When Does The Iranian Moron Speak?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

We've already heard from "Our" self-appointed MORON. When does the other INSANE leader address the UN?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Good Question. I Wish I Knew.

[LSparkle]

2. He was scheduled for 6:30 EST but don't know if that's still the case

[bullimiami]

3. the iranian is no moron.

he may have a lot of unsavory opinions or comments but he is not stupid like bush.

[slackmaster]

6. You're right, he's just a racist fucktard

An intelligent racist fucktard.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

57. He's an anti-Semite

Hadn't you heard?

[William769]

9. Your right he is no moron.

He's just pure evil.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. You realize we're not at war with Iran, right?

And we've got no reason to be?

[William769]

11. Did I say that?

I think NOT!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. No.

But you've been itching for a fight with Iran for a few weeks now.

I doubt you're rushing down to the enlistment office though.

[William769]

18. Just shows how much you know!

I go down there all the time but they won't take me!

You subliminal digs are laughable! :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Subliminal?

That was subliminal?

I just came out and said you've been promoting a war with Iran.

It's right there in the archives.

:shrug:

[William769]

20. Your second line.

Your wit needs something to be desired also. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Oh, that.

No, that was also a straight forward comment about how warmongers are cowards to boot.

But I'd think that supporting a war in Iran is dumb enough.

[bif]

84. Actually, he IS a moron

A friend of my daughter's is Iranian. Just like when Bush speaks and we all cringe, Amadinajad is a terrible speaker. He said it's fairly obvious that he's a simpleton. I have to take his word for it.

[hogwyld]

4. Don't you know yet???

Ahmanutjob and Chavez are the world's last great hope for salvation?

[peacebird]

7. at least they are not as dangerous as bush&co

[Redstone]

8. You get a blue ribbon for having the guts to say that.

I'm serious.

Redstone

[hogwyld]

78. The way some people want to lionize these crackpots

I'm sure I made it to some peoples ignore list!

[donco6]

114. No kidding.

Chavez is stifling any sense of free press. Ahmadinejad is advocating the re-establishing of a strict Shia state, including death for gays.

Yes, they both call out Bush, but they are no friends of ours.

[Nutmegger]

5. 6:30 I think but not totally sure. Edit: Link to speakers.

I need to see this guy. :rofl:

Edit: I found this; it doesn't really say what time except that he is listed in the "afternoon session" (3:00 PM). He's quite a ways down so I'll stick with 6:30 PM.

http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/index.shtml

[scarletwoman]

13. Ahmadinajad is neither a "moron" nor "insane".

Why do you repeat uninformed talking points?

Ahmadinajad is certainly an anti-liberal despot, but he is educated and intelligent, and a skilled debater and rhetorician. There is nothing irrational about his aspiration for Iran to make a place for itself as a regional power.

The only real "insanity" that's in evidence is in the hysterical reaction to Iran's desire to acquire the same nuclear technology that so many other countries already have.

sw

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I disagree with much of that.

I've seen no evidence from the translation of his speeches that he's a "skilled debater or rhetorician", at least not to Western ears.

Talking about "his aspiration for Iran to make a place for itself as a regional power" is slightly misleading, given that a large part of that effort is sponsoring and encouraging terrorist and paramilitary attacks on the civilians of Israel and Iran. Whether that's "irrational" or not is missing the point, I feel.

I don't think there's anything insane about not wanting Iran to aquire nuclear bombs (again, "the same nuclear technology so many other countries have" strikes me as a slightly euphemistic way of putting it), given that. Unfortunately, I can't see any way of preventing that happening that wouldn't be worse than the malady it was meant to cure, but I think that all possible diplomatic and economic pressure should be used to try and prevent it.

[scarletwoman]

29. You must have missed the Mike Wallace 60 Minutes interview a few weeks ago

Wallace came off like an idiotic robot spouting rote talking points, while Ahmadinijad came off as thoughtful and intelligent, making many sharp and spot on observations about the current geo-political situation. His rhetorical agility made a stark contrast to Wallace's plodding propaganda rut.

"...sponsoring and encouraging terrorist and paramilitary attacks on the civilians of Israel and Iran." Iran? Do you mean Iraq? And if you mean Iraq, do you have any citations that demonstrate that Iran is providing anything more than political/financial support to the Shi'a political parties in Iraq, such as SCIRI?

As for who are "terrorists" -- are you aware of the fact that only the U.S. classifies Hizbullah as a "terrorist" organization? The EU does not classify them as such. As an indigenous Lebanese Shi'a militant/political/social movement, they do receive aid and support from their co-religionists in Shi'a-dominated Iran, but they are largely autonomous -- they do not take orders from Iran.

