed him his free speech, although they didn’t had to since the US Constitution does not apply to a murderous Islamic madman who has expressed a desire to destroy both the United States and Israel. Ahmadinejad expressed his views, so why can’t the President of Columbia? Acknowledging the barbarity of the Iranian regime does take a measure of courage, especially given Bollinger’s position as President of the university, as well as his known dhimmi status.

    …this is a cheap show as obviously the president got stuck with his decision and didn’t want to upset the Israeli Lobby as they threatened to stop funding the University or a desperate attempt to attention.

    Throwing your theses out there hoping something will stick. Did it ever dawned on you that perhaps it was the alumni, parents and students of the university, and other supporters who expressed their disgust of Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad and not the Israeli Lobby? Has it ever occurred to you that if the Israeli Lobby does indeed pull the strings, that there would not be so many anti-Semites at that university? I judge a person’s level of intellect by the extent to which they subscribe to the conspiratorial propaganda that the Jews control the United States, and I cannot help but find you lacking.

    Reply
  22. Roman Kalik
    September 26, 2007 at 5:35 am

    Frenchman, AJ did not raise any valid arguments, he simply avoided every single question he was asked, and answered in meaningless general statements and veiled attacks. That his attacks were the same as the Left’s “constructive criticism” only means that AJ came prepared and knew his crowd well, as you now display. His two revealing mistakes were his comment about gays in Iran (which some commenters here try to cover up) and the Nile to the Ephrates conspiracy theory.

    But no matter, some of us think based on facts, while others invent facts based on what they think.

    And don’t ask what the Right did for gays. Ask instead what the Right didn’t *do* to gays.

    Reply
  23. ella
    September 26, 2007 at 7:07 am

    @ Frenchman

    Antarinejad is a head of a government which says that the invitee country is his country enemy, he also supports slogans “death to america”. As such he does not merit decorum or politeness..
    If he , for whatever reason, wants to accept invitation and air his views he has to be prepared for derision and attacks on himself and/or his country.
    Students in Columbia did “shut the fuck up” and listened patiently to what he said, they even applauded Antarinejad. However there is a limit to politeness, particularly if invitee is talking BS.

    Reply
  24. nomad
    September 26, 2007 at 8:23 am

    Frenchman, wellcome back in the ring, you rock, but you know that of course :lol:

    Reply
  25. Frenchman
    September 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    To all neighsayers, maybe this will clarify my point

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/smartest-man-in-the-room_b_65843.html

    Instead of blowing it off as a left wing blog with no value, please note that the post in question is written by someone who lived in Tehran for 17 years and now lives in the US. You can ridicule my view as nothing more than coming from a stupid surrender monkey but you cannot ignore the voice of someone who has lived it.

    I have no doubt that most of the America is the best and can do no wrong crowd will find even more excuses but so this is for the few who are open to a new position.

    Reply
  26. Frenchman
    September 26, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Roman, again my point is missed. If you read my first post at no point do I give credence to AJ’s speech, although as mentioned some points he made were valid. Refusal of America to sit at the negotiating table, America’s sale of weapons to Saddam used against Iran ( to which he was saying, what’s the difference between what you did and what we might be doing ? What makes America’s motives pure and our evil ? ), that despite the absolute horror of 9/11, that there are reason why many Muslims hate America and it ain’t because of the freedoms enjoyed.

    Many like you were so insensed by AJ to begin with that you refused to listen to what he had to say. Before he even spoke, it was all bullshit and lies. So far Iran has done nothing but talk shit, which the US govt has been fantastic at itself.

    AJ is an idiot with a big mouth that is all. Like out politicians he must tow the party line.

    My biggest point, again which everyone seems to have missed, is that the stupid president of Columbia did nothing more than solidify AJ’s position in the Middle East. Read the article I posted above and you will have a better understanding of what I have been trying to say.

    This was an ideal opportunity to make AJ look like a raving lunatic but it was thrown away. Instead AJ looked like the shrewed one. If any American politican had been invited to the Middle East and given that introduction, they would have thrown out their original speech and bitched at the pulpit. AJ handled himself exceptionally well under those conditions.

    Decorum in the Middle East in public dictates that when you invite a guest, no matter what you feel about them, you pretend to show respect. All that was accomplished was to show yet another example of how some American’s have no self control or discipline and this is sad.

    By the way, I give more credit to the students at Columbia then their President because, for the most part, they handled themselves with dignity.

    Reply
  27. Frenchman
    September 26, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    Salut, glad to be back, sort of =)

    Reply
  28. Frenchman
    September 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Pity, I responded to some of the comments made but they were lost on SM server in space. One thing I had to re-post is this report from on AJ’s speech from an Iranian who lived in Tehran for 17 years and now lives in the US, maybe his comments will do a better job of shedding some light on my point of view
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/smartest-man-in-the-room_b_65843.html.

    At least in this man’s case, none of the neighsayers can fall back on the very tired ” he’s French and therefore stupid ” excuse.

    Reply
  29. ella
    September 26, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Frenchman

    In your first post:
    You concentrated on “decorum and politeness”
    You mentioned stupid Bush policy
    You did not excused Antarinejad but mentioned that homosexuals in other countries have the same treatment as in Iran
    You mentioned religion
    You said that it is stupid for us to expect Antarinejad to fight against sharia!!!
    You vaguely said that you do not agreed with Antarinejad but “lets act like adults”

    Where were at least some of the points you are now making?

    At least with respect to many questions which should have been asked by Bollinger I agree with the author of article. With your first post I can agree to nothing you say. It was as superficial as the questions asked Antarinejad by Bollinger.

    In conclusion – article did have some valid points even if an author left Iran at the age of 16 , your post had but one “ll that was accomplished yesterday was to give AJ more power” and not because he handled himself with decorum but because liberals at Columbia University know *&^% about Iran..

    Reply
  30. Bald-Headed Geek
    September 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    His apologists will defend him nonetheless. All they need to know is that he hates the United States and Israel (not necessarily in that order), and that is good enough for them. Anything else can be excused.

    BHG

    Reply
  31. Frenchman
    September 27, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    As usual emotions rule over common sense in so much of America, which is what Bush has counted on and been 100% correct about. As much as I hate him, I give him full credit for knowing how to ” play ” America.

    Have any of you watched the documentary ” Why we Fight ? “. I imagine that given the kind of responses I get when attemtping to reason with some of you, that this documentary is dismissed as nothing more than left wing propaganda, however, if viewed for it’s merits, there are clarifications on how abhorent the US has been in it’s medlings around the world, whenever it has felt like it.

    All the neighsayers seem to have failed to grasp the very obvious to the rest of us message that AJ was point out. That the ME as a whole is fed up with the two faced meddling that has gone on for decades by the US. The fact that we armed Osama and Saddam, seem like footnotes to all of you. How about AJ’s comments that he tried to acquire nuclear technologies from the West and was blocked at every turn. Do any of you have facts to dispute this ?

    None of you have addressed these points which we very clearly pointed out by AJ. And none of you seem to get that his views are in sync with a huge portion of the Middle East. Instead you dismiss them and continue to believe that the best way to get the ME in line with US policy is to slap them around and if they refuse to obey bomb the fuck out of them. Wow, that makes sense. Cause I know if the tables were turned Americans would just lay down and take it up the ass.

    Typical though, and exactly why nothing will ever change, because after years and years of evidence that America is not the sweet angel that the US govt pretends to be, no one fucking listens in America.

    For those who do not know me, I lost friends in the towers and hold both French and US passports ( Father French / Mother American ) and love both of my countries equally. I live in the US, pay my taxes and vote.

    My objective is to do whatever is possible to avoid another 9/11, but I approach this objective with reasons and not bravado. Since time immemorial we have had to deal with evil leaders and thanks to politicians how we deal with each individual despot has been different. We kiss the ass in the House of Saud, yet they are as guilty as AJ of horrible human rights infractions, which seems to be the only focus here. I grew up in Asia where foreigners have been hanged for posession of a dime bag of weed ( ok slightly more ), trials were nothing more than going through the motions. Foreign govt have tried to intervene and the Singapore govt has simply said ” Fuck off, this is our country, they broke our laws and it’s that simple “.

