Latest posts for the thread "Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U"

Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

VermGho5t — GMT

Did anyone catch his speaking there? I've only seen parts 1 and 2 of the Q&A with the representative and students. After his comparison of the evidence of the holocaust to the fields of science I couldn't watch anymore, maybe later, but he seems to be the typical politician.

Hopefully this thread doesn't become too political, I would rather see a rational and objective analysis of this event rather than emotional regurgitation.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

I must admit that it's very impressive that Columbia got him to speak, even if he is a loudmouth figurehead.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

What a sham. The Chancellor starts off haranguing him, giving him the sympathy vote.

The question we may have to ask ourselves, in five years time is this. Would a rifle shot now have stopped the war?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Lorek — GMT

I'm honestly very surprised something like that didn't happen, although I was also expecting some improvised weapons. But no, I don't think it would have stopped the war; it would have made him a martyr. Better to ridicule him and get people laughing at him.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Ah but that would just make him angry. The Western World wouldn't like it when he's angry...

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Lorek — GMT

Well, we don't like him now...

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

exactly. And the rifle shot now forestalls a nuke going off in Tel Aviv, Bagdad, Paris, or New York.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Griffu — GMT

I have to admit, there was a time just after he took office when I thought he was saying some good things. Boy is my face red!

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

The speech/Q&A was interesting because it revealed precisely how little he knows about either his own nation or those he demonizes. In many ways, Ahmadenejad is the Dubya of Iran. His beliefs, of course, are much creepier and more repugnant than W's, but some important paralells:

1) Both are presidential in a non-authoritarian state. W has to deal with the congress, reluctant state legislators, and the free press. AJ has to deal with powerful religious councils (who don't like him much, by the way), local discontentment and economic slowdown, and his own lack of power.

2) Both have pissed off allies and enemies alike with their rhetoric, and are highly controversial in their own constituencies. Just as few Iranians believe AJ when he talks about the Holocaust as believe W when he talks about weapons of mass destruction.

Heh. Just thought I'd point that out.

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

But he doesn't need to know anything. He's 99% figurehead. Anyone who believes I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket's talk about wiping Israel off the map is giving the guy way more street cred than he deserves: precisely, none.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/27/2007 11:44 AM

1) Both are presidential in a non-authoritarian state. W has to deal with the congress, reluctant state legislators, and the free press. AJ has to deal with powerful religious councils (who don't like him much, by the way), local discontentment and economic slowdown, and his own lack of power

And I almost feel like calling him president isn't fair to the term "president."

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

VermGho5t — GMT

A couple of his viewpoints were quite disturbing to me. Most notably is that he stated the events and evidence of the Holocaust should be interpreted with the same amount objectivity as the sciences. His answers to the Dean's questions, or rather his lack of direct answers to the questions reminded me of Rumsfeld's Known Unknowns pseudo-poem. I'm still trying to make some sense out of the things he has said.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By jfrazell on 09/26/2007 1:38 PM
What a sham. The Chancellor starts off haranguing him, giving him the sympathy vote.

The question we may have to ask ourselves, in five years time is this. Would a rifle shot now have stopped the war?

Shooting him is irrelevent. It would be like killing the puppet instead of the puppeteer, he has an Ayatollah's hand up his rear controlling what he says. Never forget who controls Iran, it is not the "elected" government.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

By the way guys, thanks for being so civil. Even "real" political boards and debates between educated intellectuals degenerate faster than this.

Both recent comments were right on. The "president of Iran" has very little real power, he is checked by the religious and civil council systems and the Premiere/Prime Minister. He's allowed to shoot off his mouth all he wants, because it means little in terms of hard consequences, and can even be a distraction for a regime that wants the pressure off of its real leadership.

However, that doesn't mean it is a positive development in world culture and dialouge when a creepy nutjob with a prediliction for denying reality in offensive ways, threatening his neighborhood, and going out of his way to inconvience other countries diplomatically is allowed an important place on the world stage.

But no matter what, an offensive sham of a president doesn't deserve, or need, a bullet in the brainpan. That wouldn't do a thing for all the problems he represents -- in fact, it would just give the next Iranian figurehead a huge diplomatic card to play.

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Hordini — GMT

An assassination attempt of Iran's President on U.S. soil would be nothing but bad. If anything, I think it would start a war, not prevent one.