Personally, as someone born in 1949 and growing up in the midst of the Cold War, I have come to greatly appreciate the ultimate effectiveness of MAD -- "Mutually Assured Destruction" -- as a means of maintaining balance between hostile factions. Not ideal, of course -- the ideal would be the end of nuclear-armed states altogether. But in the real world, it's obvious that no nuclear-armed power is going to disarm any time soon.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that a nuclear-armed Iran would have a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. Just as nuclear-armed India and Pakistan find themselves essentially forced to maintain continued peace negotiations with each other -- rather than risk mutual annihilation -- so might a nuclear-armed Iran balanced against nuclear-armed Israel bring a new seriousness and balance to resolving Middle East conflicts.

I frankly wish that Iran had the "bomb" already.

sw

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. I didn't see the interview in question,

but I'm afraid the rest of your comments leave me disinclined to trust your judgement on it.

Denying that Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation is all very well for the EU, who have to take account of political realities, and based their nomenclature on whether or not it will get people killed, but you and I can do so without cost, and should therefor be more honest. It targets missiles at civilians for the purpose of inspiring political terror; it is not entirely overt about its existence and methods, therefore it is a terrorist organisation.

MAD has never been tested on theocrats; I'm not anxious to find out whether it works or not. I think it's foolishly naive to assume that the government of Iran would draw a line between supplying conventional weapons to proxy groups to use on its opponents, and supplying them with nuclear ones to use, or that they wouldn't use those weapons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. "It targets missiles at civilians to incite terror; it is not overt in its

methods, therefore it is a terrorist organization."

(Cough) (Ahem). :hi:

[The Straight Story]

67. Pretty much like ole hitler - slick with the words, quick with the knife

I ain't buying his pretty talk.

[The Stranger]

74. The propaganda is strong: "No matter what he says, I ain't buying."

That really does end any kind of -- well, anything. But I think that is what Herr Decider wants people to think. Need another war.

[The Straight Story]

81. I would say most here say the same about bush eh?

Some people you just can't trust, and most of said people are ones with a lot of power.

Once this guy fixes his own problems in his country then maybe I will listen a little more openly to him.

[The Stranger]

87. Good idea: leave him to his own country and keep Bush/PNAC from invading.

The problem is that PNAC wants the U.S. to invade and will sacrifice all, it would appear, to get another invasion.

[rinsd]

90. Yeah because the enemy of my enemy is always my friend

:eyes:

Speaking of talking points, how is your critiques of Iranian leaders not so nice side amounts to a drumbeat for war bullshit going?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. Given what he's *doing*, no matter what he says I ain't buying.

Actions speak louder than words. Ahmadinejad can make any number of speeches on TV with which I agree with every word of, but unless he & the Council of Guardians change their approach to government completely, it won't make me stop despising and criticising him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Well, He Is A Psychopath.

That better?

[scarletwoman]

30. And your diagnosis is based on what?

He's a Muslim conservative. I don't agree with his internal Iranian policies, but I figure that's a matter for the Iranians to deal with -- they elected him, after all. And by all reports I've seen, they elected him largely because he promoted a kind of economic populism -- promising jobs and prosperity.

If he doesn't deliver these things to the Iranian electorate, they will no doubt elect someone else next time around.

I don't see that he's any more "psychopathic" than any other politician anywhere else in the world.

sw

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. If only.

"If he doesn't deliver these things to the Iranian electorate, they will no doubt elect someone else next time around."

I suggest that you take a look at the conditions surrounding his election in the first place. Iran has the trappings of a democracy, but not very much of the substance.

[ronnie624]

83. Well, that's the way they do things in Iran,

and since you are not an Iranian citizen, how they conduct their national affairs is really none of your business. It would be more appropriate of you to focus your attention on the facade of democracy in your own country, and let the Iranians worry about theirs. Using the imperfection of the Iranian political system as an excuse to attack and vilify Ahmadinejad seems very disingenuous and hypocritical when one considers that democracy in our own country is so lacking in substance.

[deaniac21]

82. So, in your view, Iran is a democracy? I wonder how long the

opposition candidates (on average) manage to stay out of jail?

[scarletwoman]

111. The loser of the last presidential election is still an esteemed cleric,

who just recently visited and lectured here in the U.S.

It's quite true that the Iranian mullahs basically prevented certain candidates/parties to run in the last election, but they were not jailed -- as are the opposition candidates in Egypt, our good Middle Eastern "ally".

