You're not supporting a war with Iran if you dislike Ahmadinejad. nt.

[Clintonista2]

[Sparkly]

1. I'd say you're not NECESSARILY supporting a war....

Because there are probably some rightwingers who dislike him AND would support a war.

And I'd add that it doesn't necessarily mean you think he shouldn't have been allowed to speak at Columbia.

[EFerrari]

2. My personal views have never influenced our foriegn policy

that I know of.

But, that has never kept me from trying to figure fact from spin and let my representatives know where I come down.

[MADem]

3. Though there are plenty who lack the talent of nuanced thinking who actually believe that.

It's unfortunate.

[eleny]

4. And you don't have to cut off dialog with Iran if their president is odious

That's because I hope the world sees the U.S. in that way. That Americans are not a lost cause just because our President is an evil force with global influence.

[Clark2008]

70. True that.

Many countries still deal with us and our president is odious.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. No, but a lot of people who want a war with Ahmadinejad...

use Ahmadinejad as an excuse.

It's like a bad joke, using homophobia as a cause to support a war which would slaughter millions, many of them homosexual. It's sick.

[The Stranger]

6. You are facilitating a war by allowing the Right to dilute opposition to its war.

It is a proven method to dehumanize a people and a nation in order to go to war with them. The current cabal in control of the most powerful weapons on the planet have made this their modus operandi. So to participate in their propaganda storm is to facilitate the war they seek.

To deny this is beyond naive at this point. It is disingenous and dangerous.

[Clintonista2]

7. So if I don't like him, I'm helping start a war with Iran?

Love that logic.

[The Stranger]

8. Read the post again and try to think about it before you respond.

You are either intentionally ignoring or hopelessly oblivious to the CONTEXT in which the propaganda regarding Ahemdenijad is being disseminated. There is a war for which support is being sought. Participating in that propaganda storm is faciliting the war.

[Sparkly]

14. So if somebody dislikes him, they shouldn't say so? nt

[The Stranger]

15. Wrong. Read the post again and try to think about it before you respond.

[Sparkly]

17. Read my post again and try not to be condescending when you respond.

Are you saying that one should not dislike him?
That one may dislike him but should not say so?

What is it that constitutes "participat(ing) in their propaganda storm?"

[mhatrw]

38. Yes, you would be better served by keeping your hatred to yourself at the moment.

What purpose does it serve to broadcast it right now? Aren't there enough RW blowhards whipping up the hate for you? Are you afraid liberals will be called "soft on hatred" unless we all join in the corporate media sponsored Two Minutes Hate just as fervently?

[AuntPatsy]

42. I don't understand why it is so hard to see what is going on for some?

I am by no means a scholar, barely finished highschool and yet this is so easy to see it's blinding.

[Sparkly]

55. Free speech = pro-war with Iran?!?

:crazy:

Btw, the operative word was "dislike."

[davepc]

9. You have to love Hitler and hate Stalin, or love Stalin and hate Hitler

you can't hate both of them.

[The Stranger]

11. Wrong. Opposing a war threatened by Hitler (and probably sought by Stalin) means excusing yourself

from Hitler's propaganda about Stalin in which war is sought.

You see, if there is a war, it won't be Hitler and Stalin that pay the price, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocents.

Why in the fuck is this so hard to understand?

[EFerrari]

16. Thank you. n/t

[Sparkly]

19. How about just speaking the truth about both Hitler and Stalin?

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

30. Of course. But to pretend that everyone doesn't already know the truth about Ahmedinijad may be a

bit naive, especially when the corporate MSM is inundating the entire nation with it 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Which gets back to my point about being aware of the context of the visit, war propaganda, and trying to prevent the additional mass murder of hundreds of thousands.

[yardwork]

43. Unfortunately, it's clear that not everyone knows the truth about Iran.

Or, at least they're pretending not to know the truth.

[mhatrw]

44. What truth are we pretending not to see? That it's highly imperfect?

Do we need to report for re-education if we don't consider that to be our business in the context of neocons trying to foment another aggressive war?

[yardwork]

45. "Highly imperfect." That's a new euphemism for killing and torturing children.

Yeah, it's a "highly imperfect" world. And anyone who says that is beating the drums of war. So we should just all shut up, right?

[mhatrw]

49. Your liberal sensibilities are being played like a fiddle.

Yes, Iran does many very bad things. So does China, South Korea, the new Iraqi regime we installed, Israel and, believe it or not, the United States. Why can't your expression of your righteous indignation of all the horrible things that have ever happened in Iran take a little break until the current neocon scripted, corporate media sponsored Two Minutes Hate for Iran's visiting "batshit crazy, evil supervillain dictator" dies down a bit?

