Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You got the memo, you just choose to ignore the fact that the minions of the "progressive" movement believe that the United States is unworthy of its status as a superpower. You and your ilk believe that the United States is a dying breed and that its now time for another country to have a chance to effect world policy. Denying knowledge of that fact now, here on this forum, is a weak but expected response. Open your eyes. Your Messiah Obama made it clear through his world tour that the US deserves nothing but admonishment. And he's succeeding, thus people like Ahmedinejad feel empowered. Thank you, clueless progressives, for your continued service to this country. You've successfully emboldened our enemies in the name of "free love for all."
Wait, wasn't it Bush that did nothing about Iran for the last 8 years?
With a Republican congress from 2004 to 2007.
Yep, they were all certainly 100% "liberal and progressive".
You have to remember, when he makes statements like this, it's for the benefit of the Iranian people to hear on their state run media....the rest of the world can of course hear it too. What the Iranian citizens can hear from the rest of the world can be blocked but, they can't block the rest of the world from hearing what gets announced on state run media.
At a time like now, when the U.S. and others countries are concerned about Iran's nuclear program, statements like this from Ahmadinejad are the last thing you would expect to being hearing him make. Ahmadinejad, along with other Iranian officials, have a consistent pattern of making announcements like this at the worst time possible. They avoid responding to the concerns that other countries of the world have and instead make very negative accusations towards some of those countries that are about the past, often vague and have no basis for being made in the first place. As an example, what does something like this actually mean:
He called the attacks a "complicated intelligence scenario and act."
or this:
At the time, he also told Iranian state TV the attacks were "a result of mismanaging and inhumane managing of the world by the U.S,"
They're strong accusations and yet at the same vague enough to deny that they have any specific focus or point, at any time in the future if it becomes necessary. It's along the same lines as his statement about wiping Israel off the face of the map....when he said it, it was strong enough to draw huge criticism from other countries of the world and easy enough for Iran to back away from by suming it up as nothing more than a figure of speech.
Iran's international policies are so disconnected from the way other countries communicate and negotiate with each other. We're not talking about N. Korea here where the country is run by a dictator that makes the entire country dysfunctional in communicating with the rest of the world because he's dysfunctional and has a god complex. Ahmadinejad has an awful lot to say on Iran's behalf but, seems to actually have very little influence on how the government is run.....if anything is complicated, it's Iran's government structure:
Our form of government was originally set up to have a logical system of checks and balances. Two hundred thirty five years and 305 million people later, politicians have attempted and sometimes have suceeded, in creating ways to get around that system of checks and balances but, arguably for the most part in the end the system has worked (for how much longer, that's another debate). In Iran, their population is a fraction of ours and their system of government is only around 35 years old and with it's combination of Islamic theocracy with democracy, there hasn't been a logical system of checks and balances from day one.
I've had a theory about Ahmadinejad since he was first elected (this is just my theory). If you go back to the time of the Iranian revolution, support for the new government was strong then....especially from the students. After the Iran-Iraq war and the passing of the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, that level of support has dropped significantly. A few years back I remember hearing that 50% of Iran's population was under age 25. That makes sense when you consider the huge number of casualties they suffered from the Iran-Iraq war and the age range of those that would have been capable of fighting in the war along with those that were too old to fight and have since died, it explains why the majority of the population is so young (and even though they've been taught about the revolution, they didn't live through...or at least weren't old enough to really understand it).
All this being the case, the portion of the government that relies on Islamic theocracy, is composed of basically old men (the Majlis....OK, if they're not old men, then they're at least "old school") that a young population is not going to relate to nearly as well as was the situation right after the revolution. The way I see it, Ahmadinejad was the Majlis answer to this problem. This last election has been accused of being riddled with fraud but, even his first election was shaky.....all of his oppostion was dropped from the ballot at the last moment. Ahmadinejad relates to all these young people.....he was a college professor (he has a masters degree in traffic engineering....something like that....exactly the kind of thing a president should have a degree in....lol). At the same time, he was heavily into the revolution when he was younger and has remained loyal to it ever since. I've read that all his friends from his college years (as a student, not a professor) said, he kind of split off from them and went in that direction by himself.
He knows how to influence and relate to young adults from his career as a college professor, which IMO made him the perfect choice for the Majlis to make sure ended up getting elected to the presidency He's lost a lot of his luster since first being elected (because he hasn't come across with all his promises.....I think because he doesn't have the power to keep any of them) but, if you recall back to when he first took over, what did he want to talk.....he wanted to have debates with the young crowd about the Holocaust being fake....I think David Duke was one of the guests that spoke at the debate (if you can call it that)....I might be wrong about that. That seemed to be his original role (before he lost popularity)....communicating with the young crowd....it didn't go so well when he tried to do it at Columbia University though. The young crowd over here had some questions he wasn't planning on having to answer and left him having difficulty explaining....like how gay/lesbian people (actually I don't think he even included lesbians), were a "phenomenon" that didn't exist in Iran....lol.