    Yes the execution of homosexuals is abhorent but homosexuality is absolutely forbidden in Islam, maybe it’s the religion that needs to be taken to task.

    Put Iran and Saudi side by side and you would find that Iranians have it far far better. Does this excuse what goes on in Iran, fuck no ! I was as horrified as any of you to see that picture of those poor boys with nooses around their necks. Yet, once again I repeat, we kiss Saudi’s ass. if someone from the House of Saud visited Columbia, I am confident that the reception would be very different yet executions happen as frequently in Saudi as they do in Iran.

    The point is that we have no choice but to deal with AJ, he is the leader of an important nation that has an impact on what happens in a vital part of our world. If you all think that the best way to deal with him is to stick your thumbs at him and act like children, which only strengthens his message to his millions of supporters, then we will be swimming in war and blood for decades to come.

    None of you seem to have a grasp of the issue of ” face ” in the ME. By insulting AJ, like so many of you, many Muslims will only see the insult and they will act like you and ignore the realities in AJ’s regime and focus only on the fact that a white man insulted a Muslim.

    Anyway, none of you seem to be willing to understand my point which in turn renders any effort to try and reason with any of you, well….pointless. Ok ok….America is great, it does no wrong and all of that bullshit. That’s what you all want to hear so there you go.

    Reply
  32. JT
    September 27, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Typical though, and exactly why nothing will ever change, because after years and years of evidence that America is not the sweet angel that the US govt pretends to be, no one fucking listens in America.

    America is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but we do more good for the impoverished of the world than any other country and by a great margin. Millions are risking life and limbs just to get here. Example. You. I find it annoying that people like you won’t acknowledge how dangerous Iran and Ahmadinejad are. You blast the US for looking after Israel’s safety and defend the right of the Jewish nation to exist. What sane country would let a genocidal madman like Mahmoud obtain nukes after he’s stated repeatedly that he wants to wage war and bloodshed to bring back the the hidden imam? He’s as hardline as one can get. He’s on a mission from allah. Nothing and no one is going to detour his mission but according to you, dealing with him will somehow avert the disasters that he wishes to impose on the world. That’s the wisdom of the French, all right.

    Reply
  33. Nomad
    September 27, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    JT, I recommend you to be aware that’s the Frenchman’s opinion, and it a bit a cliché of yours to generalize to the whole french nation.

    Anyway, Frenchmen has the right to think so ; so far in France the version is a bit different : Mahmoud has no escuse, at least officially ; and I think US made a great mistake to invite him, even under the princip of “freedom of speech” : it has given him a world wide promotion.

    as far as official discourses, none political man has the privilege of expressing the truth, they all represent their agenda (included Sarko & Kouchner) :

    http://www.iran-resist.org/article3829

    the real motivations are behind the discourses ;

    did ever anyway wars happened for the sake of saving the world ? they were for the most of them because of economical goals, exept when a population fights for its freedom

    Reply
  34. Frenchman
    September 27, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    JT, you are dead wrong and forgive me but you make no distinction between the American govt and it’s people. American people are the most forgiving, kind and generous that I know. In a crisis whether it be here or abroad, American’s don’t even think about it they reach into their wallets. From all of the rhetoric I here from the ME, there is a clear distinction made that it is American policy that they are fighting against, not the American people. As in the case of all wars the innocent must suffer while the leaders sit on their pedestals protected.

    Next, I simply don’t know what I have to say that will make the point that I do not condone AJ but in the same way that I do not condone the US govt. As I have stated, so far AJ has done nothing more than talk. We have white supremisists in this country that scream hatred towards anything that is not white. We allow them to exist and no actions is expected unless they act on that hatred.

    As for your issue with dealing with him, have we not seen countless times how despot leaders scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs for the sole purpose of gaining recognition. North Korea comes to mind.

    I find it equally annoying that people like you think that ignoring the man and worse yet antagonizing him will accomplish anything other than making the problem we face as a people worse. For you to equate my position to sympathy is proving my point that emotions many times overpower reason.

    For frig sakes he even said he wants to sit down and talk with Bush and it has been refused systematically, yet our govt talked to Arafat, who also spouted hatred for Jews and I remember quite vividly the picture of the leaders of Palestine, Israel and the US shaking hands on the White House lawn.

    No matter what our views are, the fact remains that Iran is not a colony of America, therefore our only right is to complain and nothing more.

    And to repeat my point once again, for the hundredth time, if you invite someone you shut the fuck up and let him talk,especially as the President of the very entity that invited him. The entire Arab world saw that and AJ was the picture next to the word martyr in the dictionnary. Enough of all of the childish posturing.

    I liken your position to competition for a sales deal. Would you ever go into the presentation without knowing your competitor ? No you want to meet with them to see if you can get anything out of them to see what advantages you have over them. By playing shrewdly and pretending to be nice you might find them divuldging more than you expected them to. What if your competition presents you with the opportunity, do you refuse like an idiot ? No you take them up on their offer.

    I repeat ( and I hope one of you can finally address this question I have asked again and again in this post ) why do we treat the house of Saud any differently ?????????????????

    Is there anyone on this site able to have a conversation with me without pulling out comments like ( that’s the wisdom of the FRENCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) It is just ridiculous !

    Reply
  35. Roman Kalik
    September 27, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Frenchman, *you* missed *my* point. AJ’s arguments were little more than warm air, as he didn’t reply about Iran itself when asked uncomfortable questions. He doesn’t bother about negotiations beyond stalling tactics, as has been proven time and time again on Iran’s nuclear programme. Regarding the article you brought, both you and the author suffer from the Anti-Israel Syndrome. The questions regarding Holocaust-denial and his “erasure” comment were important, he avoided answering them properly, yet you both ignore them because they are Israel-related.

    And internal-policy questions *were* asked, else where did the gays question come from? Should have the students come better prepared? Should they have asked more internal-policy questions? Yes. But it was a lose-lose deal from the moment AJ was invited. Iran’s media would have spun it as needed.

    After his UN speech, by the way, AJ was asked by a reporter regarding the horrible treatment Baha’i in Iran get. AJ’s answer was to ask the reporter to find the Baha’i Prophet, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had. Again, he simply avoided a direct answer, and implied that Baha’is aren’t a religion worth considering.

    And yes, as Nomad clearly states (though I disagree with her War is Economics claim, as ideology and what people believe is much stronger) the French government’s view is different from Frenchman’s. By far. We’ve went far since the days you claimed that the French foreign office views Israel as a temporary entity, eh, Frenchman? :-P

    Reply
  36. Nomad
    September 27, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    yeah, Roman I agree , ideology is a motor for war too, I forgot to mention it, cause I was too impressed by the link I provided

    Reply
  37. Roman Kalik
    September 27, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Heh, no worries, Nomad. I would never put economic domination factors at such a high position at all, Nomad, simply because equating a country with the firms that it has is overtly simplistic to the extreme, not to mention that the argument entirely ignores the fact that we are humans, and not calculators with guns. Money is ever a secondary factor, and in fact it is the Marxists who are at the fore of claiming that conflict is due to finances.

    One look at the ethnic-conflicts Hell that used to be the Soviet Union is a very good lesson on how wrong that theory was.

    Reply
  38. Nomad
    September 27, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    yeah, I should know Karl Marx ,

    may-be that iranian journalist (pro-shah) was a former expat iranian communist, I didn’t investigate :lol:

    Reply
  39. JT
    September 28, 2007 at 1:25 am

    JT, you are dead wrong and forgive me but you make no distinction between the American govt and it’s people. American people are the most forgiving, kind and generous that I know. In a crisis whether it be here or abroad, American’s don’t even think about it they reach into their wallets. From all of the rhetoric I here from the ME, there is a clear distinction made that it is American policy that they are fighting against, not the American people. As in the case of all wars the innocent must suffer while the leaders sit on their pedestals protected.

