For those who feel some of us aren't sufficiently outraged over Ahmadinejad

[mmonk]

and his speaking at Columbia or wanting to lay a wreath at the 9/11 site. We know about him. We know about Iran. We knew about Saddam and Iraq also. What exactly would you have us to do?

[sniffa]

1. not sure who this is directed at

as there are varying degrees of outrages here....

for my own point on the spectrum, i'd stop the masturbation over how charming, and weLL spoken he is, and how some of his ideas are pretty good, whiLe gLossing over his comment and treatment of gay iranians.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Directed at everyone who talks about Ahmadinejad lovefests.

[cboy4]

13. Exactly! Are you excited you're going to be a new dad in nine

months BlooInBloo?!!

[BlooInBloo]

16. Goo. Goo.

[cboy4]

22. LOL. There are a plenty of people who would just walk away, but

I respect you BlooInBloo for accepting your lovefest-induced parental responsibilities.

[BlooInBloo]

27. No deadbeat here! No siree!

[monktonman]

7. I havent witnessed any of that.

What I have seen though is alot of people saying we need to have an open, honest and very frank discussion with the Iranians rather than bombing them to the stone age.

Is that the same as masturbating over how charming or well spoken he is?
If so I've got sore hands and am gonna go blind cause I think we should always talk to our "enemies"
and show the world how fucked up they are. Besides the more time they spend talking to us the less time they have to screw they're own people.

That being said, I havent seen any Ahmadinejad fans on this board.
Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I've never been very good at witch hunting.
What I have seen is alot of fuck him lets attack bullshit. (very subtle but still there)
I've also seen alot of people saying that if we let the guy speak at all we MUST support
him and his policies.
I call bullshit.

[tridim]

8. We need to say, "We're not going to bomb your country" and then..

have open, honest and frank discussions with Iran.

[monktonman]

11. Well according to some on DU

If you do that you must think he's a good guy
and agree with his policies.

Dont the chinese have a pretty bad human rights record?
Never stopped anyone here from buying the shit they make.
Going by DU logic if you buy some chinese junk, you must be
ok with they're abominable human rights record.
So I guess all of us at DU are ok with forced abortions, an 80 hour work week,
torture, child labor etc as long as the chinese are doing it.

[MADem]

19. When you say "we" do you mean George? Fuggedabout it.

He'd never take that off the table. NO leader would--save ones that will not get elected.

That said, dialogue would be nice. I can't see that happening until JAN 09, though.

I also can't see any attacking happening, not on a large scale, anyway. We don't have the assets to do any follow up. Our Army is broken, and our Marines are right behind them.

At worst, we'll have Israel, or maybe some other 'concerned' regional actor, do it for us, and only if the Iranians start up with the serious nuke shit again--like they did to Saddam a zillion years ago (funny how everyone forgets about that).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor


The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.

The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry. ...

[cboy4]

15. Just because you havent witnessed any of that doesn't

mean it's not happening.

Trees fall in the forest every day, but you don't witness that. Right Einstein, umm I mean, right monktonman?

[monktonman]

17. No need to insult me dude

Calling names (einstien) is just fucking childish.

If you read the post's above you'll see that my comment is directed solely at DU.
Over the last day and a half I've read posts that basically say "If your not totally pissed off
then you must support him"
What I HAVENT seen is people posting about how charming and well spoken he is.

Saying let him speak is way different than a lovefest.
Some on DU disagree.

[MADem]

21. I haven't seen ANY "fuck him let's attack bullshit." Perhaps you can point us to examples?

I've seen "He's an asshole." And he IS. I've also seen "Well, (fill in the blank) are JUST as bad."

But just because people are assholes, it does not "logically follow" that the BushCo view of what to do with that asshole holds. I haven't seen a single, subtle or otherwise, call to attack Iran here. Not one.

[monktonman]

30. Sorry I'm to lazy to do the research

Thing is, I'm not the only one to imply that.

What I have seen is the your with us or against us bullshit.
and lots of it. Seems to be the growing mentality of people around here
on a variety of topics.

hear those drums?? they're very far away but still there.

[MADem]

33. Again, I have not seen ANY of that here. And I've done some looking.

I've seen: He's an asshole, he's mean to women, he denies rights to homosexuals, he kills women, gays, kids...but no "with us or against us." NONE. Certainly not "lots of it."

You are going to have to put up some proof if you intend to keep bashing the membership here. And that's what you are doing, saying they support the GWB sabre rattling.

You're saying there's a huge cadre of supporters of war against Iran here.

I don't see it. And I've looked.

You need to provide links or retract.

[monktonman]

40. lets start at post number one. masturbation?????

I've been looking for the pimple everyone says I have on my face but I cant see it cause I dont want to.
How about the OP, post number twenty four, three, four, five is just awesome (read the subject line), six, nine, number ten is spot on, twenty six, thirty two, as examples of being afraid to express your opinion here. need I go on?
(this is cool, I dont even have to look around too much being as lazy as I am.)