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the actual facts about modern Iran before making judgements?

sw

[spanone]

14. CSPAN is rerunning the Shrub speak right now!

[pretzel4gore]

15. if anyone owes anyone, it's we owe iran

did you knoww that we sold the shah 24 nuclear power plants (which the iranians neither wanted or needed)?
did you know we sold iran so much military junk that they couldn't use that, after the 1978 revolution, the iranians found in the desert sands literally mile long columns of equipment still in the shipping crates, unused and worthless by then...imagine if that happened to you!
too many DUers seem to get their points of view from fox (in the henhouse) news..if president chavez likes the iranian leader, then we should too....
if we don't hang together, we'll be hanged alone

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I disagree very, very strongly indeed.

"if president chavez likes the iranian leader, then we should too...."

Don't you care about his attitudes to human rights, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, crime and punishment, democracy, abortion, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, etc, etc?

Just because an opportunistic former would-be military dictator with a taste for self-agrandisement and a dubious commitment to democracy likes him doesn't mean we should.

Amhadinehad makes Fred Phelps look like St Francis of Assissi, Michael Moore, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King rolled into one. He is *not* someone a liberal can "like" without being a hypocrite.

[Seeking Serenity]

27. I agree completely

It seems to me that some DUers abject hatred of the present mal-administration has reached such an unhealthy point that they have devolved to being willing to support anyone, no matter how vile the policies or ideas, so long as they also oppose *.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

As an independent woman, I would be very much opposed to being forced to wear a hijab, as I would be if I was in present-day Iran.

I am a liberal based on principles. If your principles and mine clash, then I oppose you. It doesn't matter that you also don't like Bush.

[pretzel4gore]

36. not support...it's the iranians job to support or

de-support their leaders. i just say we have such a massive problem with the nazipoohs here in the west that we shouldn't waste our energy trying to effect other nations' leadership status: let's fix our houses first, and later, when inter'l law is restored, we can then demand that other leaders act like decent humans, rather then copy bush and the rightwing idiocracy.
under the bushevik so-called 'christians, we went from democracy to a demonocracy in 6 short years!.....iran's revolution only happened 28 years ago, and their government was very extreme starting in 1978 - the US sold weapons to both sides of iran-iraq war, which cost a millions iranian/iraqi kids their lives....saddam hussein was encouraged to attack iran, by US, so who are WE to judge them?

[Seeking Serenity]

37. You say it's the Iranians job to support or not

and yet you also say, "if president chavez likes the iranian leader, then we should too."

Is "liking" a leader not giving him your at least tacit support?

Why all the support amoung the denizens of DemocraticUnderground of not-very democratic or liberal leaders around the world, seemingly for no other reason than they're anti-Bush?

I, for one, am not willing to abdicate my core principles just because someone else hates Bush.

[pretzel4gore]

43. bush is our business...

Chavez is the business of the people of Venezuela; Ahmadinejhad is the business of iranians....why can't we mind our own business, especially when WE are the nuklear armed bullyboy running loose on planet earth.
what distesses me with all this iran bashing is the simple fact that the bushpig media has lied to us about what happened in our own society, our own elections and swiftboating our own candidates; yet we are supposed to believe them when they try provoke some reaction in regards a nation they openly called member of an axis of evil!

[Seeking Serenity]

46. Since Chavez is the business of the people of Venezuela

why should we like Ahmadinejhad just because Chavez does? Chavez is none of our business, right?

[pretzel4gore]

50. I like President Hugo Chavez: you should too

none of this hemming/hawing....you're either for 'em or against 'em, as the mad killer of pennsylvania avenue once put it :)...

[Seeking Serenity]

51. or I'm not a good liberal if I don't?

I'm sorry, but Chavez seems to throw his support to just about anyone who has anti-American creds, no matter un-progressive the person might be. Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejhad, etc.

These are not men I look to as being in line with my progressive principles.

Sorry I don't measure up in your eyes. :sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. So hang on a second.

We ought to like President Chavez and President Ahmadinejad, but it's none of our business to dislike them?

Also, I thing your attitude that we have no business critising or opposing the leaders of foreign nations is stupidly naive - I certainly have no intention of stopping opposing Bush, despite not being American.

We have no business coercing other nations to remove democratically elected leaders, but we have a moral duty to express disapproval of immoral leaders like Ahmadinejad.

[ronnie624]

86. Some of us

do not embrace the "If your principles and mine clash, then I oppose you" philosophy, which to me smacks of a fresh excuse for sticking our collective noses in the affairs of other countries - imperialism in the guise of humanitarian concerns.

I, for one, "support" Chavez and Ahmadinejad, because they are the legitimate leaders of sovereign nations. Independent countries with the inherent right to establish their own political pathways, based on the needs of their respective cultures.