Also, why the issue with examining the Holocaust evidence objectively? How else should we examine it? Non-objectively? Emotionally? To any person with any sense who examines the Holocaust objectively, the truth should be quite clear.

I guess the problem with sense is, at least in terms of examining the Holocaust, Iran's President doesn't have any.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

And no, there's nothing wrong with objectively examining the Holocaust. But...that phrase has been co-opted by a denial camp, and so in the public forum, when you say "objectively examine," it is often taken as code for "question the reality of".

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/30/2007 4:03 PM
Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

Where?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

malfred — GMT

Posted By bigchris1313 on 09/30/2007 7:12 PM

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/30/2007 4:03 PM
Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

Where?

I was just about to ask that.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Lorek — GMT

It's right next to the Articles of Entitlement. Shame they left out the ERA.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Mannahnin — GMT

Exactly. When he says “objectively examine the facts”, he means “give respectful hearing to nutjob deniers”.

It’s like creationists using the phrase “teach the controversy” in their efforts to get creation or intelligent design time in classrooms. There IS no controversy among anyone with any real understanding of biology. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory.

The evidence for the holocaust is mountains of dead bodies and ovens full of people. One whackjob’s chemical analysis of the shower walls at Auschwitz and his contention that the evidence doesn’t support there having been poison gas merits the objective conclusion that said whackjob is reaching really hard for evidence to deny the worst genocide in the history of man.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

Oh, and by the way. You all are right, it's not a direct constitutional ban, since such barbarity was not terribly close to the minds of our colonial era forebearers.

But, since 1976, the earlier precedent that politically motivated or political-objective assasinations were both illegal and illegitimate acts for US agencies to support or undertake has been clear.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/

Only recently (and regrettably) have these moral lines been fudged with.

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

I'll give you an executive order!

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Posted By Hordini on 09/30/2007 3:38 PM
An assassination attempt of Iran's President on U.S. soil would be nothing but bad. If anything, I think it would start a war, not prevent one.

Also, why the issue with examining the Holocaust evidence objectively? How else should we examine it? Non-objectively? Emotionally? To any person with any sense who examines the Holocaust objectively, the truth should be quite clear.

I guess the problem with sense is, at least in terms of examining the Holocaust, Iran's President doesn't have any.

You're assuming it would be here. Planes crash, and its a long journey from Iran to New York.

Its not just the Holocaust 60 years ago. Iranian weapons are killing US soldiers now.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM

Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

Dear God, how I wish I had an answer to that $64,000 *gak*show of a question.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM
...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

Utter nonsense. Iran is actively fueling that carnage. it is in Iran's interest to have an unstable Iraq-eventually they will annex the shiite regions and it keeps the US off balance from targetting Iran' s leaders as the real bad guys of the region. Thoase aren't just weapon sales, but revolutionary guard in Iraq.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM
...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

1. It was american Intellegence that led to the breaking of the Iran-Iraq war. namely we supplied the Iraqis with satalite data so they could cordinate against the dug in Iranians. It forced the Iranians to the table.

2. So bascially you are saying that it is OK for the Soviets to back leftist dictators and supply them with arms to kill civilians because you happen to agree with the goals? Have you ever heard of the Monroe docterine? You know it has been the policy of the US since 1823.

3. Why should I have any regard for the Palestinians, they have been screwed and screwed over everyone includeing the two countries that took them in.

4. Iran will stop when it is made abundently clear that the US is willing to go to war. Not the "Go to war to make friends" the Bush administration came up with or the "Wag the Dog" war the Clinton administration backed. In other words we will have to wait for someone like Harry Trieman who is more worried about winning than approval polls amongst the people we are fighting.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By Dice Monkey on 10/02/2007 11:27 AM
Iran will stop when it is made abundently clear that the US is willing to go to war. Not the "Go to war to make friends" the Bush administration came up with or the "Wag the Dog" war the Clinton administration backed. In other words we will have to wait for someone like Harry Trieman who is more worried about winning than approval polls amongst the people we are fighting.

Do you know what a war with Iran would entail? It would be a strategic nightmare. Not only are we up to our clavicles in *gak* in Iraq, but the Iranians are well-armed, have lots of bodies, and live in mountainous territory that would be a nightmare to navigate. Furthermore, the Iranians are messing about in Iraq because we're messing around with their internal affairs on a daily basis, albeit in a more covert fashion. And did I mention that we just don't have the manpower?