Then theres the dont say a fucking word I disagree with crowd.
number 19, 15, 21, 33, 29, 34, number 25 is a great example (stop trying to defend him (I havent really seen any of that here either which I'm pretty sure was the point of the OP)).
What a coincidence that lots of these post's belong to you.

On the other hand, I must apologize for my "fuck him, lets attack" comment.
That sounds a bit harsh but it was really cause once again I was too lazy too fully explain my
feelings on the subject and just blurted out some stupid shit.
What I meant to say is that theres alot here in DU who sound an awful fucking lot like
Republics. Even down to the way they think. I've been especially shocked at the "fuck the UAW" crowd
(when did dems stop supporting unions? oh, thats right, sometime in the nineties)

And yes, while I dont know you, you do seem to have a with/against mentality at least on this post.
God forbid I disagree. I've been writing lots of "DU is growing ever more intolerant of ideas and opinions" post's lately. Its been pretty cool cause lots of people agree with me and others show there true colors by insulting, bashing and otherwise degrading me. Name calling is prevelent too. I keep going back to your post's number 33 and 34 and want to keep writing but I think everyone else who reads this post will get my point.
Sadly...you probably wont.

P.S. its funny how everytime I get snubbed and otherwise treated like an asshole here I look at the top of the comment and see stars and thousands of post's. Coincidence? I think not.

[MADem]

41. Uh, the OP is NOT advocating bombing. He's asking about the Columbia/Ground Zero business.

No one in this thread is saying, "Come ON, guys, let's bomb those fuckers into the Stone Age!!!" You're suggesting that, and that's just not true.

The OP wants to know how that situation might have been handled. You're reading shit into comments that simply is not there. You are also accusing my fellow DUers of being "Republics" or at least GOPish in their viewpoints. And THAT's not true, either.

And you know damn well that's the case, unless you have a reading comprehension problem, and I doubt that you do--if you actually take the time to READ what people actually have written.

You need to look at the world in a more NUANCED fashion, there, friend. You can dislike the actions of a leader of a nation, and still not want to BOMB them. Your suggesting that is just not on.

I don't have a with/against mentality--I speak from personal knowledge. Let me share a little something about myself with you. I used to live in Iran. I lived there under Shah, AND under Khomeini. Both regimes were repressive, but at least under Shah you could buy beer and wine, go down to the Armenian section and get some Canadian bacon and a Christmas tree, go to BARS (yes, bars), say hi to your Jewish neighbors who would actually, cheerfully ADMIT they were Jewish, and the ladies could wander the streets in NORMAL LOOKING clothing--nothing TOO outrageous (one would be criticized for the halter top and hot pants look, for example) but a tee shirt and jeans, no problem; a dress above the knee, so what? Short sleeves, sure, why not? Now, women are wrapped in black bedsheets or absurd scarf/raincoat getups, in 90 degree heat, to prevent "lustful urges" by a few ignorant fucksticks who lurk amongst the stalls in the southern bazaar.

That's not MY Iran. That's not the Iran of any of my friends. They're sick of the repressive heel of the Ulema on their necks, they're sick of inflation, they're sick of crumbling infrastructure, having to wait seven years to get a phone, sick of GAS RATIONING in an OPEC country.

It's WORSE than the Shah. At least with the Shah, Johnny Walker Red could be had in the local kuchi store. There was full employment, even if a lot of it was subsidized by the government (lawn waterers, street sweepers--now, the large cities are AWASH with litter). You've got the same shitty, brutal, repressive government, only now, instead of smartass, snooty, Western educated Persian elites being in charge, smartass, madrasa and Islamic university -miseducated assholes in black turbans are calling the shots. Same assholes, only STUPIDER. Hell, at least Shah kept them out of war--they got a decade-long war and millions dead and wounded thanks to the fucking Ayatullah. No, neither government was good. But this isn't the best Iran can do. They're too smart a nation to put up with this shit for much longer. I hope they do it on their own, without any help from America. I'd like to go back before I croak.

And that's the truth.

If you are constantly being excoriated or 'snubbed/treated like an asshole' here, you might want to do a bit of introspection. That 'playing the victim card' business simply doesn't roll. It just MIGHT be you.

[monktonman]

53. Did you read any of the post's I mentioned??????

How about the OP?
Maybe I'm just dumb but it seems to me the guy is saying sorry I'm not rabidly fucking infuriated with Ahmedinijad's visit, what would you have us do?
Seems to me if you dont express the proper outrage to the correct people your fucked.

Go and read the post's I mentioned. start with the ones who are expressing they're frustration
with DU and them go look at your own post's
If you'd like, I'd be happy to go to other post's (the UAW ones are just crazy) and sight even more examples of hatefullness for you.
I'd also be happy to waste my time and yours showing you what I suspect you already know, and cite other post's in which people say that DU and the Dems in general are becoming evermore
intolerent of the progressives within THEIR OWN PARTY and use brow beating and insults to keep the party in line. (look at your own post's)

Truth be known, I think the guy is a complete asshole and an embarressment to your native land.
alot like our own decider. He may be even more dangerous.
My point is (and again I'm sorry that I have a reading comprehension problem, and I dont express myself as eloquently as you (again sick of being insulted by the DU elite for having a fucking opinion but not being able to write like shakespear)) That yeah, the guy is an asshole, ok there I SAID IT what more does the right wing of the Democratic party want? should we kill the guy, should we bomb Iran, should we blow up New York.
For Christ's sake what the fuck do you want???