I believe engagement, dialog, and honest attempts at understanding will yield greater results for our claimed goals of equality and freedom for all, than confrontation and opposition.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. Yes, some of you are moral cowards.

"If your principles and mine clash, then I oppose you" is another way of saying "I hold my principles only when convenient".

The "they are legitimate leaders of sovereign nations" argument is arrant nonsense, as a second's thought about who else that argument could be applied to will show.

Ahmadinejad, incidentally, is far from legitimate, as the many political opponents who were locked up to stop them contesting the election he "won" would testify.

But even if he were, supporting a regime that makes homosexuality punishable by death, enshrines the inferiority of women, etc, etc, etc is moral cowardice of the worst kind.

You may believe that executing homosexuals is another country's business or "the need of their culture", and saying that it's a bad thing is sticking our noses into it. I disagree.

Dialogue and engagement are far from mutually exclusive with confrontation and opposition. If by "understanding" you mean tolerance, then I think it would be a very bad thing indeed; if you're using it literally then I agree it's desirable, and think that as and when you do understand Ahmadinejad you'll agree with me just what a bad ruler he is.

[ronnie624]

127. Your post

is just a reiteration of the same tired, old nonsense, by just one more of many nosy, arrogant, self righteous U.S. Americans, filled to overflowing with conviction in their beliefs that they have a right to meddle in the affairs of other countries. I understand the difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the U.S. has been wrong all these years in brutally imposing its will on other nations. It took me many years of reading on a broad range of topics before the propaganda induced fog finally lifted.

While the treatment of homosexuals and women in Iran is most unfortunate, changes in the very fabric of Iranian society will be required for these groups to receive a status of equality. Such changes must come from within, and cannot be forced by outsiders through coercion, threats and violence. In fact, it is likely that peaceful interaction between the United States and Iran would bring about the desired result much more quickly. How ironic that the fomentation of violence and chaos by Western powers in this region of Asia, has only facilitated the growth of the very fundamentalism that you decry, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. is, in large part, responsible.

Your claim that the Iranian government is not legitimate, is nullified by the fact that the Iranian people tolerate it. It is their government after all, and they rightfully retain the final decision as to its nature.

I don't know what to make of your cryptic allusion to the Bush administration. It appears to be a non sequitur.

And your claim that Ahmadinejad's political opponents were "locked up" reveals that you have a propensity for swallowing and regurgitating propaganda unquestioned.

The first line in the body of your post, makes absolutely no sense whatever.

[donco6]

117. Exactly.

What are people thinking here? Is there no discriminating eye? Has no one listened to what this guy has said, no observing of what's going on in Iran? And I'm not even talking about the nuclear bomb BS, but just his treatment of people. Good god . .

[135th]

24. If Chavez jumped off a bridge...

Chavez is also buddies with Kim Jung Il. Should I like him too?

[Bacchus39]

39. yeah, I didn't realize Chavez was our leader

n/t

[Joe Bacon]

16. The Iranian guy is a LESS-ON compared to our MORE-ON!

Is it too much to hope for impeachment?

[pretzel4gore]

47. well said....

the lesson for the moreon is this: pretending only works when everybody else also plays along, but mr dubia moron, you're all alone!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

17. kick

[msongs]

26. One step to war is to demonize your supposed enemy. Good start here

by calling this guy a moron.

he is not a moron.

he may not even be as portrayed by the right wing run media in the USA, which has an agenda to demonize him as a necessary step to making a war with Iran seem justified. Or he might be as portrayed.

I would say from the interview on 60 minutes he is quite capable and really knows how to use the media.

Bush could not be in the same room with him in a conversation, let alone a debate.

msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[stepnw1f]

58. They Are Out Tonight

Stirring up shit and resentment for the Iranian President.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Yup, an awful lot of gullible people out tonight

The MSM say that the president of Iran is evil and stupid, so it must be true. :sarcasm:

It's very discouraging to see DUers buying into the demonization of Iran, just as different DUers bought into the demonization of Iraq, even though we anti-war types kept warning that it was bullshit.

The same thing is happening again and people are falling for it.

You don't have to like the president of Iran to see that his country is being set up for invasion. And if that happens, Iraq will look like a Sunday School picnic, because Iran can actually fight back.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. There are indeed an awful lot of gullible people out tonight.

Are you seriously trying to deny that Ahmadinejad is evil?

I don't know about stupid - his views are sufficiently detatched from reality for it to be hard to form an opinion one way or the other.

The enemy of my enemy is *not* my friend. Far too many gullible liberals assume that just because Bush dislikes Ahmadinejad he can't be bad.