    Dead wrong? Think again. Think about the last natural disaster. Maybe the quake in Pakistan or the tsunami in India. The US government provided huge quantieis of material, financial, as well as logistic support to the victims of both catastrophes. The American people also donated to private charities, who in turn traveled to the regions and helped those victims. We later found out that a good portion of that money was given to Islamic terrorists by the leaders who accepted our generosities. Thus, when you say the American people are kind, forgiving, and generous, those adjectives describe the American government as well. Recall all the help my government provided, all the debts we forgave, and still we are hated far more than any other country, with perhaps the exception of Israel which, by the way, has made more contributions to the advancement of mankind than any group of people that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, past and present. It is the nature of Islamists to hate both America and Israel. They forget all the things that both countries have done for them, and how they have benefited from our works and technologies. Among them are many ungrateful, incompetent, religious fanatics who thrive on conspiracy theories. America and Israel are friends and they can’t destroy Israel unless they also deal with the Great Satan (America) first. Recall the Iranian “World Without Zionism” conference. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood behind this poster which shows symbols of the United States and Israel being targeted and destroyed inside an hour glass. The message is clear, that in order to wipe Israel off the map, the United States must first be destroyed, and in Ahmadinejad’s mind, that is only a matter of time.

    Next, I simply don’t know what I have to say that will make the point that I do not condone AJ but in the same way that I do not condone the US govt. As I have stated, so far AJ has done nothing more than talk. We have white supremisists in this country that scream hatred towards anything that is not white. We allow them to exist and no actions is expected unless they act on that hatred.

    I would submit that you haven’t thought this through. Islamic terror supporters like Ahmadinejad are on a mission from his Allah. He opens every speech with a prayer to Allah to hasten the return of the murderous mahdi, whom he thinks is the messiah. The racists in America spew much hatred, and they do use their interpretation of the Bible to justify their hate, but they are not actively killing non-believers like the Islamists are doing around the world. Iran is sending their murderous thugs into Iraq and they are responsible for unmentionable number of Iraqi deaths alone. That is part of Iran’s path to a world without Zionism. Their actions are clearly there and in total support of their religious extremism. Tell me again how Mahmoud is simply all talk? Surely, you don’t want to wait until he has a nuke so you can test their thesis.

    As for your issue with dealing with him, have we not seen countless times how despot leaders scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs for the sole purpose of gaining recognition. North Korea comes to mind.

    That little midget in North Korea is not a religious fanatic who loves martyrdom. He has a nice collection of specially hand picked women to serve his sexual needs. He lives in comfort and dines on fine cuisines while his people must resort to killing domestic animals to survive. See the difference? Religious freaks vs gluttonous sex addicts.

    I find it equally annoying that people like you think that ignoring the man and worse yet antagonizing him will accomplish anything other than making the problem we face as a people worse. For you to equate my position to sympathy is proving my point that emotions many times overpower reason.

    My eyes must be failing me but I don’t remember saying we should ignore Mahmoud, nor did I say you are sympathetic to him. If people like you had the final say in how we dealt with Hitler, Germany would have been victorious and the Fuhrer himself would have slaughtered Russia and much of Europe. The United States would have missed many opportunities to liberate Europe and our sister across the pond would have been overrun. This is logic, not emotion. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, and evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

    And to repeat my point once again, for the hundredth time, if you invite someone you shut the fuck up and let him talk,especially as the President of the very entity that invited him. The entire Arab world saw that and AJ was the picture next to the word martyr in the dictionary. Enough of all of the childish posturing.

    Did I not say that Ahmadinejad did have his say and plenty of time to say it? Did he not have the entire stage all to himself? That event as advertised as a Q&A session, not an avenue for him to spew more propaganda, although he did that, nonetheless. Communication is a two way street, or has no one ever taught you that?

    I liken your position to competition for a sales deal. Would you ever go into the presentation without knowing your competitor ? No you want to meet with them to see if you can get anything out of them to see what advantages you have over them. By playing shrewdly and pretending to be nice you might find them divuldging more than you expected them to. What if your competition presents you with the opportunity, do you refuse like an idiot ? No you take them up on their offer.

    Incredible. You likened Mahmoud’s trip to Columbia as a sales deal? Have you not realized by now that he is on a holy mission from Allah? Do you not understand that for him to make nice with his enemies is akin to going against his religious mandate? Do you not understand that come hell or high water, he will go forward with his holy jihad to destroy both the US and Israel? There is no compromise with him or his boss, Khomeini. The only thing we want in any deal is the full and complete disarmament of their nuclear program, and they have stated over and over again that they will not abandon their nuclear ambitions. What is there to negotiate? The UN is a complete joke and Mohamed ElBaradei has on numerous occasions helped further Iran’s nuclear ambitions by refusing to do his job, competently.

    I like my analogy better. You and Joe Blow have a contentious relationship. One day, Joe Blow tells you to your face that he will destroy your entire family. He’ll rape your wife, kill your kids, behead your pet chihuahua, and burn your house down to the ground. Oh, yeah, he’ll also go after your good friend next door, too. You report him to the police, but being the incompetent idiots that they are, they refuse to take your report seriously. They deliberately turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. After much protest from you, they start an investigation, all the while dragging their feet throughout the whole process. They send a police office to Joe Blow’s house to warn him not to carry out his threats. Joe Blow gives the officer the finger salute and case is still pending to this day. Now, as the head of your house, it is your duty to protect your wife, kids, and family. What are you doing to do? Invite Joe Blow for a sit down negotiation? He doesn’t want anything from you! He just wants to kill you and time is quickly running out. What are you going to do? Are you going to say to yourself, “Pffft, that’s just him talking. He won’t carry out his threats.” Are you willing to risk everything you hold dear to an assumption? When your mortal enemy tells you he’s going to destroy you, over and over again, you had better take him seriously.

    I repeat ( and I hope one of you can finally address this question I have asked again and again in this post ) why do we treat the house of Saud any differently ?????????????????

    Show me when the Saudis have publicly threatened the United States and Israel, to wipe them both off the map? Show me any facts that they’re actively pursuing a nuclear program.

    Is there anyone on this site able to have a conversation with me without pulling out comments like ( that’s the wisdom of the FRENCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) It is just ridiculous !

    I can’t help being sarcastic. Your views are complete hog wash and filled with insanities.

    Nomad,
    JT, I recommend you to be aware that’s the Frenchman’s opinion, and it a bit a cliché of yours to generalize to the whole french nation.

    Opinions like Frenchmen’s are a dime a dozen. I realize it’s not the whole French nation, but there are many who subscribe to his views. It has gotten noticeably better after Chirac, however.

    Reply
  40. nomad
    September 28, 2007 at 8:43 am

    JT, you miss the point, Frenchman is an American with a french origin from his father, plus, they don’t lived in France, (see frenchman explanation though) So he can’t represent the mainstream opinion of France, but of US.
    But I like him, he is an honest and nice guy :lol:

    and you’d better clean your brain, because your cliché is rather revealing “racism”

    Reply
  41. Roman Kalik
    September 28, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Nomad, I must say that your diplomatic and intellectual class (I say class because they do view themselves in this manner) do indeed hold such views often. At times, they supported approaches simply to humiliate the US (or Britian, or anyone) and glorify France. Perhaps they do not represent the opinion of the average Frenchman, but they *have* been France’s public face for a long time now. This trend has only started changing recently.

    But you are correct in saying that our Frenchman isn’t even French, thus not really an example of French public opinion.

    Reply
  42. Frenchman
    September 28, 2007 at 11:27 am

    JT, I will first clarify that I do not, or have ever spoken for the French nation. In fact, short of my identifier, it is all of you that chose to pick on the fact that I am French and I do have to respectfully disagree with Nomad because while I am not going to profess to beig well versed in French politics, I do know that up until this ” nuclear ” issue, France has done a great deal more face to face talks with Iran et soit sur Nomad que les attack contre la France ne sont jamais limite que sur L’Iran. J’avoue que je n’est jamais vecu en France, mais je trouve que mon couer y habite et que mes avis sont plutot Europeen que Americain.