Also, I doubt you'll even read down this far but I thought I should mention it anyway. First of all (this is what makes me think you havent read MY post) I expressed regret for my harsh "lets bomb Iran" comment. I was frustrated with the stop defending him crowd and didnt express feeling correctly. If you'd read my post, you'd know that and you wouldnt have again used that as the opening line in your post. I'm not going to outright insult your reading comprehension.
Also, I you come across any of my other post's where I was wrong I ALWAYS apologize and ask for help getting my story straight. with you I will not back down.

[MADem]

57. I just reread the entire thread. For the third time.

First, you say that people who disagree with you are pro-war. AND you say you've SEEN these pro-war comments on DU. I ask for proof, you fail to provide it. Then, you back off that and say that alot of DUers sound like "Republics." Now, that's a personal insult in and of itself.

Here's what I see--you're mad that more people aren't jumping on the "Isn't MahMoooooood a lovely fellow, if we ignore the Israel-bashing, push those Jews into the sea" bit? And of course, the gay hangings, the children killing, and so forth?"

IMO, there's just nothing to like about the guy. That doesn't mean that, since Bush hates him, that anyone here is on Bush's team. But that's what you continue to suggest, in differing fashion.

What, if Bush does it, we can't???

Gee, Bush takes a shit--does that mean we're locked outta the crapper until Jan 09?

The "Stop defending him" crowd just might have a point. That doesn't mean they want war, or are Republicans. And your insulting people when they don't go along with your viewpoint might have something to do with your inability to 'get along' with others in these threads.

Now, you wanna know: should we kill the guy, should we bomb Iran, should we blow up New York.


Why do we "have" to do ANY of that? Why can't we just say "Gee, what an ASSHOLE!" and leave it at that?

Is that such a difficult concept?

[monktonman]

61. Your argument is agreeing with me

Dude I've had enough of you.

If you read the entire thread for the forth time
you'll see I'm not the only one.

Funny how your tone seems to change the farther down the thread you get.

Also, if you read the ENTIRE THREAD, which I can see you havent done, you'd not only see YOUR OWN OPINION change but you'd also realize your the only one giving anyone else shit.

[MADem]

65. Whatever.

My views on the IGOI haven't changed over many years----decades, in fact. You are the one who's calling people names here--first, if they don't agree with you, they support the war (and you have SEEN this in WRITING here), and then, you back off that, and next thing ya know, you're calling them REPUBLICS.

You have an interesting take on discussion and debate. You call it "giving shit" when your loose logic and broad brushed insults are challenged--sorry, pal, this isn't the choir loft of the AMEN chorus. Not everyone will follow you, agree with you, or cheer you just because you want them to, no matter how angry you get.

I've had enough of you, too, so gee--we're 'even.'

[Skidmore]

74. My life experiences are very similar to yours.

Because of this, I will say nothing bad about the Iranian people or culture. Even as much as I loathed Saddam while sitting in Tehran waiting to be bombed night after night with AMERICAN supplied missiles, I do not want war for the peoples of these nations. They have suffered much over long periods of time. You are exactly on target about who is in charge now and they are just as duplicitous as the Western ventures which spawned them. Iran is an old and sophisticated culture with a proud people who cannot be expected to lay down and quit because * decided he wants all the marbles. They should not be expected to. After all, I believe the Persians invented the game of chess and are masters at playing it. Persians survived invasion after invasion from ancient times until now with a fairly distinct non-Arabic cultural core intact.

The nation which the world needs to deal with most are the Arabs, who survive on an arid chunk of desert by manipulating their only exports, oil and religion.

[MADem]

80. With any luck, maybe one day we can go back. I sure hope so. NT

[mhatrw]

42. I've seen a ton of people use the words loathe, asshole and nutjob.

To me, the orchestrated Two Minutes Hate screams of corporate media manipulation.

The guy has his faults. Who cares? He's not even the leader of Iran. Iran has its faults. Who cares? Why is it any of our business?

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."

[MADem]

47. Well, I loathe the asshole nutjob myself. That does NOT mean I want to bomb him.

Christ, a little nuance isn't a bad thing.

Why must some aver that one thing (dislike) equals "Let's bomb the fucker?"

That's called shitty logic--and that's all I'm seeing around here. Not calls for bombing the guy.

[mhatrw]

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

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?

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."

[MADem]

52. I suggest you pull the string on this thread. Because there's plenty of ACCUSING going on up in here

where that very suggestion is being shopped. Someone IS saying that OTHERS are saying it.