I don't support the invasion of Iran; that has nothing whatsoever with tliking or disliking its president.

I'd also, in light of your comment about the media, recommend reading "The Hole in the Wall" by G.K.Chesterton. You can find it at http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/manwho.txt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Whether the president of Iran is "evil" or not is not the question

I'm a keen observer of propaganda, and I detect the MSM ramping up to convince the American (and perhaps British) people that Iran deserves to be invaded, just as they did before the invasion of Iraq.

I'm also a keen observer of Iranian cinema, so I know that Iran is no paradise, a fact that comes across well in their own films.

But all of a sudden Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as Hitler 2.0. (Or rather, this year's Hitler 2.0, last year's Hitler 2.0 being Kim Jong-Il and the previous on being Saddam Hussein.)

Remember the stories about people being tossed into shredders that came out of Iraq? They were never confirmed, but we sure heard a lot about them before March 2003.

Is Ahmadinejad anti-Semitic?

Undoubtedly, but that's hardly unusual in the Middle East.

Is the Iranian government oppressive?

Again, undoubtedly, but they do have some limited democracy there, and a nascent movement demanding more democracy.

Is Iran planning to build nuclear weapons?

Maybe. Maybe not. But under the circumstances, namely being named as one of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea and seeing Iraq (its neighbor after all) being invaded and pushed into anarchic chaos, you can hardly blame them for seeking a deterrent.

What exactly do you want, Mr. Rankin? You may say that you don't support an invasion of Iran, but otherwise, what is the logic of urging everyone to hate its president? Don't you see that you're a pawn in the propaganda effort to gain public support for an invasion?

[bdamomma]

80. very good post.

[rinsd]

93. See no evil, hear no evil as long as its oppsed to Bush

Sickening.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. No, I just think that this is Bush's enemy of the week

(among all the dictators in the world) and I refuse to play his game.

I am insulted that you think my exposure of Bush's propaganda tactics means that I like or admire the Iranian government. I don't. I've seen a lot of Iranian films, and even their own cinema hints that it's no paradise. I've also talked to Iranians who left Iran after the mullahs took charge, so don't think I harbor any illusions.

I just think it's idiotic to hate someone just because the U.S. government has turned the spotlight on.

This whole hate the Iranians shtick (with how many different people starting threads declaring proudly that they think he's evil?) smacks of government operatives coming on and trying to influence public opinion.

I've studied propaganda since I was a teenager, and I can smell it at 100 yards.

[rinsd]

94. No its about a duty to speak out against oppression and injustice

"Don't you see that you're a pawn in the propaganda effort"

Oh the irony.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Okay, but why pick on Iran and join the two-minute hate that

the Bushies are stirring up against that country?

Why not pick on Bush's beloved allies, the presidents of Pakistan and Uzbekistan, both of whom are just as bad? Pakistan harbors terrorists AND has nukes already.

[geek tragedy]

118. Why not criticize all forms of oppression and all bigotry?

I can see the point about not singling him out as the worst of the worst, and I 100% agree with the need to keep him in perspective.

But, he IS a rightwing fundie bigoted piece of shit, and progressives shouldn't shy away from that truth.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. Why not indeed?

I'm not sure I agree that Musharraf is quite as bad as Ahmadinejad and the Council of Guardians (although given that the latter has a very, very small sliver of democratic legitimacy and the former doesn't you could argue he's worse), and I strongly doubt that Karimov is, but there can't be much in it either way - they're both clearly very bad regimes indeed.

However, the correct response to "The governments of Iran, Pakistan and Uzbekistan (and Myanmar, North Korea, China, Syria, Libya, most African nations, etc, etc, are atrocious; you are criticising Iran" is not "you are wrong to criticise Iran", but "you should be criticising these other governments too".

Don't attack the critics of the Iranian governement - they're quite right; just because Bush wants you to believe something doesn't mean it's not true. Instead, start threads or subthreads criticising the fact that e.g. Musharraf is a military dictator, and Karimov has a habit of having political demonstrators shot and opponents arrested.

Saying that you can't criticise one evil regime unless you criticise all of them is foolish, I think.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. What I'm seeing in these threads is not legitimate, thoughtful criticism

but gleefully piling onto a bandwagon of hatred orchestrated by the corporate media.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Really?

I'm seeing a lot of what I'd term "gleeful piling on" from Ahmadinejad's defenders and quasi-defenders, but relatively little from his critics. It's a fairly subjective term.