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

Why do you feel the need to do Wirthlin's job for him right now?

[Sparkly]

57. "take a little break"

As in, "Be careful what you say?" :crazy:

[mhatrw]

59. As in "Don't look now, but you are getting royally played." n/t

[Sparkly]

65. Wrong.

People in this country can form opinions, and state them. "Disliking" someone does not automatically mean wanting to bomb them.

[mhatrw]

76. Funny when they are the same opinions that they are supposed to form.

For example, the "dictator" of Iran is a BARBAROUS MADMAN!

:scared:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. It's not hard to understand. It's just easier to take a side in a propaganda-driven society.

Personally, I'm getting fucking sick and tired of these "you must be this if you believe that" posts. Once again, instead of behaving like thoughtful and intelligent people able to reason and comprehend basic situations, it's back to the black/white, either/or shallow crap,...and I am fucking sick and tired of it.

[Prophet 451]

62. Wrong, I have plenty of hate to go around n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Nobody likes Ahmadinejad.

There's a difference between not liking him and participating in a five minute hate for nationalistic purposes.

[eleny]

10. I'm sorry to see that many DUers are chiming in today

It may make them feel good to call people "batshit crazy". But that falls short of being part of a sensible foreign policy towards Iran.

I wonder how many of those same DUers will rage against a strike against Iran if it happens.

[spoony]

81. And if they do?

It will strike me as perfectly consistent. What would YOU say? That blood is on their hands?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Actually, lies and deliberate papering over of facts are used to sell wars, too.

Who are we doing a favor to if we pretend this guy is something other than what he clearly is?

You think people on DU are too dumb to distinguish between "this guy is an asshole" and "We should start another war?" You think the only way to stay out of a war that pretty much ALL of us oppose is to pretent that he's Mary Fucking Poppins?

[AuntPatsy]

41. Thank you so much, I just don't have the ability to put into words sometimes what needs to be said.

Your so right.

[question everything]

13. And you are not a freeper

if you dislike both Ahmadinejad and Chavez - both who were democratically elected (as was Hitler) but who terrorize their people and suppress any form of deviation from what they consider the norm.

It is a sorry state of affair that both are being admired on DU solely on their attacking Bush.

[liberalsoldier5]

20. Thank you!

Great thread! :patriot:

[frylock]

24. feel free to post LEGIT cites of chavez terrorizing his people..

take your time, I've got all fucking night.

[Riktor]

28. Got all night? Good, 'cause this might take a while...

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng

I hope Amnesty International is "legit" enough for you.

[Riktor]

26. AMEN...nt

[LSdemocrat]

18. And just because I think Ahmadinejad deserves to be respectfully heard does not mean that I like him

[Disturbed]

22. I have no idea if I would like him personally.

I do know that I vehemently disagree with most of his views. Yes, he should be allowed to speak & if he wants to lay a wreath at Ground Zero he should be able to do so if he can provide his own security. A War with Iran would be insane & yet it seems that many in the US Regime are in favor of it, as are millions of Americans.

Simple perceptions often dominate over complicated realities.

[renie408]

46. I think it is vitally important that he is respectfully heard. I think it is vitally important that

we listen to all our 'enemies'. Listening to him doesn't mean you have to agree, but how on earth are you supposed to understand people if you don't listen to them??

[BlooInBloo]

23. Thanks, but I speak Obviously fluently.

[Orsino]

25. Not if you choose your own talking points...

...and aren't just hating TV's Enemy of the Month.

[cigsandcoffee]

27. Binary thinkers will disagree. n/t

[scarletwoman]

29. If you can say "I dislike Ahmadinejad, but I will not accept demonizing him as pretext for war"

then fine.

Whether you "like" the man or not is totally irrelevant. Are you willing to counter the propaganda drumbeat for attacking Iran? If you aren't, then your "dislike" is just one more toxin infecting our body politic.

sw

[renie408]

47. I don't think that is so hard to do.

I think it is pretty easy to say, "I find Ahmadinejad's policies and actions repulsive. But I don't condone war as a solution."

Isn't that what most people here are saying?

[scarletwoman]

63. Maybe. But I'm seeing far too many posters just gleefully giving into their lizard brains and

regurgitating every single line of Bushco propaganda in defense of indulging in their two minutes of hate. It makes me sick.