And ya know what? You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right, here anyway, for your opinion to go unchallenged. That's the Way of the Net. You either have to argue better, or toughen up.

And again, all you seem to be able to do is repeat a false mantra, using clever turns of phrase like "drums of war," that people who don't like Ahmadinejad are pro-war. Ahmadinedjad BAD? War GOOD!!!! Shitty logic, that. False, too.

Nuance is your friend.

[monktonman]

56. Holy smokes I couldnt have said it better myself

Why did I waste so much time arguing
when all I had to do was wait for your post.

The mainstream Dems have absolutely no resolve to silence the drums of war.

[bellasgrams]

24. I feel the same way Monktonman

I also think it was wrong to ask him to come to speak and then insult him before he spoke. You don't ask people into your home to insult them. This could have been a first step to making peace with a mid-eastern country. Again the US has made a fool of it's self to the world. And what would it hurt to let him go to ground-zero? Iran had nothing to do with it. It was Saudi Arabia, yet we greet them with open arms. As for the weapons found in Iraq and other info that Iran is involved with the fighting---I don't believe anything our gov. says anymore. They just want to control our thinking.

[2rth2pwr]

29. Please show where there is "alot of fuck him lets attack bullshit."

here at DU. Thanks in advance.

[monktonman]

31. See post above n/t

[MADem]

34. He's 'too lazy' to do the research. Ergo, consider the source. NT

[Shakespeare]

12. I think he's a raging SOB; what troubles me is how the white house is using his visit...

...to turn him into a cartoonish villain and try to get the masses more sympathetic with the idea of attacking Iran.

I think he deserves to be lumped in with the rest of the dangerous fundie nutballs, but I also think people should be very careful about being manipulated into supporting Cheney's Next War.™

[mmonk]

44. Words such as "lovefests" and "fans" come to mind.

Where are these people who love him and are fans of his? I detest him and the many other leaders like him. But I'm not going to be joining the national groundswell which is largely intended to villify him adequately or sufficiently to induce an acceptance of a US military enegagement or strike against Iran which most likely won't touch him but will kill civilians. I'm staying sober in these unsober times.

[wtmusic]

2. Snub him and create our own version of him for all to enjoy nt

[BrklynLib at work]

4. What could he do to this country that Bush has not already done?????

Undermine the economy? Take away our liberties? Laugh at the constitution? Steal elections? Defraud the government? Get our under-armed, poorly protected soldiers killed? Deny us healthcare? Threaten to take away Social Security? Let big Corporations run the government and steal our tax money? Laugh in the face of legislatures who want answers to questions about what he has done? Fill vital government positions with incompetent cronies? Saber-rattle to the point that the entire world thinks we are the most dangerous government in the world? Claim ot be motivated by a "higher power" so he need not answer to anyone cause he speaks directly to his "Higher father"???? Ignore or ridicule those who try to reason with him?

[Junkdrawer]

5. Sit quietly when the REAL warmongering begins thinking...

"I better not object lest anyone think I'm FOR Ahmadinejad"...

[Dhalgren]

6. Bingo, JD! Bingo....

[nashville_brook]

9. eggsactly.

[Spazito]

10. Exactly! Hmmm, where have I heard that before I wonder....

oh yeah....it is very similar to 'you are either with us or you support the terra-ists' mantra. I thought it was only the right-wing that bought into that one, seems like I am wrong.

[louis-t]

14. Ahmadinejad has no real power, he is a figurehead.

He doesn't control the military, economy or nuclear programs. Scott Ritter was very insistent that Iran is NOT in violation of any nuclear treaties, and that Ahmadinejad has been purposely misquoted by the bushies for demonization purposes. That being said, he is a kook who needs to be put in his place. Not by threatening him as is the norm for neocons, but by letting him speak and then doing what the U.N. Assembly did: they laughed when he said "We have no gays in our country." Is he merely delusional or did he do away with them?

[MADem]

23. I have been calling him a "spokesmodel" for eons.

Ask the Guardian Council and any of the ulema who actually runs the joint. They won't say Midget Mayor--he has as much clout as Tony Snow did. He's a mouthpiece, nothing more. They'll point to the Supreme Leader, who will smile in self-deprecating fashion.

He's right about the gays, though--they "smoke 'em outta their holes" and then trundle the drott crane into the town square, attach a noose, and hang 'em high--AFTER they are flogged a hundred lashes.

Ain't Iranian justice "special?"

[IndianaJones]

18. tone down the nuthuggery. nt.

[robinlynne]

20. I would jsut ignore them. there are REALLY important things going on in washington today!

[distantearlywarning]

25. Admit that he's bad.

Stop trying to defend him.

Quit pretending that he doesn't have non-progressive ideas, or that his government is abusive, or that he doesn't spout the exact same right-wing rubbish as all the fundies in this country.

Don't tie yourself in knots trying to justify his statements.

Refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt just because Bush hates him.

Just admit that he's bad. Just admit it. Say, "Ahmadinejad is a bad person, and as a progressive, I don't support his viewpoints on homosexuals, women's rights, or anti-semitism."