It's also, however, completely irrelevant. What is relevant is not the motivation, but whether or not what is being said is true or not. And by that criterion, the people saying Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government are very bad indeed pass, and the people saying they aren't fail, irrespective of how they arrive at those conclusions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Well, the four people who started threads saying things like

"Ahmadinejad is a moron" certainly seemed to be piling on or even instigating.

Having seen a similar phenomenon, everybody trying to outdo one another in condemning human rights violations, in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq and before the invasion of Afghanistan (even though the leftist and feminist presses had been documenting the abuses of the Taliban on a regular basis since 1996), I'm skeptical about both the motivations and the spontaneity of some of the posters.

I think we're seeing a propaganda offensive in action. Commercial advertisers do it (planting agents on Internet message boards frequented by the target market or assigning agents to hang out in gathering places frequented by the target market and talk about the product), so it's not unimaginable that the most devious administration of my lifetime is doing the same.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. BINGO!

What you said. :)

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. What I love about the whole "people tossed into shredders" thing

Is how movie-goers cheer when James Bond does it to a terrorist. :popcorn:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. In fairness,

I have no qualms about terrible things happening to imaginary people; there are enough terrible things happening to real people for me to care about. As and when there are no real atrocities we can start talking about prosecuting James Bond for his various crimes, not to mention all the child support payments he probably owes by now.

[geek tragedy]

109. The problem is that Bush vs. Ahmadinejad is a false frame that

serves the war party.

"Oppose the war against Iran? Well, you must be pro-Ahamdinejad?"

That is what the Freepers say.

"You oppose Ahmadinejad? Well, you must be pro-war against Iran!"

So say the liberal Freepers say.

"I oppose an attack on Iran, and I oppose leaders like Bush and Ahmadinejad."

That is what I say.

If you reflexively rally around the guy, it just supports the claim that "anti-war" really means "just on the other side."

Especially when Ahmadinejad represents everything that liberals oppose.

[BootinUp]

28. CNN will carry it live, Moron #2 coming up. n/t

[Rex]

31. Right now, he is doing pretty good.

So much more literate than our moron.

[90-percent]

32. choices

I'd rather go have a beer with Ahmadinajad than Bush.

But, then, I'd rather go have a beer with Jeffery Dalhmer than Bush.

Ahmadinajad seems like a decent guy in the Williams and Wallace interviews. Based on this minute sampling, I think he's OK as far as middle eastern leaders go.

-85% jimmy

[NYCGirl]

34. Unless, of course, you're a woman. NT

[Rex]

59. I have to agree, America is stuck in the 1600s, BUT

the ME is stuck in the 9th century when it comes to rights for certain people, namely women.

Equality for all or equality for none.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Have a beer with a woman?

Who would want to do that? Unless she was hot.

:evilgrin:

[Swede Atlanta]

33. He's not a moron

I tire of members of DU always assuming the worst without any basis in fact. Yes we have all heard him say some outrageous things but we need to listen to him. Actually I thought his interview with Brian Williams and his UN speech were both interesting. I can't say I disagree with anything he said even if I don't agree with his tactics of getting there.

[matcom]

35. well, it is obviously AFTER one DU MORON has piped up!

:eyes:

[Bacchus39]

38. he just spoke, his speech was entitled, Rantings of a Hypocrite

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

40. You must have been watching Bush on tape... n/t

[burythehatchet]

41. enlighten us with your knowledge of Persian issues

[Bacchus39]

42. respect for all humans?? how about the Jews

how about Jews?

how about women?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7178

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7633

how about human rights in general?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/iran12214.htm

[Junkdrawer]

44. Israel has 12 pages of violations on HRW...

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

Just saying....

[Bacchus39]

45. of course they do, that doesn't justify Iran's repression though

It doesn't appear to be a very open society I gather. Sorry, the whole speech reeked of hypocricy. now the part about getting more countries more power is all well and good. but that fool has no business lecturing on human rights and dignity.

[AlienGirl]

69. What's that got to do with Jews in Iran?

Just asking...

Tucker

[ronnie624]

89. I believe

the other poster was illustrating the hypocrisy of some DUers who post messages without number, criticizing countries such as Iran and Venezuela, but have never offered similar criticism of Israel, who, in fact, has a much longer rap sheet where human rights violations are concerned.

[Emit]

48. RE: Iran Focus

I've read that their info cannot be trusted. They were the site that is associated with the MEK/MKO (which neocons like Perle support) and that first ran the story that Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers back from the 70's, which later turned out to be debunked.

I am certain there are other websites that can support your stance, but, IMHO, we need to be careful and understand who Iran Focus and other groups like them are, and to attempt to determine whether the stories they publish are accurate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. According to TV, Many of the hostage takers were pro-democracy leftists

Whose political leanings were similar to that of 60s radicals in the US. When conservatives took full control after Iraq invaded (at our prompting) many of those leftists in the coalition were purged.