    Back to JT, with regards to the US govt generosity, yeah we have seen that generosity during Katrina. I am not sure if you are stating that the US govt and it’s people are the same or that you feel that the US govt is flawless in it’s humanitarian goals. In either case, I still think you need to take your American flag glasses off because while you might statistically be correct that the US govt does seem to participate in global disaster relief, it is the people of America that truly follow through by way of the Red Cross etc. During the Tsunami, the US sent a few helicopters that were late to react by the way and only because the world and the US populace started screaming about the slow reaction. Come on, you expect me to believe that the US govt has any humanitarian tendencies that are not founded on some form of alterior motive when they can’t even take care of their own people. Ask the people in the gulf what they think. Sorry the US govt reacts to global crises when they are forced to or if there is a political advantage. We’ll send you grain but you have to…………. I hate always sounding so cynical but thanks to the open media we have the fortune of having in this day and age, I have simply been to shocked by all of the information I have digested that shows that so many govt’s are underhanded, including the US’s.

    This flows into my next point, regarding an area which you simply refuse to admit. If you really investigated history you would find that only a relatively small portion of US engagement in the Middle East has had anything to do with Israel’s protection. We have armed them more than sufficiently for them not to really need us. Osama’s arming was to fight the Russian’s and we played two face with Iraq and Iran, because our govt decided that it no longer liked Saddam and let’s just see if we can get the to cancel each other out. Our govt has supported dictator after dictator in history. So again please stop trying to tell me that the US govt has nothing but morality coarsing through it’s veins. You cannot only tout the good and ignore all of the bad. At no time do you admit the screw ups.

    Back to Israel, it does amuse me that you make such an effort to use the term Zionist because even in Israel some hate their agenda. I am not going to pretend to know a great deal about Zionism but from what I do know, they are an amazing antagonistic bunch. AJ did make the distinction himself during his speech.

    Did you really listen to his speech or were you wrapped up solely in his refusal to admit that they have homosexuals in Iran ? Sorry, while I heard him evoke the Almighty a number of times his speech was hardly wrapped in Islam. He pointed out the support of Saddam in the Iran war, he pointed out that no matter how much America wants to ignore it, there were reasons for the 9/11 attack that had absolutely nothing to do with ” they hate our freedom “. It would be so refreshing to hear someone from the right wing admit that they can see how some peoples in the ME might have a legitimate reason to hate America. By doing so they are not absolving the horror of 9/11, because this cannot be forgiven ( I remind you that many of those hijackers were Saudi’s whose govt must give the OK to all of those ” hate America and death to Israel ” books that are read in schools there ).

    By your justification, we should not be surprised if countless nations come after us, like you feel we should attack Iran for supplying insurgents in Iraq, because our govt has funded countless insurgent groups throughout the world. By your justification Russia should have attacked us because we did fund Osama when he was fighting against the Russians. It’s disgusting in all cases but this does not make one less guilty then the other.

    To ignore the fact that the US govt is guilty of creating some of these monsters is just naive.

    This belief that anyone should blindly accept and support their govt because they hold that citizenship is proposterous. Your arguments are full of conjecture ( Iran is building nukes, Iran is doing this and that ) that seems to come straight from the right wing speech book.

    If Iraq has taught us anything it is that as a citizen of the world, it is essential to be 95% certain that our accusations are true before we act. By this I do not mean wait until let’s say Iran has Nukes, but rather let’s let the world appointed governing bodies do their jobs. UN inspectors who knew Saddam was not as armed as we claimed him to be, or the Atomic Energy commission. Funny how we never seem to listen to them when we want war, cue Iraq war. No….no wait, we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, that’s right, I forget that.

    As for AJ’s mention of ” The Almighty “, I ask do you see any difference between that and Bush and the right wings constant mention of ” God’s will ” ? and how he has a direct line to God. That God drove Bush to see the light with Iraq. In my opinion Bush is as fanatical as AJ and I trust neither of them.

    Anyway, I am wasting my time, you win. Like I said America is nothing more than a poor slob that everyone picks on for no reason. I love my maternal country ( America ) for it’s people, not for it’s govt and with a 26% approval rating of the Bush admin, it looks like I am not the only one.

    Reply
  43. Nomad
    September 28, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    At times, they supported approaches simply to humiliate the US (or Britian, or anyone) and glorify France

    Roman

    I agree there are some snob old-fashioned diplomatic and intellectual who are using grandiloquence, but they don’t represent the average french opinion, which is more moderated and kind of easy-going.

    I can also add that since I go on different opinion blogs or papers across the world, that the “elite spirit” is well-shared and is not tipically french. though the frenchs felt also humiliated by the bashings and sarcams well spread in anglo-saxon MSM and a lot of the french reaction occured because of that.

    I wonder if these kind of “attacks” are allowed against the Jews or the Blacks in the quoted countries though

    Reply
  44. Roman Kalik
    September 28, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Nomad, while the elitist spirit was never exclusive to France, the closest I can think of in terms of sheer arrogance at very high government and cultural levels is Colonial-era Great Britian.

    Yes, France and the French get bashed unjustly, but as a state you guys have acted as if France is still the center of Europe. That chafes at mental chords, to say the least. Personally, my only beef with France is the pro-Arab politics since the 1960′s, which went from reneging on an arms deal post-payment, to going with the Soviet Union on the ‘Zionism is Racism’ issue on the UN, to bloody Chirac. Chirac, and anyone near him, were total asses.

    I agree, though, that none of the above should reflect on the average Frenchman. The thing is, your bad image is mostly of your own creation, and not just a leftover of British resentment.

    Reply
  45. Nomad
    September 28, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    roman

    “Accused of being too enamored of the United States, he said that both France and the United States “are a lot more like each other than they think they are,” because both countries believe that their values are destined to inspire the world…
    “The Germans don’t think that, the Spanish don’t think that, the Italians don’t think that, the Chinese don’t think that,” he said.”

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/business/sarko.php

    Sarko got the words !

    :206: (test)

    Reply
  46. JT
    September 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Nomad,

    JT, you miss the point, Frenchman is an American with a french origin from his father, plus, they don’t lived in France, (see frenchman explanation though) So he can’t represent the mainstream opinion of France, but of US.
    But I like him, he is an honest and nice guy :lol:

    and you’d better clean your brain, because your cliché is rather revealing “racism”

    I didn’t missed anything. I am well aware that Frenchmen is a French living in the US, and he does not speak for the country France, but the mentality is parallel to what is prevalent in France.

    And I’ve learned that when someone cries racism, they’ve basically given up on any debate. That’s the white flag of surrender. The side that accuses the other of racism loses.

    Reply
  47. Nomad
    September 28, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    though the amalgam is so talkativ :
    ya surrender

    waste of time to argue with you

    Reply
  48. JT
    September 28, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Nomad,
    though the amalgam is so talkativ :
    ya surrender

    waste of time to argue with you

    You introduced a moot point and I corrected you. If you want to have a meaningful debate with someone, then don’t come out and use the race card. All it does is show how weak your argument is.

    Reply
  49. JT
    September 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

    Frenchmen,

    I do acknowledge that what we discuss here will most probably not make any difference anywhere. However, I wish to point out some things.

    1) I never said you spoke for the country France. What I am saying is that your views can be found in abundance over there. This is typical European thinking. It hasn’t worked then, it won’t work now.

    2) You want to marginalize the seriousness of Ahmadinejad’s threats and dangerous actions, but do understand that you cannot reason with religious fanatics who want to kill for their god. This is because they want what we cannot give them, i.e. our total submission and a willful dismissal of what they aim to bring about, and that is a world wide Islamic caliphate. This is the purpose of a jihadi; nothing else matters. Nothing is more dangerous than religiously motivated hatred in my judgment, and the world has not even begun to understand what Islamic fascists can do and the length they will go to once they obtain their first nuke. You can say that socialists, atheists, and communists have killed x number of people, but remember that those despots have nothing to look forward to in the afterlife, assuming there is one. Islamists, on the other hand, do not care much for this life but rather the next. Just consider the mosques around the world and what they’re teaching their congregation. This problem is a lot bigger than just one crazy Muslim. If Ahmadinejad fails in his quest to destroy us, someone else will take up the mantle. Unfortunately, it would be foolish for Westerners to implement a wait and see attitude. That was what we did with Hitler, and he wasn’t even religious. Hitler wanted to live and rule the world. Islamists welcome death and martyrdom and they look forward to their heavenly reward.