I'm not quite sure how to get the Iranians out of Iraq, but they know we won't actually go to war (for strategic and political reasons), so they're going to keep poking us in the side.

I say we let Iran have the bomb. Israel has one. They have one. No one's actually going to use them anytime soon, for obvious reasons. That or we let Israel send a squadron on a suicide mission armed with bunker busters that we know will kill untold civillians and piss off everyone else. I have to say, building their centrifuges in populated areas was a good move on their part.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By jfrazell on 10/02/2007 4:34 AM

Utter nonsense. Iran is actively fueling that carnage. it is in Iran's interest to have an unstable Iraq-eventually they will annex the shiite regions and it keeps the US off balance from targetting Iran' s leaders as the real bad guys of the region. Thoase aren't just weapon sales, but revolutionary guard in Iraq.

Iran's interest is instability? It might be a secondary or tertiary interest, but their primary interest has to be regional stability, including a stable Iraq.

Iran's preferences, in order:

1 - stable Iraq friendly to them and not the US

2 - stable Iraq friendly to both them and the US

3 - stable Iraq friendly to no one

4 - probably an unstable Iraq from which they can grab territory, either directly or by setting up a satellite state

Why is an unstable Iraq so far down on that list? Why isn't it up higher? Because stability is paramount to security. Regional stability is the primary objective of state actors. You cannot have anything else until you have stability. Instability is too expensive. The costs are too high. Once you get stability, then you can influence governments. Then you can count on a rational state actor next door. Then artificially inflated prices fall. Until you achieve stability, there are too many variables and too many risks.

One could even make the case that instead of the #4 I listed, Iran would rather see a stable Iraq friendly to the US and not to them. Stability is that important. Having said that, I still think that an unstable Iraq that they could try to annex is higher than a stable US-friendly Iraq.

One final thought: at the end of the day, Iraqis and Iranians don't like each other that much. They fought a hell of a war 20 years ago, and one side is Persian while the other is Arab. It's not as if their religious similarities outweigh everything else.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

bigchris1313 — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM

...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

If that's what it takes to make the trains run on time and get us in with their dictators, I'll take it in a heartbeat. Serve our interests, no matter how mild, in exchange for guns, ammo, explosives and sometimes protection? Yes, please.

The Saudis are certainly one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth. They also control approximately 25% of the world's known oil reserves. If we have to be their guardian angel against foreign threats and their arms suppliers so they can put down some troublemakers from time to time, that sounds good to me. They've been nothing but good to us. They sell us oil, they let us put bases there during the Gulf War, they bought Polish pork (that's right--pork) to help their struggling industry when no one else would. What's not to love?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By bigchris1313 on 10/02/2007 12:02 PM

Do you know what a war with Iran would entail? It would be a strategic nightmare. Not only are we up to our clavicles in *gak* in Iraq, but the Iranians are well-armed, have lots of bodies, and live in mountainous territory that would be a nightmare to navigate. Furthermore, the Iranians are messing about in Iraq because we're messing around with their internal affairs on a daily basis, albeit in a more covert fashion. And did I mention that we just don't have the manpower?

I'm not quite sure how to get the Iranians out of Iraq, but they know we won't actually go to war (for strategic and political reasons), so they're going to keep poking us in the side.

I say we let Iran have the bomb. Israel has one. They have one. No one's actually going to use them anytime soon, for obvious reasons. That or we let Israel send a squadron on a suicide mission armed with bunker busters that we know will kill untold civillians and piss off everyone else. I have to say, building their centrifuges in populated areas was a good move on their part.

No it would be much easier than Iraq, Iran has only two ways to get their only commodity out, both can be closed off. The main issue is the EU who does not have foresight like the US and build up a reserve of petroleum who will suffer because they do business with Iran in substantial. If you have to put boots on the ground they need to lose " we don't want to destroy X type of building because it will make them hate us" they already hate us. It is programmed into them through the wonderful state that Jimmy Carter helped create.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

Jfrazell: Iran is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into. It's kinda scary how anarchy spreads like wildfire. Anyway. Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry. Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying Italy would/could annex Bavaria, since it's mostly catholic.

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

Overall, BigChris, I agree with you. Your post on the interest of Iran in a stable Iraq, and on the emnity between the two populations, beat me to the punch. Well done. If they want a bomb, I would rather they not have it -- nuclear proliferation is just bad, no matter if it's Switzerland, South Africa, Iran, or anyone else -- but you're right, it is not without precedent in the region.