Nobody mentions this inconvenient fact much, but a recent documentary interviewed the hostages, as well as the actual hostage takers, one of whom went on to become the first female president of Iran, or some such.

[geek tragedy]

107. First female president of Iran? That's funny. eom

[burythehatchet]

52. Iran is a highly educated and culturally advanced country

Its people are the victims of American foreign policy. When Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and the Shah installed, the country's religious voices were supressed. The Shah and his CIA sponsored SAVAK were notorious for running death squads that targeted all things that didn't comply with Western norms. The result was a backlash against the Shah and all things Western. This is what brought the Ayatollahs into power. This is recent history as you well know. The Iranian people wish modernity balanced with religion. But since the power lies with the Ayatollahs any president of Iran must navigate a tricky road. I don't know if Ahmadinejad is that guy, I don't know enough about him, and I don't look to CNN for my history lessons. However, Iran is a nation that can make great contributions to the world, and their demonization by the Israeli and US media is a primary reason why their country will also be destroyed.

[135th]

60. That's true, and was a mistake on our part.

But it doesn't excuse todays Iranian government from its terrible human rights record. There is a demand for reform in Iran, but I seriously doubt Ahmedinejad is the man to make this happen. His election involved the banning of around a thousand moderate candidates from the ballot. During Iran-Iraq war he was a commander of the Basiji, Iran's unarmed suicide militia used to clear minefeilds and absorb Iraqi munitions before battles. The hypocrisy in his speech was undeniable.

[upi402]

49. Moron lite really, compared to ours he's a lightweight moran

Anyway, religious fanatics ruin life.

[CarlVK]

53. Ahmadinejad's speech was really good.

Maybe you should read it before you denounce him as a "moron".

[William769]

55. I listened to it

He's more full of shit than Bush is.

[Marr]

56. I'm anti-fundie, no matter what color they are, or how much

they hate GW.

[napi21]

62. I watched most of Ahmadinijad's speech. I have no way of knowing

how much was BSand how much wasn't, but I have to say he had a good speech and presented it well.

I feel bad for the American people, but most of all ME, because OUR President has made me not believe AnYONE OR ANYTHING I see or hear anymore. I was never like that in my life, and I used to be able to disagree with people's views without hating the speaker. Shrub has changed all that!

I only wish I could understand Iranian, so I could know if the translator was actually stating the real speech. See, I can't even believe THAT!

It's so very sad what one administration can do to a Country in such a short time!

[upi402]

65. not to worry, it proves you're in your right mind

you're not crazy. america has been driven crazy by the evil doers and their corporate media.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. I didn't see the speech, but if it was at the UN, you can be assured

that the interpreter was largely accurate. The UN interpreters are among the best in the world, simultaneous interpreters who work day in and day out interpreting complicated speeches in real time.

[oblivious]

70. Ahmadinejad is rightly feared by conservatives.

He believes all Iranians should share in the country's oil wealth, not just a priviliged elite.

The man came from nowhere to not only be elected but become enormously popular. He gets a rock-star welcome at his speeches around the country. He can walk among the crowds, unlike certain leaders.

He's popular because he's honest, dedicated to fighting corruption, determined that all Iranians from every area, urban and rural, share the oil wealth, with govt loans and monthly stipends, and employment and housing programs.

He's not as socially conservative as people expected, for example, saying people's clothes and hairstyle are none of the govt's business, and trying, but failing, to get the law changed to allow women to attend football matches. He's promised moderation and a more representative system of government.

He's against WTO membership and privitization because they may increase unemployment and hurt the economy.

He's made Iranians proud of their coutry by standing up to the West, defiant about keeping Iran's legal right under the NPT to pursue the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, while making it abundantly clear that Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons, so far verified by the IAEC. His government has run circles around Western countries in negotiations about Iran's nuclear rights. This has greatly improved Iran's stature in the Muslim world, both among Sunnis and Shiites, no mean feat.

[geek tragedy]

85. Your admiration for Holocaust-denying fundie nutjobs

speaks volumes.

[NYCGirl]

88. But he's such a well-spoken Holocaust-denying fundie nutjob!

:sarcasm:

[oblivious]

91. I have already explained that he is not a Holocaust denier.

...and I have explained above that he is not as 'fundie' as he is made out to be by the US propaganda corps.

Your catchy soundbites -- 'Holocaust denying', 'nut job', contribute nothing to the discussion.