    3) Regarding Katrina and the generosity of the US govt, I find it dishonest that you would cite a domestic natural disaster when you could have recalled a similar incident overseas. Katrina was mishandled on many levels and many leaders, but most memorably by Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. Both were incompetent with preparation before Katrina hit, and both were ridiculously incompetent during and after Katrina. Recall the fleet of yellow school buses that Nagin refused to use for evacuation. Recall how Governor Blanco admitted to an aide that “she had been too slow in asking for federal troops. Blanco: “I really need to call for the military … and I should have started that in the first call.” Source here. The federal government also helped in many ways. Can you google that yourself or do you want me to do it for you? I agree that no government is spotless but it puzzles me that you have so much difficulty to see the generosity of the US government towards other countries around the world. There are so many examples of such generosities but you like to attribute those to selfish reasons. Your cynicism is getting the best of you even in the face of facts. How many billions did Bush promised and delivered to Africa to fight AIDS? How many billions did Bill Clinton promised and how much of that money was delivered?

    Reply
  50. Roman Kalik
    September 29, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Nomad, I like Sarkozy. He’s only right up to a point though, for it is France and China that both consistently saw themselves as sources of cultural advancement. The British had a short period, relatively speaking, the US is having it for a very short time, and so on. He’s right for the reality today.

    Personally, I’d very much like to see a more active European country, like France is trying for now, and with less a focus on “pragmatic” diplomacy. For centuries of The Great Game, European diplomacy meant money. In this, European diplomacy stagnated (to the point of trying to buy-off Hitler, assuming that he too was “pragmatic”), and this trend has yet to abate fully.

    Sarkozy speaks a lot of sense in that article, from NATO support to not letting Iran use French declarations for propaganda purposes. Where the hell was he and his for the past 40 years, is what I want to know. ;-)

    Reply
  51. Nomad
    September 30, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Roman

    I am not sure to understand what you mean by “pragmatic diplomacy” ;

    I had rather the feeling of a statu quo diplomacy”

    anyway, seems that with Sarkozy we enter in the 21th century, even if he is making a lot of air brewings ; that the impression we get here ; may-be cause of the big contrast with our former governments :lol:

    Reply
  52. Roman Kalik
    September 30, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    With “pragmatic diplomacy” I mean diplomacy that is little more than a business agreement between nations, not taking into account ideology, megalomania, or any other non-financial factor. It assumes that leaders seek just land or coin, and can thus be bought with land, coin, or a combination of the two.

    It is, in essence, post-Chivalry, late middle-ages diplomacy, when honor became irrelevant (or even more irrelevant) and the European Great Game began. This diplomacy assumes the same reality that the article you brought previously also assumed: that conflict is money-based, and that power is measured by your treasury.

    Reality, as always, is ever more complicated.

    And I think it’s the contrast of Sarkozy’s policies that makes him seem as you describe. He has… initiative. Positive initiative. Original initiative. It breaks the previous stagnation, in my opinion.

    Reply
  53. Nomad
    October 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    I am afraid that the times of any kind of “Cyrano de Bergerac” behaviour are over : welcome to the mediatic world :sad:

    Reply
  54. Frenchman
    October 1, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    JT,

    I guess I will continue, because I do appreciate your arguments and they have become less of an attack.

    To your first point, see Nomad’s comments. She is of the belief that I do not speak for France or Europe, although I have to respectfully disagree with her, in that I for once =) agree with you. My sentiments are founded on, not so much a European mindset, but rather an international one.

    However, you say ” see how that has worked for the Euro’s “, to which I argue, there have been no terror attacks in Europe that come even close to the magnitude of 9/11 and the Muslim populations per capita is far far greater in many Euro countries, than what we have in the US and Europe is so so much closer. As far as I know, the US and Britain are the flags I see burning in all of the video’s and pictures and lets keep in mind the civil unrest exhibited by Muslims in Paris not so long ago. There is plenty to be said for negotiations. While I do not make light of the religious factor, the fact is that, just like our pro-war leaders who love to use fear, the ME leaders use religion to stir up the people. They know that this is the one argument that the little people cannot argue or reason with. While I have seen you use the term Islamist, I am not sure if you make the true distinction, because while Islamic verses are peppered with the term infidel, it’s all really subjective. In fact our very own President has been guilty of using religion to make a case for his actions.

    No, I do not relish the thought of Iran having Nukes, nor do I support AJ’s cause, but like in Iraq, I know that we will set our cause back decades more by antagonizing and attacking militarily. Are you unable to see the damage that Iraq has caused ? Can you not admit that we have turned thousands if not millions of on the fence Muslims against us ? Can you not make the connection between our actions in the past and the present as possibly resulting in hatred that could result in action against us ? That their leaders are after power, just like ours and that they use fear tactics to motivate their people to jihad ?

    I am not asking America to lie down and take it up the ass, but rather to make 100% sure that it takes stock of the situation at hand, through talks before acting. We do it with North Korea, whose threat is 100 times more legitimate than AJ’s in terms of what NK already has in it’s arsenal. He is a madman, but is merely looking for legitimacy.

    How about the US sit down with AJ and offer him controlled and monitored nuclear power ? hmmm, seems to me that this would get us both inside the playbook and mute his argument that he is looking for nuclear power. Offer it up cheap. If he refuses without even considering then we have a better argument. So far I have no screaming from the US govt claiming that his arguments that he has tried countless times to purchase the technology and when refused the power and been denied, are false.

    I don’t trust any govt, everything is a power play and the US govt is one of the worst offenders and like AJ uses religion, the US govt uses freedom and democracy as it’s cover.

    The US govt only seems to leave those govt who open their markets to US corporations alone, regardless of whether the govt in question is cruel to it’s people. ” You shut up and let us penetrate your markets with our goods and we’ll leave you alone “.

    Having said that the US needs a foe in order to justify defence spending. What would all of our contractors do if we didn’t have an enemy. Those guys are laughing all the way to the bank right now. Old stock piles have been depleted and I can hear the phones ringing right now for more.

    It’s simple, the American govt loves war.

    On the Katrina thing, you try to argue that Nagin and Blanco are not part of the govt. They were and this is the govt I speak of. It was a failure from the top to the bottom. You assume that I am pointing the finger at the Republicans and not the Democrats. Admitedly my argument scales tip much heavier on the side of the Republicans, but I have seen, thankfully a call to reason from many Republicans, but, in the end, the Dems are no better. So let me clarify, I am talking about the entire system of govt here in the US, not just Bush. It was congress, which was made up of Nagin’s and blanco’s that decided to just take Bush and his hawks on their word.

    Europe hates war, they are sick of it, had many more wars than the US has and have seen it’s futility. This doesn’t mean it won’t go to war as a last measure. Cue the comment : ” America saved Europe from Hitler “. Europe has and continues to thank America for it but there are limits. Let’s also be clear that half of Europe had already been demolished before America decided to join in and I believe that much of the decision to finally jump in was motivated by the realization that America would be isolated if Europe was under Hitler while Asia was under communist rule and that if Hitler had been allowed to amass the power that would have come with all of the military forces and resources of all of the European powers that America would be next on Hilters hit list. It does not diminish the sacrifice made or the end result, but let’s be clear about the motives at least. If America had truly been concerned about protecting it’s allies in Europe, I would have to imagine that the reaction would have been swifter.