Furthermore, unless someone clearly defines just which "policies and actions" are "repulsive", and has citations to back them up, then, to me, they are just parroting the warmonger's lies and distortions.

I don't see very many threads started about the repulsivenes of the Saudi regime, do you? They are hardly a more freedom-loving regime that Iran -- unless you think beheading women accused of adultery isn't really all that heinous.

But our government and corporate media overlords have declared that it's pile-on-Iran time, and far too many DUers are willing participants, imho.

sw

[renie408]

67. Would you consider the Human Rights Council denunciation to be

valid? Also, I have seen links to the things about the execution of gays under Ahmadinejad. Are those lies and distortions?

He doesn't have to be Ward Cleaver for us to NOT go to war with him. I don't give a shit if he is analogous to Hitler, we can't sustain another military action right now. And honestly, is it the job of the American army to go around the world getting rid of selective bad guys? Cause I don't think so.

[scarletwoman]

68. Look, Iran is a repressive theocracy. It sucks. Saudi Arabia sucks too. So does China.

So do any number of African countries, and Myanmar, and lots of other states around the world.

But when I see post after post declaring that "Ahmadinejad is an asshole!!!" and "Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map!!!" and "Iran hangs gays!!!", I can't help but think, "thanks alot, you're making it all that much easier for our government to mount an attack on Iran, with the majority of U.S. citizens raising nary a peep."

As DUer mhatrw has so eloquently pointed out in several posts on this thread, if you are really against bombing Iran, you'd refrain from indulging in the two-minutes-hate and would instead point out how we're all being played.

Because, when it comes right down to it, it's US who are the problem, not Ahmadinejad, not Iran. States do crappy things to their people all the time, but the only state that WE have a say in is our own. And OUR state has a hard-on for bombing Iran. Why would anyone want to aid and abet the kind of mindset that makes that possible?

Instead of expending energy in demonizing the president of Iran, how about deconstructing the propaganda operation? What Iran does to its own citizens has no real effect on us -- no matter how much we may dislike it.

What OUR government is up to should be our biggest concern. The Iranians will work out their shit over time, and Ahmadinejad may very well be tossed out of office in their next election. So what purpose does it serve to create our own echo chamber of demonization? More importantly, WHOSE purpose does it serve?

sw

[spoony]

82. The criticisms are true, what warmongers do with that isn't our fault.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. Then why bother to do it in public? nt

[Bake]

32. Too many people have the mindset

that "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend," i.e., anybody who criticizes B*sh must be one of the "good guys."

If only the world were that cut and dried. Sigh.

Bake

[Yael]

34. And they wonder why people don't take us seriously as the "loony left"

We just prove time and again why...

[Bake]

37. Frankly, it's downright embarassing.

Not as embarassing as, say, a Repub getting caught soliciting sex from a 5-year old. But still embarassing.

Bake

[mhatrw]

39. Yes, unless we ALL join the regularly scheduled Two Minutes Hate,

how can ANYONE ever take us seriously? If only the "looney left" would report for re-education!

[Yael]

60. What are you talking about?

Because some of us can separate out disgust with a man from wanting to bomb his country?

That connection is what makes up the RIGHT wing of the us. We should be above making those kinds of inane leaps in judgment. Leave that broken logic to the Freepers...

[mhatrw]

61. Maybe we'd rather not be forced to voice our profound disgust at another nation

that BushCo is aiming to invade as a prerequisite for being considered sane?

Is that OK with you, or does it embarrass you?

Because frankly, I'm embarrassed by the puerile nature of gullible American groupthink right now.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

Remember?

[Yael]

72. Um -- but that is the *point* if this thread

We can be reviled by a MAN without involving his NATION.

How would you feel if someone wanted to bomb <insert your town, USA> because they disagreed with Bush? If it were me, I wouldn't be in line to kiss the royal BushCo ass as the "enemy of my enemy".

You are making my point for me in your repetition of the RW koolaide memes.

THINK!

[mhatrw]

78. You couldn't be more wrong. Americans support wars against countries they

can't recognize on a map of the world if an only if the leader-du-jour of the enemy-du-jour country is sufficiently demonized.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

Why do you insist on doing Wirthlin's job for him?

[spoony]

83. Where did this idiotic "two minutes of hate" slogan come from?

I love how people will criticise people who criticise Iran as "parroting the MSM" etc. but are more than happy to chant some meaningless mantra in doing so.