[NYCGirl]

95. From Aljazeera.net:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/60AE1720-F333-4869-974D-3B69283105BF.htm

[oblivious]

97. I'd rather see a speech transcript than AP/Reuters propaganda.

Perhaps from his latest speech wherin he acknowledges the Holocaust?

[rinsd]

102. Well if you have the speech let's see it.

I found this but its Khatami

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=1862

[geek tragedy]

108. I just posted ironclad proof. That makes Ahmadinejad's boosters

go away--kinda like raid scatters cockroaches.

[geek tragedy]

106. How about the IRANIAN NATIONAL NEWS AGENCY?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x146467#146489

[geek tragedy]

105. I have documented proof that he's a Holocaust denier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2836421&mesg_id=2836770

[PassingFair]

104. Hey, you and NYC Girl must read the same magazines.

Your posts "jinxed" each other!

[geek tragedy]

110. I actually read the Iranian government's official news site, and they

say he's a Holocaust denier.

[NYCGirl]

115. Remember this with Angela Merkel?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,427971,00.html

Iran's leader had sent a 10-page letter to the office of German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday. It contains "many claims that are not acceptable to us, in particular about Israel, the state of Israel's right to exist and the Holocaust," government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said on Friday in Berlin. In the past, Ahmadinejad has made comments in which he labelled the Nazi Holocaust a myth and called for the destruction of the state of Israel. "Our position on these questions is known," Wilhelm said, noting that Merkel has repeatedly identified Israel's right to exist as a cornerstone of German policy and that "it is in no way acceptable to us to question it."

Edited to add another link:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

The remarks by the outspoken Iranian president, who has repeatedly questioned the veracity of the Holocaust, came in a letter sent to Merkel in July whose contents have not been disclosed until now, according to the news agency Mehr as reported by AFP.

"Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people ... to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad said in the letter.

"The question is if these countries, especially Britain, felt responsible for the Holocaust survivors, why they did not settle them in their own countries?" it said.

It is not the first time Ahmadinejad has voiced doubt about the mass slaughter of six million Jews under Nazi Germany, previously describing the Holocaust as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. He's A Fucking Psycho.

If you think for a second that if he did have a nuclear bomb that he could detonate in Israel without anyone ever being able to prove it came from Iran, that he wouldn't detonate it without any second thought, then you and I have very different opinions of this psycho.

Cause the way I see it, taking into account all of his past and recent statements, if he had the ability without fear of repurcussion, and possibly even with the fear, he would choose to take out Israel in the blink of an eye. 'Wipe it off the map' so to speak.

And anyone filled with that much hatred and resentment is just quite simply a fucking psycho. Fuck Ahmadinejad.

[The Stranger]

72. I realize the media propaganda is strong, but you are on DU.

You don't have to refer to the government-declared enemy as a moron here.

[mmonk]

75. He's hardly a moron,

but he is big at bluster and anti-semitic. That aside, there's no good reason to go to war right now.

[screembloodymurder]

77. That moron is about to castrate the UN.

Bush's speech was a blatantly obvious pack of lies with an agenda. That agenda is to force the UN to sanction strikes against Iran. By pointing out the hypocrisy of the US position given its imperialistic misadventures in Iraq, Ahmadinajad has the placed the UN in the position of backing the US or doing what is right. If the UN sides with Bush, it will be rendered useless.

[mmonk]

79. Rendered useless is what bush seeks (and always has).

[Imagevision]

76. Bush has seriously damaged US.credibility >

At the assembly, Bush met with France's president Chirac in an attempt to goad the leader into supporting some dramatic action against Iran. Chirac couldn't have been impressed with Bush's argument.

Yesterday he called Iran "a great nation, an old culture, an old civilization," and declared that, "we can find solutions through dialog."

It doesn't look like Bush will change his or any other countries' leader's minds about Iran, or anything else, for that matter. Like most nation's leaders, France's attitude toward the pleadings and admonitions of the U.S. has been shaped and corrupted by Bush's own lack of credibility on the full range of his responses to the 9-11 attacks.

[Disturbed]

92. Lydia Leftcoast is astute.

I agree with her post. The RWing Media is mouthing the talking points of the Busholini Regime.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Thank you.

If there's one thing I've seen again and again in my 50+ years it's the U.S. media telling us that some foreign leader is so horribly evil that we have to go to war against him--and all the while the U.S. is happily trading with and selling arms to guys who are just as bad or even worse.

It happens so often that I'm not even surprised, just sad that so many people buy it.

If Bush and the MSM were really concerned about human rights and terrorism, they would NOT have Musharraf and what's his name from Uzbekistan as allies.

[goodhue]

125. He actually seems pretty bright

eom