That's all.

[mhatrw]

45. Join the Two Minutes Hate or report for re-education! n/t

[porphyrian]

26. Can I borrow a cup of outrage? I'm almost out. - n/t

[txaslftist]

28. Bullshit.

We don't "know" about him any more than we "knew" about Saddam's WMD programs or his biological weapons plants or his support of terrorism. Everything we were told about Saddam and Iraq was a lie, and that lie killed over a million people and displaced over two million.

I'm not "outraged" at Ahmedinijad. I pity him and I pity his people, because there is nothing he can say to keep us from murdering them by the hundreds of thousands. He had the misfortune of being born on top of an oil patch that a pack of murdering Texans want to put their grubby mitts on.

[mmonk]

32. Read it in the context it was intended.

And you're right, we don't really know about him and certainly not in any context in which to launch any military operations. However, I'm asking the question in response to claims he has "fans" here or people here admire or agree with him because we aren't sufficiently outraged.

[Solon]

35. Ahmadinejad is a product of the system of his nation, not the source of that system...

Look to the Guardian Council and Mullahs for the source, and save your derision for them, not necessarily the figurehead. Ahmadinejad is an asshole, no way to really pretty that up, but the fact of the matter is that he's a "face" of the government, and holds very little real power. The guy's purpose in life seems to be to piss the U.S. and Israel off, he succeeds brilliantly.

[txaslftist]

36. He could be mother Teresa.

Israel and US would still be "outraged" at his behavior. He's sitting on oil they want. He has to be a "bad guy" and we have to be the "good guys" and rescue the oil ... I mean, his people.

[Solon]

37. Isn't doing the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results a definition of...

insanity? If so then invading Iran, or overthrowing its government is just, quite frankly, insane. We overthrew their government in the past, and look at where we are now, who knows what will happen if we try it again. Hell, they were a DEMOCRACY then, for crying out loud, and we still overthrew them!

[txaslftist]

38. It doesn't make a dime's worth of difference

whether Iran is a "democracy" or an "Islamic Theocracy" or an "Iranian Socialist State" or a "Kingdom".

They nationalized their oil, we gotta bomb 'em.

Of course doing so is "insane" if you think of it in terms of what is good for Americans or America or humanity or as a desperate last resort, what's good for the Iranians.

But it ain't about them or us, it's about the oil; that, and appeasing the hard-right in Israel who never met a Muslim they didn't want to bomb.

[Solon]

39. What you say is true, what aggravates me is the fact that our foriegn policy has a tendancy...

to bite us in the ass in the end. Look at 9/11 as proof of that, we gave Osama Bin Laden the means and ability to fight off the Soviets with other groups, and he gained one very big thing from the CIA's help. Legitimacy, not official, no, but in the minds of many, he became a folk hero of sorts. Huzzah for American Foreign policy! :sarcasm:

[MADem]

They can't pump their oil. They have major infrastructure problems.

They're IMPORTING and rationing gasoline. How well do you think we'd do on 24 litres a month? That's what they get--so they lie, cheat, steal and forge to get more.

The economy is a mess. It's actually helpful to Ahmadinejad to have BOOOOSH as an enemy. It distracts from the terrible inflation, lack of social services, lack of goods and general malaise at home.

In an odd way, they're helping one another. And we're cheering on the spectacle, ourselves, by talking about this silly shit instead of what's going on in Iraq.

[txaslftist]

76. They can pump plenty of oil. They can't refine it.

That's why there's a gasoline shortage.

[MADem]

86. They've got infrastructure woes that go all the way to the oil fields.

It's why they're having so much trouble with their economy. They've GOT the oil--in fact, they've found a few new fields that are loaded to the gills in the western part of the country--but they can't get it out of the ground fast enough and in sufficient quantity to solve their economic woes.

Yes, they have refining woes as well, to the point that they are IMPORTING gas, and RATIONING it (twenty four litres a month for the average person) as well, but that's only half the tale.

[MADem]

43. Naah, he couldn't be Mother Theresa. She wore a veil that looked like the flag of Israel!

He'd set himself on fire before he'd go near said fabric.

Israel should be outraged at his comments about Jews. They're dispicable. And America should be outraged at those remarks, too.

That said, I don't think we'll be attacking Iran anytime soon.

I mean, really--with what army???

The worst-case scenario -- and this is very worst case-- is an attack on an unfinished reactor, kind of like the Israelis did to Saddam a few decades ago back in 81. I hope it won't even come to that. If the Supreme Leader is smart, he'll study history before he gives the Midget Mayor any more marching orders.

[txaslftist]

46. No Army. The USAF and NAVY.

[MADem]

50. OK, we send in the carriers. We fly the long distance routes, which will be

less long since there's a RWinger running France.

We bomb a reactor, like the Israelis did in 1981 in Iraq.

Then what?

IF that happens, that's it. All done. We go home. Just like the Israelis did.