    As for your trying to call me out on failing to mention the international disasters that the US govt has jumped in on as savior, I did mention the Tsunami in Asia and I remember very clearly how the reaction time and the size of the reaction from the US govt during that horro was strongly criticized. The same goes for the reaction to the earthquake in Pakistan. Lot’s of promises but none really kept. Again, don’t confuse, I have cleared applauded the American people kindness and this has been consistent throughout history. In fact, for the civilized world outside of the US, it is this contradication that they find so difficult to understand. How can the American people be so kind and generous but be fronted by such animals, who clearly have but their own interests at heart, filling their own pockets as well as those of their croonies.

    I love this country, just like I love France. The argument that I am against my country because I disagree with it’s politics is superficial at best. When I thought of us going to war in Iraq, my very first thought was our soldiers dying in vain. I did not think this when we went into Afghanistan. Somebody had to pay for 9/11 but I wanted the right people dead and so far they continue to roam.

    AJ is an ass of epic proportions and an animal and I also want Israel protected, not the Zionists but Israel. So far AJ has done nothing but talk. He might aquire Nukes but if you don’t think he knows that with all of the sattelite technology we and the Israeli’s have that if one popped out of the ground, all of the arsenals of the world would be pointed directly at Tehran. Anything he chucked at Israel would have barely landed before Iran was wiped off the map. He is not that stupid.

    Right now we should penetrate through diplomacy and play his friend. Get him to open a slit in the door. If we played poker with him figuratively I am confident that we could elminate the threat he poses or possibly prove that he is 10 years from being able to build his first nuke. Offer him the nuclear power, see what he does. This will not happen under Bush because I don’t he really gives a shit about any of this. He loves war, it’s good for his bank account ( indirectly ) and good for his friends. Many many wars have been averted through diplomacy even with the most fanatical govt’s. You can mock diplomacy as much as you want but you know there are plenty of facts to prove it is more effective.

    In what war that America started has the outcome been positive ? OK, Afghanistan, but Bush took his eye off the ball there to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan is slowly creeping back to it’s old self.

    Reply
  55. Roman Kalik
    October 1, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Frenchman, and yet again you make me shudder just a little. Zionism meant founding a national home and refuge within the land of Israel. It is not expansionist. It is not gun-totting. It does not equal ethnic cleansing and land from the Nile to the Ephrates.

    I repeat: Zionism means building (and maintaining the existence) a state for Jews. David Ben-Gurion, a Zionist, accepted the 1948 Two Sate partition plan. The Zionists of 1967 offered full peace negotiations just as the guns of the Six Day War went silent, with all captured territory on the table.

    I’m a Zionist, Frenchman. *Your* definition only ever existed in propaganda.

    When Ahmadinejad speaks of Zionism and the “Zionist Entity”, he speaks of Israel as a sovereign state. He has no real problem with Jews, I’m sure, as long as we know our place. A Jewish sovereign state, though… That’s a bit too much for him.

    Reply
  56. Frenchman
    October 2, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Roman, let me just try to get you to clarify, you do not see any difference between Jews and Zionists, is that right ? I will confess that I am not an expert but from what I do know, there are many in Israel itself that do not agree with the ” Zionists “. Again, not being an expert on these matters, my uninformed view is that the Zionists represent the hard right wing in Israel and I know that this wing of the Israeli govt want more settlements in Palestine and they got their way until recently. More settlements were on the program. How can you say that the 1967 borders have been Israels only goal, given that these borders were breached long ago.

    Again I am no expert but I do see a clear distinction, just like I do in the goals of Republicans and Democrats in the US.

    Let’s also be clear here, that I have been informed many times since I have raised this subject matter with friends who know more than I do that there is quite a healthy Jewish population in Iran, that from what I understand live decent uninpeded lives in Iran and that they even have a little representation in the Iranian govt, even if this is consiliatory in it’s nature, it refutes your view that Iran hates Jews. The Iranian govt has all of the power to expel all Jews living in Iran or worse yet persecute, torture and kill them. They seem to have the capacity and the will to kill whomever they wish, so given the fact that they don’t, I am left to wonder where Jews would believe that AJ or Iran is equivalent to Hitler and Germany during WW2.

    For the record, while I am no religious expert and will not get into the history of Israel in terms of how much it was entitled to the land it now occupies, I am a firm supporter in it’s right to exist. Many lands have been taken and won through war and those borders are honored. The fact that Israel happens to be located in a bees nest does not help matters. I would have rather Jerusalem be relocated to a nice peaceful part of the world so none of this shit had to exist, so that Israel could live in peace and not have to deal with all of this antagonizing.

    However, I think your argument that Zionism is Israel can’t be correct with all of the counter information I have received since debating this subject. Or that Zionist are not interested in expansion of the state of Israel. History shows that this is complete nonesense. How do you explain the settlements ? Why did the Israeli govt decide to close certain settlements as a form of appeasement. Remember, your argument is no expansion beyond the borders drawn in 1967. If this is indeed you argument than I have to respectfully disagree with you. From what I hear from Israeli friends, the Zionist are pretty power hungry and hard core bunch, at least from a leadership standpoint. Totally unwilling to conceed anything to the ” Arabs “. Not willing to negotiate and when the Israeli govt does try to use diplomacy they are ripped a new one by the right wing. That many Israeli’s dislike the right wing in their own country because they realize that the only way to live in peace is to try and come to some kind of common ground with their neighbors.

    Reply
  57. Frenchman
    October 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Clearly, in these times of the slickly packaged and devastatingly ignorant “War on Terror,” the desire for nuance, for understanding, has been lost. Knowledge and intellectual curiosity are clearly undervalued; to vilify and demonize Mr. Ahmadi Nejad in the absence of any real understanding of the context from which he comes is all too easy. The kind of “Evil Satan” rhetoric that has been drummed up for a quarter of a century in Iran finds its perfect mirror in America today. The religious extremism found in parts of Iran is no different than the kind that has crept into the American psyche.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parvez-sharma/my-jihad-in-america-and-_b_66684.html

    Reply
  58. Roman Kalik
    October 2, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Frenchman, not every Jew supports modern-day Israel, or wants it to exist before the arrival of the Jewish Messiah. So no, not every Jew is Zionist.

    In terms of history, when the post-war 1967 negotiations were refused, some believed that the territory was de-facto annexed, and decided to “set the facts on the ground”. In local legal terms, only Jerusalem and the Golan were recognized by the government as annexed to leave the door open for further negotiations. The settlements, once built (often near army camps for security purposes) were impossible to tear down legally, as there was no law regarding their very existence and land-purchasing in occupied territory until the late 70s. So now, as they were Israeli citizens, they had to get security. And infrastructure. It was, in the best tradition of this country, a mess.

    And, man, the Left supported the settlements as much as the Right did. It had to, in terms of state obligation, and negotiation with the Palestinians wasn’t on the agenda again yet. It was the Right, by the way, that signed the peace agreement with Egypt and gave back the Sinai. The Right did not manage to limit Rabin’s negotiations, or Barak’s total-1967 offer. The Right, in fact, has no problem with negotiations in general (Netanyahu expanded the Palestinian Authority’s territorial jurisdiction and powers in his time). The Right simply holds few peacenik illusions, and wants proof of a Palestinian public that wants what the Israeli Left wants. We get bombs instead, with suicider-people. Lots of them.

    Perhaps you need to make Israeli friends who aren’t in the hardline Left, man. You’d get a broader picture that way.

    As for Jews in Iran, the head of the community was executed in 1979, and Jews there get no passports since. Like in the Soviet Union, the Jewish community is held hostage, with a small yet steady trickle exiting the country by getting a “Study in Turkey” special permit, and simply not returning. Speak with post-revolution Iranian Jewish expats, man. I know too many such people to hold Iran’s treatment of Jews in high regard. AJ and Iran are feared here because the leadership views Israel as a blight that needs to be erased. That they don’t hunt Jews for being Jews doesn’t change the fact that we have six million Jews here in Israel. We’d like to live, thank you, and not lose our sovereignity either. They hate Israel for being a sovereign non-Muslim state in this area, and regardless of the political reasons, Jews in general and Israelis in particular got heavy dehumanization treatment. I read Iranian blogs, so I get titbits of how Iran views us. Zionism conspiracies are rife, as are blatantly anti-Semitic (big-nosed evil midget Orthodox Jew being evil) cartoons, articles talking on how incest is a central part of Jewish culture… The list is endless.