[mhatrw]

84. From Geroge Orwell's meaningly novel "1984"

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

In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Two Minutes Hate (alternatively two minute hate) is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting The Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them and the principles of democracy.

The film and its accompanying auditory and visual cues (which include a grinding noise that Orwell describes as "of some monstrous machine running without oil") are a form of brainwashing to Party members, attempting to whip them into a frenzy of hatred and loathing for Emmanuel Goldstein and the current enemy superstate. ...

Orwell's obvious reference in the sequence is to the utter demonization of an enemy during a time of war ...

[spoony]

85. Oh, so you're simply misusing an existing phrase, then.

"Orwell's obvious reference in the sequence is to the utter demonization of an enemy during a time of war ..."

Yeah because ANY critique that you personally disapprove of fits that category, eh? We're to shut up lest we speak about information others can twist into war. Fuck it if it's true. Fuck it if the info is about appalling human rights violations. Fuck it if we have to discard all of our ideals and bite our tongues about a man who for all intents and purposes is the Iranian clone of the man this site was begun to combat. Obstinate truth must take a backseat for its crime of inconvenience!

Yeah, this is EXACTLY what Orwell was referring to, I'm sure.

[mhatrw]

91. Read the book. The parallels between Goldstein and our Two Minutes Hate subjects --

Hussein and Ahmadinejad and especially Bin Laden -- are stunning. The manner in which the corporate media portray the enemy du jour is right out of Orwell's playbook.

You don't have to disregard Iran's human rights violations or Ahmadinejad's personal vices. But you need to recognize the context in which you are joining in to this neocon scripted, corporate media sponsored Two Minutes Hate.

[BreweryYardRat]

51. You know, that's an excellent quote. I'm going to save that one.

And we need to take notes from the ancient Greeks, who got hosed by the Romans because of Just. That. Mindset.

[Yael]

33. Your message will fall on deaf ears

Because it isn't what people want to hear. They can't seem to cognitively disassociate the two, even when you spell it out for them in sound bytes like that one.

[mhatrw]

36. However, you ARE joining the Bush scripted and corporate media sponsored Two Minutes Hate.

No, no one here is saying "Let's bomb Iran."

But many people here are actively castigating anyone who expresses anything other than pure groupthink hate toward the supposed "crazy evil dictator" of Iran. Right here on DU. So what does that tell you about the rest of the country in terms of us not getting fooled again? What does that tell you about mainstream Democrats' resolve to stand up against the drums of war?

Can't you see why it might be a tad more strategic to point out the excesses of our corporate media's anti-Iranian propaganda rather than to call for a liberal litmus test jihad against the Axis of Evil's latest and greatest super-villain under the circumstances?

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

[yardwork]

40. This fact is too difficult for some DUers to grasp.

It is simply beyond their comprehension.

[distantearlywarning]

48. Some of the responses on this thread

remind me of the Freeper argument that goes "If you think the troops should come home/dare to criticize the war/hate Bush, you're emboldening the enemy".

No terrorists give a shit whether I like Bush or not, or whether I think the Iraq War is being conducted in a reasonable manner. There is no causal effect between my personal opinions and their actions. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irrational.

Similarly I can dislike Ahmadinejad without emboldening Bush and his cronies. There is no causal effect between my personal opinions about Ahmadinejad and their actions. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irrational.

I am disappointed that some DUers have started using this tactic. It's stupid when the freepers do it, and it's stupid when you all do it to.

[mhatrw]

50. What's stupid is doing free PR for the Two Minutes Hate on DU.

Given the CONTEXT of our current situation with Iran, isn't it wiser to point out how we are being played than it is to prove that we can Two Minutes Hate with the best of them?

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

[JackRiddler]

53. Thank you!

[Sparkly]

56. This is crazy!

What is wrong with saying, "I dislike Ahamadinejad, but he doesn't have much power, he has a right to speak, the Columbia University event was fascinating, and I am against a military campaign in Iran" (or any variation or combination)?

[mhatrw]

58. How about just pointing out that you've seen this war lure before and

you aren't biting this time? Is that really too much to ask?

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

Why do Wirthlin's job for him?

[Sparkly]

64. Nobody's luring me.

What is it you're afraid of?

Rightwing talking point: "But Saddam was BAD! Gassed his own people!"

THEY want to engage in a discussion about whether or not Saddam was bad. They want to portray the anti-war position as one that naively thought Saddam was a good guy. It's not about that. He WAS "bad," but that does not mean it was smart or justified to invade Iraq.