You're not suggesting that well fed Sailors and Airmen will swarm ashore and take over the country, are you? That's not their mission, by and large, and they aren't easily convertable--we learned that in the Sandbox. And unless BOOOSH gets busy and ramps up the draft, he won't be able to throw a nonvol bunch of groundpounders in there--it takes a good six months (PLUS) of pipeline (testing, screening, medical, induction, basic training, specialty training) to get a body to the field. And we don't have large capacity training facilities anymore--we've closed recruit training centers in a big way since Vietnam.

Or are you suggesting we'll continue to bomb them, for sport? Without Pooty Poot to the north, Turkey to the northwest, and a host of appalled nations griping about it?

Beyond an Osirak scenario, I just can't see us getting in that mix. A proxy war using Jordanian and other forces, sure, but not us. That's my take.

BOOOOSH, even if he wanted to do it (and I think he likes this Iran shit because it distracts from a shitty economy--the same reason Ahmadinejad likes it--his economy sucks, too), is rapidly running out of time.

[txaslftist]

75. We bomb a reactor and that's it?

You really think so? I think we'd go in there like Israel went into the Lebanon last time; blow up their critical infrastructure, destroy their air defenses, knock out all of their planes, and then bomb the seventy-five or so known sites where nuclear research is suspected of being done. In the course of that, we also (naturally) impose an embargo and extremely harsh sanctions like we did with Iraq after GWI.

I think we'd kill tens of thousands minimum in the "limited" air strikes; and then the follow up (to prevent their military from attacking us in Iraq) destruction of most of their cross border transit points and lots and lots of moving hardware (and the people around such hardware, naturally). This is to say nothing of the economic impact of the sanctions regime, which in the case of Iraq killed half a million people.

If we bomb their reactor, we don't affect their centrifuges, after all, which are located underground. Bombing the reactor doesn't impact their supposed nuclear weapons development at all.

[MADem]

79. Look to history. Osirak, 1981. In and out.

That's the first move. I rather think the Iranians, if given options, and assuming the Midget Mayor is replaced in the next elections (almost a sure bet, per the rumor mill over there) would rather have economic and infrastructure aid, rather than war without end, Amen.

They can't win a war against us, can't even fight one. They don't have the weaponry, frankly.

We don't NEED to kill a bunch of people--we just need to stop nuke development--if it's at a precarious stage. You need a reactor to make things happen. At least that's the BushCo view of it.

As an aside, and per some, activists in Iran especially, they'd rather we let that nuke business develop, because then the Islamic government couldn't use the "Don't criticize us; we can't have ANY dissent because we need to defend ourselves against our enemies!! Dissent is UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!!" which is a common theme you hear from leadership there. Sound familiar?

Killing a bunch of people would be insanely stupid. BushCo may be evil, and crummy on follow-up, but he ain't dumb when it comes to that kind of crap.

[txaslftist]

82. What makes you think nukes are the issue at all?

That's the stated issue. Just like "WMDs" were the stated issue with Iraq.

Every administration since Carter has had as its express goal "regime change" in Iran. Not stopping their nuke program, not spreadin' freedom, not helping with human rights. All of that is window dressing; lipstick on a pig.

Here are some of the reasons we will attack Iran:

1. They nationalized their enormous oil patch and deny multinational oil companies access to it. Those multinationals are the companies who built their oil infrastructure, and they feel like they own it. This is why we installed the Shah in the 50s, and we'd like to do it again.

2. They have begun selling their oil in euros and yen, resulting in a flight from the dollar, which weakens our ability to manipulate other nations with our currency and may lead to great budgetary difficulties in the US government when other countries refuse to buy US treasuries.

3. They are a regional rival to Israel, and provide an idealogical counterpoint to Israel's expansion, a challenge to Israel's military supremacy, and support for groups within Greater Israel's Palestinian population.

4. They are sitting astride an oil patch that Cheney and various of his Stink Tank pals think is "strategically vital" to the U.S. and they aren't a US puppet. This is intolerable.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with nukes. It never had anything to do with nukes. It never will have anything to do with nukes. Nukes are, like WMDs, a fantasy rationale to accomplish objectives that the American people would find objectionable. Just like Ahmadinejad's alleged holocaust denials and threats to wipe Israel off the map are propaganda designed, like Saddam's supposed torture palaces and killing fields, to make attacking Iran palatable.

And you're right. Bush isn't dumb. Which is why you'll never hear the real reasons we are attacking Iran coming from his mouth.

[MADem]

83. Not that nukes are the REASON--they're the EXCUSE.

You simply can't attack a country solely to steal their natural resources. It's against international law, you see.

Certainly, they have their eye on the oil. Of COURSE. Some truths are self-evident.

But they can't say that, now, can they?

[txaslftist]

87. No, you can't just say it.

But that's what we do.

[mhatrw]

48. Yeah, let's all get outraged about what the figurehead on the opposite side

of the globe said about things that happened decades ago. If anyone isn't sufficiently outraged, let's castigate them as much as possible!