Bigchris: Just one bone I would like to pick:

I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik viewpoint. The raison d'etat is not preservation alone, nor self-aggrandizement alone, but also the preservation of certain moral and/or social ideals. The United States does a tremendous disservice to those ideals by giving material aid to despicable regimes. We make that offense even more rank to the international community by doing so to advance our interests -- not usually to preserve ourselves from imminent destruction or anything, but merely to gain political or economic maneuvering room.

Oh, and the Saudi's troublemakers are usually democratic activists. Those, they kill or lock up for years. Their terrorists...well, they only go after them when we REALLY put the heat on.

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik

1. No actually we and the Soviets vowed not to interfere, we did not put the knife in the Iraqi's hand and send them through the door like you are trying to portrait it.

2. An insult, not even a good one.

Whoever said that war was moral? You certainly will never win one by not being underhanded and having the will to win. We have never been above useing our influence in one way or another since the inception of the country. McCarthisim is now a hollow term, being as the man that created the term (Owen Lattimore) who is one of the people we can thank for Mao takeing over China, the Divided Korea, the Vietnam War and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. How dare he call people like that out.

3. Blame the British.

4. It has nothing to do with a pissing contest, it is the fact that we no longer use war rarely as we once did. People fail to realize that if you are going to bare you fangs you have to bite. You cannot half ass fight a war because of push polls or fear of loseing infrastructure. That is one lesson we lost from every war we have been in from 1861/1945.

You do realize Kissinger falls into the Wilsonian political sphere.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/02/2007 12:44 PM
Jfrazell: Iran is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into. It's kinda scary how anarchy spreads like wildfire. Anyway. Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry. Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying Italy would/could annex Bavaria, since it's mostly catholic.

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

Overall, BigChris, I agree with you. Your post on the interest of Iran in a stable Iraq, and on the emnity between the two populations, beat me to the punch. Well done. If they want a bomb, I would rather they not have it -- nuclear proliferation is just bad, no matter if it's Switzerland, South Africa, Iran, or anyone else -- but you're right, it is not without precedent in the region.

Bigchris: Just one bone I would like to pick:

The raison d'etat is not preservation alone, nor self-aggrandizement alone, but also the preservation of certain moral and/or social ideals. The United States does a tremendous disservice to those ideals by giving material aid to despicable regimes. We make that offense even more rank to the international community by doing so to advance our interests -- not usually to preserve ourselves from imminent destruction or anything, but merely to gain political or economic maneuvering room.

Oh, and the Saudi's troublemakers are usually democratic activists. Those, they kill or lock up for years. Their terrorists...well, they only go after them when we REALLY put the heat on.

-Adso

Lets discuss these points:

“st="on">st="on">Iran is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into.”

-Explain how they were drawn in again? st="on">st="on">Iraq fell. Instead of being afraid, they were emboldened – which I fault Bush/Cheney for. They begun sending weaponry, terrorists and their own soldiers into st="on">st="on">Iraq to destabilize the region and kill Americans.

“Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry.”

I’ll ignore the slam.

Tell that to the Bosnians (some of whom in gratitude for us saving their butts were just foiled in attempting to kill Americans). And when exactly does it not work? Take the st="on">st="on">US out of the picture and it would have worked many times. Here’s some that immediately come to mind.

-st="on">st="on">Bosnia

-Kosovo

-st="on">st="on">South Korea

-st="on">st="on">Kuwait

-st="on">st="on">Taiwan.

“Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying st="on">Italy would/could annex st="on">st="on">Bavaria, since it's mostly catholic.”

No its like saying the st="on">US would annex st="on">st="on">Texas, because they have a similar religion and culture.

“I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik viewpoint.” st="on">Wilson was a do-gooder who helped create the fraud that was the st="on">League of Nations, instead of dealing with the real post WWI situation.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Triggerbaby — GMT

I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

We could drag it back down for you.

That A Men Gin A Jar done cussed us in that Spanish language he done spoke. We should done shoot him and string him up like Pat Robertson sais. That'll show them Frenchies!

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By jfrazell on 10/03/2007 4:14 AM

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

And send him back to Mexico with all them other Chinese people!