    So pardon me if I’m terrified of the mere possibility of a nuclear Iran.

    Reply
  59. Roman Kalik
    October 2, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    Nomad, Neturei Karta are fun, in their own, somewhat pathetic fanaticism. Even the die-hard religious anti-Zionists of the Satmar Hassidim hate Neturei-Karta for their AJ-hugging. Before that, they were hated for calling any Jew who supported Israel, or merely accepting the state’s existence, heretics. Oh, their paphlets, so fun. :-D

    Reply
  60. Frenchman
    October 3, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Roman, thank you for the expansion on the subject of Israel, I always welcome a different on the ground view of things.

    While I am Roman Catholic, I have never really been someone who practices my religion. My position has always been one of mild spirituality. A belief that I cannot refute the existence of a higher power, but it does not dictate my value system. I mention this because religion, throughout history has been the central cause for so much strife in this world. I don’t hate religion nor am I an extremist with thoughts of going to the extreme of becoming an atheist, but imagine how different our history might be if we were all born with the belief in the exact same God, same values etc. ? Interesting no ?

    Of any religious community to ever walk this planet, Jews have suffered so much that it is hard to even fathom at times and they have refused to lie down, which has earned your people monumental praise and rightly so. As mentioned, I have never questioned Israel’s right to exist.

    Having said this, your expansion on your original statements does show a great deal more confusion in Israeli policy since 1967, then you first led on. You kind of step over your statement that Israel has never had an expansionist agenda. What you do in your answer to me is justify expansionism beyond the borders of 67. I am not going to argue on the details because, again, I am no expert. However, if I am correct, at the point when settlements were decided by Israel, from your statements I read that Israel felt that the original agreement was murky and not sufficient and more was land was desired and taken.

    I do not question the beauty or innocence of most of the population in Israel, but like I question my own govt’s, I do not support all of the motives of the Israeli govt, whether now or in history. Many mistakes have been made and the Israeli govt has racked up it’s share of shoot first death. I take all information with a small grain of salt, but I have to place a little credence in the plight of the Palestinian people and how innocent Palestinian men, women and children might have lost their lives at the hands of the Israeli military. Possibly in retaliation for a heartbreaking suicide attack, but not always. I hope you can conceed that Israels actions in Palestine have not always been stellar.

    Honestly, I just cannot know what it must be like to be on either side of this seemingly unsolveable, unreconcileable situation between yourselfs and the Palestinians. I am no bleeding heart though and therefore do not cheer the cause of the radical Palestinians. I have watched a couple of deep documentaries on the plight of the layman Palestinian who just wants to raise his family and work his fields in peace, as much as I do the Israelis who want to do the same. But once again govt’s fuck things up.

    Back to Iran, like in all countries in the world, there will always be people who have suffured at the hands of leadership and want to get out. As far as I can tell there are plenty of Iranians who want out of Iran, so it does not surprise me that there are Jews in Iran who want the same. I equate the Jews in Iran to the Muslim in Israel, both have reduced rights and their freedoms limited. Yes, I know that Muslims in Israel have it better but they are still, for the most part, the lower class right, like Mexicans in American. Do they prefer Israel because they would rather not be in the land of their birth or their forefathers or because they have better opportunity in Israel to feed their families doing menial jobs ? Where back in their home land, likely Palestine, there is no work ?

    To be honest, I am and until someone provides me with a reason, completely perplexed as to why there would be any Jews in Iran at all. Why they wouldn’t all be in Israel ? As far as I have been informed, and I could be wrong, Iran is the only Muslim country to even allow Jews to exist on their land. I remember quite clearly while living in Singapore that whenever we did a class trip to Malaysia, my poor Israeli friends were forced to stay back. I hated it but was too young to understand the scope. The point being, Iran, as a nation and probably because they are not Arabs but rather Persians, have been the most tolerant nation in the Middle East towards Jews.

    Yes AJ, who I am hearing more and more is really just a figure head has a big mouth, no bigger than George Bush’s. Their all assholes who play up to their group of morons, who all have an agenda and who all profess to be speaking for God when anyone with sense knows it’s bullshit. So far the only to act on his rhetoric is Bush, which makes him the most evil of the bunch. Just because he knows that there are millions of Jews he has to pander to and therefore supports Israel, should not disuade you from seeing what an ass he is. WHat has he really done for Israel or to try and sothe the I vs P conflict, nada !

    Back to my point, yes Iran getting hold of a nuke is not a good thing, but I want proof beyond AJ’s rhetoric that this is Iran’s goal. I am not stupid, it’s possible that this is their goal, but the US and Russia had a standoff for many many years and nothing happened. There was plenty of rhetoric on both sides. Iran would have to want self destruction to use such a weapon against anyone, including Israel, just like Russia or America in the cold war. AJ and his party might sound maniacal but they cannot be so stupid not to realize that any attack on Israel using WMD’s let alone a nuke would result in their having no country left to run or worse yet, for them, their own demise.

    For all of the rhetoric I have heard from AJ, in all of his years of power he has never once attacked Israel, at least not directly. With all of the Muslim sects, I can’t be sure but I believe they do support Hezbollah but this group has very little power against Israel. Again the point is that if AJ and his group of people were that insane they would have directly attacked Israel by now. It’s not as if Iran doesn’t have a sufficient arsenal of weapons to inflict serious damage on Israel right now, but they recognize that the world would answer in spade. So what is the difference if they had a nuke ? Yes, I understand the Israeli fear that we are talking about a one time massive impact, but the retaliation against Iran would still be the same and AJ knows this.

    My point in all of my comments on this topic is for everyone to stop overeacting to AJ. He and more likely the people he represents are idiots who do not represent true Islam. Like so many other madmen in history, they love to shoot their mouths off. We need to try every measure possible to control AJ without war and enough political pressure can achieve this. I read an article on CNN with a quote from the Atomic Energy Board stating that their inspections had Iran several years from being capable of creating a nuke and that, while their were some parts of the Iranian nuclear program that were a a little hidden that so far investigations showed Iran’s legitmate desire for peaceful nuclear power. With enough pressure from the globe, not just the US, I believe that Iran can be controlled, just like we did succesfully with Saddam, but Bush wanted war, so it didn’t matter, let’s not make the same mistake again.

    If any people on this entire planet that should be desensitized to cat calls, it’s the Israeli’s, so why do they react to AJ. He is no different that countless other Muslim leaders. I have heard that the books used in the Imams throughout the world all call for the anialation of Israel and while not making light of the suffering experienced by Palestinian suicide bombers or Hezbollah rockets, none have even come close to a real threat to Israel and I don’t believe Iran will ever be either, even with a nuke. If this is truly Iran’s ambition, I believe it is simply to say, my dick is as big as yours, just like it’s been for every country in the world.

    Only America has actually used them. Telling no ?

    I understand easy to say from afar but I live in the US and Iran has cleared identified America as infidel. America is a target too, so I too have a stake in this. I also care a great deal for Israel and understand your closer, but again let’s use reason and let’s at least friggin talk to AJ. Who the frig knows where this could get us. We have already seen how AJ is willing to buckle under pressure on the key issues and this was him just trying to reach out through a pulpit at Columbia and through his meetings with those Jewish leaders in NY. Demonizing him does nothing more than push him further against the wall, just like we have seen with Hamas in Palestine. They too decry the destruction of Israel.

    Israeli have a right to be concerned but why feed into AJ, it’s what he wants. He wants to get a rise, he wants to make all of the mullahs happy back home, but do I think anything would come of the big talk, frankly no. By not reacting to him, you render him impotent.