Same with Ahmadinejad. People can dislike him AND oppose invading Iran. I think those distinctions are important to make, so that people don't think every "bad guy" requires a US invasion (the post-WMD rationale for invading Iraq).

It's just not rocket science that we don't bomb all the "bad guys" in the world.

[mhatrw]

79. Bullshit. "Sodamn Insane" = the only effective PR justification for the Gulf War!

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

Americans don't like to get involved in wars. However, the most effective way to break down American resistance to entering a armed conflict with another country is to make an emotional appeal to Americans based on the personification of the leader of the enemy target as a dangerous, deranged super-villain. This is now a proven, tried and true RW PR strategy. It's up to people on DU to see through this nonsense rather than promulgate it.

[Sparkly]

87. Do you not believe one can dislike someone without wanting to bomb them? nt

[mhatrw]

90. Do you not believe that the characterization of Ahmadinejad as an insane

super-villain is a PR gambit to soften Americans' resistance to a war with Iran?

[Sparkly]

92. If so, is that working?

Has anybody here said he's an "insane super-villain" and therefore we should attack Iran?

If the neo-cons want a discussion of WHETHER he's bad (or how bad or whatever), don't go there. It's not about that.

It's about HOW we deal with people in the world who are "bad."

[mhatrw]

95. So how do we deal with leaders of other countries who are bad, or in this

case the figurehead of another government that is bad in many ways?

[scarletwoman]

66. Yes! Thank you! I feel like I'm constantly beating my head against a wall here on DU.

Yeah, all these "liberal" DUers who love to chime in on the oh-so-fashionable denunciations of Ahmadinejad, yet clutch their pearls in horror if you suggest that they are aiding and abetting the march toward attacking Iran.

"Oh my goodness! I didn't MEAN that I wanted to see Iran get BOMBED!" Yeah, well, guess what. You are helping make it possible with your willing participation in Bushco's Two Minutes of Hate.

We are living in a country full of assholes and idiots, and DU is just a microcosm of the same.

sw

[Sparkly]

69. I'm sorry, but that is just crazy to me.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose an attack on Iran!! To say that disliking their president is a REASON to attack their country is WRONG, and should be pointed out as WRONG.

Otherwise, Americans will have to shut up about the next and the next and the next person they may not like, because in this country not liking a leader = supporting a war on the country. That is NUTS.

The way to fight it is not to say, "Shhhhh" when it comes to stating one's opinions. The way to fight it is to say, "Military action is a LAST RESORT, it is NOT something we do because we don't like one leader or another! Look at what happened in Iraq!"

This "be careful what you say" mentality is what *I* would consider asinine and idiotic.

[scarletwoman]

71. I'm sorry too, because you are SO not getting the point.

If you can't see it, you can't see it. I've explained my position as best as I am able. You call it "crazy". That pretty much ends the dialogue, doesn't it?

sw

[Sparkly]

73. Okay, let's try multiple choice.

You have a problem with:

1.People on DU holding an unfavorable opinion of Ahmadinejad;
or
2. People on DU expressing an unfavorable opinion of Ahmadinejad?

If not, I've misunderstood.

If so, it is because:
1. People have been misled about Ahmadinejad and don't know the real facts;
or
2. Expressing unfavorable opinions of Ahmadinejad is fodder for a neocon run-up to war with Iran?

Again, if neither of those are what you're saying, I've misunderstood.

[scarletwoman]

74. Yes, you've misunderstood. Ahmadinejad is irrelevant, what's relevant is observing how and why and

by whom his demonization is being promoted, and how many people are falling in line behind it.

sw

[Sparkly]

86. That would be answer #1.

People holding an unfavorable opinion of Ahmadinejad hold that opinion because he's being demonized by neo-cons intent on attacking Iran, and have been duped into "falling in line behind it." Is that correct?

[scarletwoman]

94. If you're not pushing back against the propaganda campaign, you're enabling the war to happen.

Who the fuck cares about anyone's "opinion" about Ahmadinejad? It's a waste of time, it means nothing, it's worse than useless, it's counterproductive if you really want to prevent an attack on Iran.

Push back against the propaganda, don't echo and enable it! Your "dislike" of Ahmadinejad is irrelevant, it's just an egoistic self-indulgence that does absolutely nothing to forestall yet another "pre-emptive" war.

"Oh, I'm not for a war on Iran, I just want to express my precious opinion." It's fucking bullshit. PUSH BACK, don't jump on the bandwagon that's headed in only ONE direction, with only ONE stop: bombs over Iran.

sw

[distantearlywarning]

89. Two Minute Hate.

The newest DU buzzword. It's much easier to put a emotionally laden buzzword in your post than to actually explain your viewpoint.