That won't play into the warmongers hands or anything.

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."

[MADem]

51. "THINGS" that happened decades ago??? THINGS?

One of the greatest SLAUGHTERS of humans in history is just a THING to you?

No big deal? Yeah, fuck those 'Greatest Generation' clowns--they shoulda stayed home. After all, it was just a "Thing."

Jesus Christ on a bicycle. Those that don't remember history ARE condemned to repeat it.

I'm glad I'm old.

[mhatrw]

54. IMHO, you are getting played with your demands

for MORE and MORE outrage in the midst of a neocon scripted, corporate media sponsored Two Minutes Hate.

But ignore the point and instead pretend that I blasphemed the Holocaust by calling into question the contextual relevance of focusing on the fact that an Iranian spokesperson vaguely questions it.

In terms of history repeating itself:

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 are you doing Wirthlin's job for him?

[MADem]

55. You DID just call the Holocaust a "thing." Don't try to wiggle off that hook.

You wrote it. You own it. No "pretending" about it. I found it reprehensible. Like I said, I'm glad I'm old.

And I am not outraged. I see what Mahmooooood is doing, and I see what Booooosh is doing. It's a big game of distraction. Those who are crying about Neocon This, and Conspiracy That, can't see what's plainly obvious if you'd just step back a foot and look at the artwork in toto.

Check the Iranian economy, which bites like a rabid dog, and you'll see why the crew in charge needs an enemy to pout about. It's the same situation we're in--if we're talking about Mah-MOOOOOOOD, we aren't talking about that sucking-dollar Iraq war and the housing market mess.

The name of the game is DISTRACTION. And y'all are nicely distracted.

[monktonman]

59. Now your grasping at straws

Start over and re-read the ENTIRE THREAD and you'll see how your wrong.

maybe.......

[MADem]

64. I've read it. Several times. You might try it. NT

[mhatrw]

60. Yeah, I guess I must be a Holocaust denier then, too. Right?

Can't let me off the hook for that! I called the Holocaust and the formation of Israel "things that happened decades ago"! That is high thoughtcrime! Blasphemy! I must report for re-education. It doesn't matter that what I was minimizing was the importance of a current Iraqi spokesperson's personal beliefs about a historical event rather than the Holocaust itself. No, although the Holocaust is not a person or place, it must never be demeaned by calling it a thing. In fact, just using the pronoun "it" to refer to it is blasphemous! :eyes:

Here you are just a couple of minutes ago on this very thread calling for more outrage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1901257&mesg_id=1903524

Israel should be outraged at his comments about Jews. They're dispicable. And America should be outraged at those remarks, too.

My point still stands.

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 are you doing Wirthlin's job for him?

[MADem]

62. No, I didn't make that pisspoor leap of illogic to suggest that of you.

I think you made a careless, smartass remark, and you didn't THINK before you wrote it. It's not the 'thing' word, it's the whole context of your post.

Let's review:

Yeah, let's all get outraged about what the figurehead on the opposite side
of the globe said about things that happened decades ago. If anyone isn't sufficiently outraged, let's castigate them as much as possible!

As though getting annoyed that some shitheel suggests that the death of millions was fiction is somehow "uncool," eh? Yeah, let's NOT get outraged. Who gives a shit that this guy said all those deaths never happened?

It's not just the THING word.

And you know it. Snarky 're-education' remarks, and efforts to deflect from the carelessness of your previous post notwithstanding.

Apparently, you can't compartmentalize your outrage. You don't think requiring people to answer for their bullshit statements is important, I gather. You seem to think that if someone takes umbrage at those remarks, then they want to bomb Iran.

I am older than you, clearly, and have no trouble doing something called "parsing." You might try it sometime. It's useful when discussing issues in a nuanced fashion.

[mhatrw]

67. You "parsed" right past the point.

You are calling for more emotional outrage against an Iranian figurehead when published PR research and past experience shows that this exact strategy is most effective known means to get Americans to agree to engage in aggressive warfare. Why are you doing this? Given the context of war drums beating against Iran, is this really the time or place to call for MORE outrage?

Furthermore, I stand by every word I wrote. Why exactly is it supposed to matter (other than for its utility in stoking the personalized emotional outrage that war mongers rely on to foist war on a gullible US populace) if an Iranian figurehead vaguely questions the extent the Holocaust?

[MADem]

69. No I am not. "calling for MORE emotional outrage"--that's an attitude that YOU have,

and you spun it out of whole cloth.

I think he's an asshole, and I have explained why. I think he needs to account for his 'outrageous' comments, and he didn't do that (you apparently are giving him a pass, eh?).

I don't think war with Iran is a good idea, and I don't think it will happen either. Sanctions, maybe, a one-shot Osirak, remotely possible... war, no--not with us at the tip of the spear.

If your mileage varies, well fine, knock yourself out. Stand by your words forever and a day.

Don't expect me to cheer your lousy opinion on, though.

I wanna cut and paste your last paragraph, though...just for "historical purposes"--there's a phrase in there that is more than a bit telling.