The parts highlighted in red could easily describe Obama. The danger of disenfranchised young minds without the maturity to recognize a Pied Piper is not a just a lethal prescription for Iran, it was for post WWI Germany and it could become so for "post" economic disaster USA.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
The parts highlighted in red could easily describe Obama. The danger of disenfranchised young minds without the maturity to recognize a Pied Piper is not a just a lethal prescription for Iran, it was for post WWI Germany and it could become so for "post" economic disaster USA.
I gotta run outside, maybe I'll catch the last traces of the sky hitting the ground....................
The parts highlighted in red could easily describe Obama. The danger of disenfranchised young minds without the maturity to recognize a Pied Piper is not a just a lethal prescription for Iran, it was for post WWI Germany and it could become so for "post" economic disaster USA.
The difference is that we have free press....we hear about news from soures all over the world. We have to sort out what we think is bonafide but, we're not blocked in any way from it. We don't have basially one person (a president) announcing what he wants the country to believe on state run media. Iran has blocked it's citizen's ability from receiving outside information considerable ever since all the protesting started from claims of fraud in the last election. We also don't have such a large majority of citizens that are so young.
Comparing the parts in red to Obama, is definitely pushing it.
Really? Can you cite some examples of consistent liberal support for his nuclear weapons program? Or is this just a puerile attempt at invoking some sort of drive-by attack with baseless stupidity and words just so you can say something regardless of how unintelligent or thought provoking it may be?
As far as the OP goes... This is nothing new. Ahmadinejad is a callous, stubborn and irrational fool who also denies the Holocaust. Nothing he says should be given a dabble of rational consideration. There is only one other dictator I can think of that has the same "God Complex" as Ahmadinejad and that's Kim Jong Il in North Korea.
You can expect more of the same stuff from him in the future. He'll do anything to attract attention because that's what dictators with god complexes desire.
Personally, our best bet is to let the usurpation and dissent of power in Iran play out without interfering. Most of the Iranian shah's, mullah's and politico-religious leaders actually think that Britain is behind most of the latest revolts and riots in the country. Iran and Britain have a long history of mistrust of one another. It's best if we let the Iranians think the Brits are behind it and let what I hope to be an Iranian Revolution for the better take place.
Something tells me his totalitarian dictatorship will be overthrown in the coming years. I don't know what will replace him but, at this point, just about anything seems like a step up.
Well, no need to read more than the first paragraph of this post. It's clear that you have not participated in this forum enough, or you simply don't have the capacity to comprehend what's being said, because NUMEROUS threads have been started and responded to acknowledging Iran's right to nuclear weapons. I can assure you that it's not the conservatives amongst us advocating for Iran's right to nuclear weapons.
We've got people right here on these boards who say the same thing.
Wait! We know he blogs, so could Ahbeenadickwad be posting here?
I truly feel sorry for anyone who believes everything their government tells them. 9/11 was and remains the biggest coverup by our government in our history. If only the sheep could ever realize that, then maybe we wouldn't be as ****ed a country as we are today.
Did we lose credibility when we propped up the Shah who had certain opponents of his regime "disappear" over the years?
The USA lost her credibility a long time ago. We have a terrible record when it comes to nation-building, esp. over in the desert. It is not surprising that some of the most pressing issues come from that part of the world. But hey, we're doing so well and bring nothing but honesty, integrity, and safety to the world at large... as long as you do things our way, and in our interests.
There's great irony to be learned on our foreign policy follies over the past 30+ years and nothing more telling than the monsters who we once created, supported, funded, and trained to be on our side. They make for great diversion as trendy patsies when they have fallen out of favor with the power brokers and cabals.
The USA lost her credibility a long time ago. We have a terrible record when it comes to nation-building, esp. over in the desert. It is not surprising that some of the most pressing issues come from that part of the world. But hey, we're doing so well and bring nothing but honesty, integrity, and safety to the world at large... as long as you do things our way, and in our interests.
There's great irony to be learned on our foreign policy follies over the past 30+ years and nothing more telling than the monsters who we once created, supported, funded, and trained to be on our side. They make for great diversion as trendy patsies when they have fallen out of favor with the power brokers and cabals.
The "most pressing issues" from "that part of the world" are more to do with religion than geopolitics. Geopolitics are a function of religious and moral differences, not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalism has never had a place in American diplomatic efforts unless, as you said, it fit within the confines of our strategic interests. However, the war against Islam started with the Crusades and hasn't stopped since. Geopolitics are but a sideshow in this theater of prophecy.
The "most pressing issues" from "that part of the world" are more to do with religion than geopolitics. Geopolitics are a function of religious and moral differences, not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalism has never had a place in American diplomatic efforts unless, as you said, it fit within the confines of our strategic interests. However, the war against Islam started with the Crusades and hasn't stopped since. Geopolitics are but a sideshow in this theater of prophecy.
The USA has had a major role in affecting geopolitical policy since WWII. And we've sucked at it, big time. Stop blaming our foreign policy failures on religion or anything else for that matter. It's time this country mans up and takes responsibility for our actions instead of making villains out of groups who no longer hold our self-serving interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