Another lesson taken from the neocons...

[spoony]

96. And the irony

is how they took the buzzword from Orwell. I'm not sure he'd be terribly thrilled, lol.

[AuntPatsy]

52. That is NOT what I am doing, nor others, its just glaring obvious that

the same demonetizing of Saddam was in full force before the invasion of Iraq, they are not even being original and what I don't understand is not everyone is seeing the eerily similarities in play, be disappointed all you want but I am sure you will be more disappointed if the dog and pony show in play and which we all fell for is just another prelude of another invasion.

You can dislike him all you want, I do as well, but it doesn't change the facts on why he is even getting air time, they want you to talk about your dislike of him so that when they do attack Iran, you will be hesitant to pounce on them...

Bottom line is that he has no real power in Iran and anyone with a clue knows this, so in the grand scheme of things he himself is unimportant and yet he seems to many as if he is Iran and he alone.

[distantearlywarning]

88. It isn't what you are doing?

Sure sounds like it to me. This is the same kind of argument the freepers makewhen they try to justify their statements like, "You are emboldening the terrorists when you criticize the government".

It's the same kind of thinking.

For instance, your sentence: "they want you to talk about your dislike of him so that when they do attack , you will be hesitant to pounce on them ..."

could easily be changed to:


"they want you to talk about your dislike of him so that when they do attack , you will be hesitant to pounce on them "

Sound familiar now?

If it's overly simplistic and manipulative when the NeoCons do it, it's overly simplistic and manipulative when you do it too.

[Yael]

54. Thank you for injecting some reality into this.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Especially since he doesn't have any real power

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. Only on DU does that not go without saying

I'm not sure why a reactionary, extreme far-right conservative theocratic misogynist homophobic anti-Semitic regime gets so much validation on a left-wing, liberal message board.

[killbotfactory]

80. Singling him out gives him too much importance

He's just one bigoted asshole in a sea of bigoted assholes, and he's certainly not the worst of them. He's not some demon from hell, the next Hitler, or even a power-mad irrational dictator. He can't be because he doesn't have that much power to begin with. He can't wage war, and his influence over the judicial courts executing gay people (under the guise of other charges) is nil. He's an apologist for the system there, but it's not like without him this oppressive theocracy would disappear, and people would stop being executed for "moral crimes". His rhetoric is designed to encourage backlash against him and make him popular at home. He's seeking this kind of attention. We have supported and continue to support worse regimes, even in the immediate area. We need to condemn Islamic theocracy as a whole, and support the reform movement in Iran and everywhere else.

The media is prepping us for war. A stupid, unnecessary war. Having people denounced as shameful apologists of tyranny just because they don't think Ahmadinejad is as much of an asshole as other people do, or as evil as the media hype is trying to portray him as, IS creating an environment to support a war in Iran. It makes it difficult to argue against war if every time you do so you are shouted down as a traitor, or an apologist for evil and bigotry everywhere, just like what happened before the Iraq war.

People are expressing concerns about a concerted media effort to demonize a foreign leader. One who is not particularly powerful or responsible for the state of affairs or the human rights abuses going on in Iran or the Middle East. Meanwhile they are years away from building a nuclear bomb, and during a time where Bush is salivating for a chance to go to war with Iran, while running out of the time and influence to do so. Meanwhile the leading democratic candidate for president has said that nukes are on the table.

Saddam's crimes against humanity were only used by these people as an excuse and false justification to commit worse crimes! We cannot let this happen again.

[scarletwoman]

93. Great post! It's a pleasure to hear from another DUer who "gets it".

I remember how things were around here during the buildup to the war in Iraq -- all the DUers getting worked up about what an evil man Saddam was, while being in denial that the U.S. was really going to attack Iraq.

If you truly want to be against yet another war, you call the media and the politicians out on their propaganda, you don't echo and advance it! It's so frustrating to see how few people understand that concept.

All the "Ahmadinejad is evil" bandwagon joiners are apparently incapable of understanding that this bandwagon has only one direction and only one stop -- war on Iran. You don't get to join the ride and claim you're only going to go so far, it doesn't work that way. If you're not pushing back against it, you're enabling it. This bandwagon is heading for a bombing run.

sw

[LeftishBrit]

97. Agreed. I dislike Bush and Cheney, and I don't support a war with the USA.