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

malfred — GMT

Posted By Dice Monkey on 10/03/2007 11:13 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 10/03/2007 4:14 AM

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

And send him back to Mexico with all them other Chinese people!

Somebody car me?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Only if you know where some good restaurants are in Matamoros baby.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

BrotherAdso — GMT

I like this direction.

We should justify any and all invasions and occupations based on the culinary contributions of the nation in question.

England will be carpetbombed for gastronomical crimes against humanity.
I suggest forming a strategic falafel-pita alliance to neutralize Iranian flatbread influence immediately.

Perhaps a National Deliciousness Alert Level?

-Adso

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

English food is good, now Iceland should be sunk into the North Atlantic for such culinary contributions as jellied rams testicles and rotted shark.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Clearly Latin America would be a world power, a colossus striding the known world (to borrow the phrase from Spartacus).

But that speaks to my theory as to why the British were such empire building mo-fo's. They REALLY needed to get out and get some decent food. Baked beans on bread? Barf!

Hey Dice Monkey you still 40King Houston way?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Da Boss — GMT

Well, that was interesting. Certainly not points of veiw I see expressed regularly where I live.
I disagree with a fair bit of what ye are saying, but ye can argue a point fairly well.
*Goes off to think and read up a bit*

As for yer man, well he's a loon but shooting him is hardly the answer and hardly the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Why? The thorough application of said shooting are what stopped the Germans and Japanese from taking over the world? It reads to the classic ethics test. If you could go back in time and stop Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot before the heavy killing began, would you?

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Lorek — GMT

Da Boss, feel free to expound your point of view! It's always good to get a different opinion, and aside from Dice Monkey, we won't come down hard on you.

Dice Monkey is VERY opinionated.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Posted By Iorek on 10/11/2007 5:53 AM
Da Boss, feel free to expound your point of view! It's always good to get a different opinion, and aside from Dice Monkey, we won't come down hard on you.

Dice Monkey is VERY opinionated.

Yes thats what the forum is about (I think)

Dice Monkey isn't opinionated. He's a Texan.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Da Boss — GMT

Well, he's a foreign leader on your soil who entered on the assumption ye wouldn't shoot him. Shooting him would be incredibly hostile and show utter contempt for the sensibilities of the rest of the world. it would piss off a lot of people. That's why it would be stupid. If some random nutter did it, it'd still be bad because he wasn't protected properly.
As for the travel back in time argument, well, yeah sure, because I know exactly what they've done. when you start trying to use that to justify killing people because of what they might do, you're on shaky ground.
If war is eventually declared (and I hope not, I'd prefer peaceful resolution where possible) then by all means attack.
But attacking him when he's on a visit to a university to give a speech, and was invited by said uni? Bad form altogether.

But i do understand the anger about Iranian weapons finding their way into Iraq. I haven't seen concrete proof, but I'm willing to bet it's happening. I just think diplomacy is a better route than violence in most situations.

(But hey I would I live in a "neutral" (yeah *fudge*ing right, we'll be neutral when we stop letting american planes refuel here. Not that we should stop them mind you- it'd be economic suicide! But we should stop claiming to be neutral. Whole other debate, sorry) country which limits it's military involvement to UN peacekeeping. Certainly no "World Police" attitudes floating around here.)

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Da Boss — GMT

Oh and don't worry I'm not afraid of debate. I just don't currently know as much as I'd like about Iran and don't want to shoot my mouth off prematurely. It is interesting to read your points of view though. And I can see where you're coming from (especially wanting to protect your soldiers. My brother is in the British military and I want him to be safe.)

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

Posted By jfrazell on 10/05/2007 4:13 AM

Hey Dice Monkey you still 40King Houston way?

No, I have been exiled to the gameing waste of Mobile Alabama. No decent gameing stores for 70 miles in any direction one comic store serviceing half a million trailer park residents here. I plan to make it back in the spring for BB, keep in touch if you feel you can break free from "she who must be obeyed" I have an extra army you would be welcome to play.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

Oh 40K armies I have...

Be cool Mobile boy (is that where the battleship is?)

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Dice Monkey — GMT

I dropped 40K like a bad habit, this is Fantasy were talking about. And yes they have the battleship and last week Joan Jett and Blue Oyster Cult played. After that it is almost al old people and Holy Rollers.

RE: Ahdminejad Speaks at Columbia U

Frazzled — GMT

or Old People using holy Rollers...