    Reply
  61. Nomad
    October 3, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    Frenchman, as you can read french, I suppose, here , is a link (pro Sha) that might enlighten you about the sanity of the mullahcraty and their puppet A

    http://www.iran-resist.org/

    et chacun en prend pour son grade

    Reply
  62. Frenchman
    October 3, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    Salut Nomad, Merci pour le liens. Malheureusement, je vois rien dans ces article qui me convainque qu’il faut re-agire immediatement. Comment explique tu que Sarkosy a frappe Kouchner ? Evidement, Sarkozy comprend que il faut pas pousser non ? J’ai pas dit que AJ est L’Iran ne sont pas un probleme, mais qu’il faut reagire avec prudence et non pas comme tarzan. Tous les argumentation contre mes avis essaye de me pousser dans un coin comme si je supporte les idees de AJ. Ce qui est pas du tous correct. Ma premiere reponse sur les avis de SM ont ete fondee sur mon avis que le President de Columbia c’est comporte comme un enfant avec sont introduction de AJ et que ca na servi personne. Apres l’Irak, je demande tous le monde de ce calmer un peut et de joue le jeux un peut. C’est tous ! Ne tu croit pas que L’Iran a pas deja penser du reaction de toute les pays du monde si ils lance une bombe a L’Israel ? A ce point ce n’est que des mots. Et tous le monde a des opinions comme sur le site que tu ma gentillement presenter. Tous le monde a leur programme. Je ne doute pas que ils a des Iranien qui souffre, mais ne tu crois pas que ce qui ce passe a Darfur n’est peut pas plus pire ? L’issue nuclear vis a vis L’Iran est a present qu’une discussions. Nous avons auq’une preuve et la commission Atomique nous dit que L’Iran a au moin trois ans devant elle avant qu’elle aura les moyen pour construire une bombe atomique. Pourquoi pas offrir offrir la technologie a L’Iran pour l’energie nuclear ? Pourquoi pas effacer les insitence de AJ qui a demander partous et personne veut lui en donner. Si il refuse ca dit beaucoup ! Bref, evidemment personne dans cette discussion comprend ma position, peut etre c’est moi l’idiot et que la solution et attaque l’Iran immediatement. Mais cette jour arrive, j’aurais les preuves que l’homme na pas evoluer, que a la fin c’est la guerre qui decide tous. J’en est mar de toute la panique. C’est comme nous avons tous perdu la capaciter d’utilizer la tete.

    Voila ce que je dit, c’est tous.

    Reply
  63. Frenchman
    October 3, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    Est voila des preuves que avec assez de negotation et de la patience que l’ont peut arriver a des accord avec les plus pire chef de pays. Voila des progres :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04diplo.html?hp

    To anyone still listening, the above article defines the kind of tactics I believe actually work in a world of supposed madmen despots and this guy was already armed. You negotiate, you make concessions even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, because it is only this, in today’s world, not in the world of WW2, that you save lives and mend fences.

    Reply
  64. Roman Kalik
    October 3, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Frenchman, to clarify, it wasn’t the government that built the settlements (at least in the vast majority of cases), the government just had to live with the fact that they exist, without doing much to stop them or thinking forward to problems that they may cause. This short-sightedness is fairly typical for Israeli politicians. After negotiations failed, Jerusalem’s Old City was no-go, as was the Golan. Jerusalem because it was the central-most location for the Jewish people, and the Golan because it was high-ground with many of the Kinneret’s water-sources. The Kinneret is the central water source in Israel, and as peace with Syria wasn’t seen in the horizon, the Israeli government decided (in the 70s, if memory serves) not to leave that region at risk ever again. Thus, the Golan Heights were annexed, and the people living there received Israeli citizenship.

    As for religion, it is no different than any other ideal that can be twisted. It is not the religions that caused wars, but the people who used them to cause wars.

    And I wouldn’t compare Muslims in Israel to Jews in Iran. Muslims in Israel travel freely. Muslims in Israel are equal before the law. And to answer your question as to why there are still Jews in Iran – they can’t leave. Just like in the Soviet Union, a Jew leaving for Israel is a traitor, whose punishment is death. A Jew exiting Iran at all is difficult in itself. Yes, Persian culture is more tolerant and Iran is much better for Jews than Syria, Iraq, or Egypt were. But the Islamic Republic isn’t tolerant, and hates the Persian culture. The Baha’i in Iran are treated just like Jews in Eastern Europe were in the 19th century. Graveyards razed, forbidden higher education, hate-campaigns, the works. Yes, Jews there have it better than the Baha’i, but only as long as they do as they’re told like good little Dhimmis.

    I would not underestimate madness, and short-sightedness. Nor is Iran as an untouchable regional power (everyone trusts Israel to only use nukes at last resort, which won’t be the case with Iran) be a good development. Not that Israel will be the first to suffer, if Iranian state-run newspapers are any indications. Bahrain is in trouble, as Iran views it as a lost province. The Kurds will be screwed as well… It’s a complex matter.

    As for the US using the A-bomb, it was the first time that such weapons were used, and the last. In that war, they saved more lives than they took, as Imperial Japan had started preparing civilians to a battle to the death and mass suicides. The projected death-tolls before reaching the Japanese mainland, for both US soldiers and Japanese civilians, were horrendous. The A-bomb ended the war.

    And the US didn’t use it since. Before you realize just how horrible a weapon is, you have to see it. The US saw it, as did most of the world.
    As for AJ reaching out… And to Jewish leaders… Again you fail to see the facts in the field. Have European talks with Iran led anywhere? Have UN talks with Iran led anywhere? And that AJ meets with Jewish fanatics who hate Israel for being too secular and independent doesn’t make him a friend of the Jewish people. No, what AJ did is a delaying tactic. Iran used them often. That and trying to creaty sypathy in the US to him as something of a Left-winger, another tactic the Islamic leadership has used since the very revolution.

    As for Bush, I won’t enter a pointless argument about him with you. I will say though, that before 9/11 he did the best thing he could do for us, something other American presidents didn’t do.

    He left us to handle matters ourselves.

    Reply
  65. Nomad
    October 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Frenchman,

    c’est à qui va faire monter les enchères le plus haut pour obtenir le plus de concessions, mais il y aura des accords c’est sûr ! et je crois que tout cela se fera au dépend des populations.

    La republique iranienne est aussi démoniaque que le régime de Saddam ; et nous, Français, nous avons quelques griefs majeurs envers elle : drakkar en 1983 : 53 soldats français tués au Liban, le crash de l’avion sur le Ténéré que les politiques occidentales ont à propos mis sur le dos de Khadafi, plusieurs attentats meurtriers dans Paris dans les années 80… le sort peu enviable des homoseuels, des petites filles, des femmes et des opposants à leur régime…

    ce qui fait que de notre côté de l’Atlantique, on aimerait bien qu’ils aient le retour du bâton

    Reply
  66. Frenchman
    October 5, 2007 at 10:02 am

    Roman et Nomad, my apologies have been so tied up with life stuff have not had a chance to respond nor will I today. Roman it has been an interesting conversation, I hear some of your points loud and clear, as I hope you have heard some of mine.

    Have a good weekend !

    Nomad, je comprend parfaitement, tous ce que je veut c’est du calme. Ont sais j’amais, un de ces jours les Jeunes en Iran vont peut etre commencer leur revolution et nous sauver de la responsabilite de assasiner AJ =)

    Bon weekend a vous tous !

    Reply
  67. Roman Kalik
    October 6, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    A few, Frenchman, just a select few. The vast majority I have heard before, in various shapes and forms. I didn’t like them when people used them before, and I can’t say that I like them now.

    And as a parting broadside, I dare you to go ask the Kurds living in Iraqi Kurdistan about their lives before, and after, the US invasion of Iraq. Ask them how they would have liked your containment policy.

    But don’t do it face to face. It may end painfully. :-P

    Reply

3Pingbacks & Trackbacks on Words and Pics

  1. [...] Setembro 25, 2007 Posted by claudio in bolivarianismo, totalitarismo. trackback Por causa disto. Ontem eu falei disso rapidinho aqui e, claro, eu sabia que algo assim poderia acontecer. [...]

  2. [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>