Furthermore, I stand by every word I wrote. Why exactly is it supposed to matter (other than for its utility in stoking the personalized emotional outrage that war mongers rely on to foist war on a gullible US populace) if an Iranian figurehead vaguely questions the extent the Holocaust?

[mhatrw]

71. Telling in what way?

The fact is that Ahmadinejad has never actually denied anything. Anti-semitic Hitler admirers love to deny the scope of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad appears to have much in common with these vile jerks in that he questions the Holocaust to further his own political agenda.

But what does Ahmadinejad actually think happened? How many Jews does he believed were exterminated and in what manner? He has never answered these questions as far as I can tell. Nor has he ever tried to defend any of Hitler's anti-Jewish measures as far as I can tell. So what level of crime against humanity his "Holocaust denial" amounts to is not perfectly clear.

Considering that millions of people in the Middle East view the traditional historical consensus about the Holocaust with at least some suspicion, I fail to see why I'm supposed to equate Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial" with him being some sort of genocidal madman. And even if he is, he's just a figurehead. So what's the big deal? Why should we join in the demonizationfest? Isn't corporate media doing a good enough job at this -- just like they did with "Sodamn Insane"?

[MADem]

72. Another great leap forward....

Considering that millions of people in the Middle East view the traditional historical consensus about the Holocaust with at least some suspicion, I fail to see why I'm supposed to equate Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial" with him being some sort of genocidal madman.

Who says you're "supposed" to do that? Save you, with yet another strawman.

You simply are compelled in some fashion to go along with the consensus of "millions of people in the Middle East" I see. You can't think for yourself?

Why not put him in the same category as, say, Kurt Waldheim? Before your time, perhaps?

People simply didn't let him "slide"--and neither should this clown.

But like I said, you don't study that history, remember it, teach it...next thing ya know, you repeat it.

Have a nice, self-assured life.

[mhatrw]

73. I can think for myself. And I think that Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial" is akin

to Bush's denial of global warning, evolution and a women's right to choose. It helps him politically with his redneck, fundy base. He says it because it's an extremely popular stance for a RW fundy Middle Easterner to mouth. I'm not letting him "slide" for this. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to castigate a politician for being unbalanced, horrid and deranged for simply pretending to believe something that is highly popular to believe in his country.

[MADem]

77. Well, my mileage varies. There is no 'moral equivalency' there.

That very statement (global warming, six million murdered--eh, what's the diff?) is a 'mitigator' of what happened to the Jews of Europe. I reject it.

I'm astounded you continue to beat this drum, frankly.

Here, for your edification (and you certainly could use some): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1907550

[mhatrw]

81. Why is there no moral equivalency? How many people are going to die because

of global warming? Because of the tobacco and asbestos lobbyists Republicans are in bed with? Because of depleted uranium? Because of the entire US military/intelligence complex?

Tell me, what would do you want to do about the millions in the Middle East who question the historically accepted scope of the Holocaust? Do you want us to get outraged about each and every one of them? Outraged enough to imprison them for re-education like they do in Germany? Outraged enough about their incomparably morally heinous Holocaust questioning to murder them all for daring to have such questions?

Seriously, what is your final solution for widespread Holocaust denial in the Middle East?

[MADem]

84. One can be reversed, with effort and technology. You tell me how you can

raise six million who are already dead. The answer is, you can't. That's why the two issues aren't equal. That was a lousy example you tried to put forth there. It had all the strength of wet tissue.

The 'millions in the Middle East' need a better education.

I haven't seen a boatload of substantial leaders in that region of late get up and spew the sort of shit that the Midget Mayor does.

And it isn't "re-education" when you call someone for spouting pure horseshit. And that's what it is.

My final solution here is to say so long to you. You might want to check your moral core.

[mhatrw]

85. I need to check my moral core?

Holocaust denial is undeniably heinous. But while it dishonors the dead and perverts history, it doesn't kill anyone. What seems worse to your moral core, bombing a cemetery or bombing a school full of students?

Perhaps I'm off-base on this. I'm actually open-minded to be convinced otherwise, but someone would have to actually address the issues at hand rather than treat me like I was blaspheming for daring to broach the subject.

[monktonman]

58. Ok glad its not just me.....n/t

[MADem]

63. There you go again. Put down the gasoline and the matches. NT

[monktonman]

66. huh?

Funny how I just read another thread in which everyone is disagreeing with you.

[MADem]

68. There you go again.

You need everyone to agree with you, is that it? You have to be in with the in crowd?

[Geek_Girl]

70. Not sure what your talking about

But I like the fact that the Columbia University Invited him. He's a complete scum bag but he's most likely going to play an enormous role in shaping world history. Don't you think that how he thinks and what he says is important? If I was a student there I would have taken the opportunity to listen to him.

[mmonk]

78. Some think if you aren't sufficiently bashing him or are outraged

at his opinions enough to satisfy their anger, you somehow agree with him or like him. The post was for people who assume such.