Ahmadinejad Ground Zero request

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
i happen to disagree that bush is a..."religious fanatic"...and I have no idea whether he "subsequently presumably thinks non christians, gays and other undeseriables will get [censored] over during the rapture"

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess it all depends how we define our terms, but here's some background on Bush's thoughts on what happens to people who haven't accepted Jesus Christ. Here's another article further detailing some of Bush's views on Jews specifically.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
we can't truly diffuse tensions with Ahmadinejad

[/ QUOTE ]

well its worth atleast to try

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we can't truly diffuse tensions with Ahmadinejad

[/ QUOTE ]

well its worth atleast to try

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, if it's impossible to do diffuse tensions meaningfully? and if it simply delays the inevitable and gains time for Iran to further progress towards nuclear weapons?

It cannot be said that it's always worth it to try in every conceivable case: as an example, it was downright harmful to try to diffuse tensions with Hitler, wasn't it? It turned out that that couldn't be done, and all the attempt did was create a false sense of security while allowing Hitler the time and opportunity to build up his military machine.

If something CAN'T be done, why would it be worthwhile to try to do it?

So one must think either that A) it CAN be done, and be done significantly, and it is therefore worth attempting; or B) one must acknowledge that since it can't be done it is useless to try.

I'll guess that you think it CAN be done...but given Ahmadinejad's long list of fanatically hostile quotes, would you (or anyone) mind explaining why you think it can be done? Or how and why there is the slightest reason to suppose that Ahmadinejad will change his mind on what are obviously very extreme and deeply held beliefs?

Thanks, and thanks for reading.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
given Ahmadinejad's long list of fanatically hostile quotes, would you (or anyone) mind explaining why you think it can be done? Or how and why there is the slightest reason to suppose that Ahmadinejad will change his mind on what are obviously very extreme and deeply held beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i think i can counter this rather easily.

1) Ahmadinejad's antisemitism stems from political growth. The Zionist statements are what the ignorant masses want to hear in Iran, and thats what he gives them to stay in power.

2) We have no evidence to show that these are deeply held beliefs, his position changed after he went ascended into office so there is no past history to compare to.

sounds like a typical american politician to me, changing with the wind to assure he keeps his job. Isnt it odd that his rhetoric is never as venomous when he speaks to the world body at the UN? Even his open letter to the US a few months ago was rather logical, he tried to say he has no quarrel with the people of the US. Again i think Ahmadinejad is scum of the earth but that doesnt mean he cannot be reasoned with; all men have their breaking points.

PS to John Kilduff : "The Bomb" is not as big of concern that it was in WWII or in the cold war with Russia, non-conventional weapons such as water source poisoning or planes flown into skyscrapers are far more damaging than a nuke can be. 9/11 caused more destruction than a typical suitcase nuke would (the most likely use of a nuclear weapon at this stage), the greatest strength of a nuke bomb is the terror it would spread, not the actual explosion itself. A nuclear bomb is crippled without a delivery method, and unless Iran can fly a series of bombers over American cities (very unlikely) we have little to fear. The most likely candidate for a nuke would be a dirty bomb, which packs enough power to damage a few 1,000 feet at most + radiation sickness.

PS to vulturesrow : Thanks for the welcome, you guys still scare me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] A little background on my beliefs, I am the sun of a Marine Drill Sargent, the brother of two lifers in the Air Force (one operates a base in the midwest, the other used to fly on Airforce One), and another brother who is in his 12th year in the Coastguard. Surprisingly with the exception of one brother none of us have far right views, and we all believe that we are entering war for the wrong reasons under this administration. All of us feel the current administration has failed in its foreign policy, we long for the days when hawks did not control the country - including the far right brother. I also have an ultra-right wing cousin who is a fund raiser to smuggle weapons to the west bank so Jewish settlers can attack Palestinians, but thats another topic.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like a typical american politician to me, changing with the wind to assure he keeps his job. Isnt it odd that his rhetoric is never as venomous when he speaks to the world body at the UN? Even his open letter to the US a few months ago was rather logical, he tried to say he has no quarrel with the people of the US. Again i think Ahmadinejad is scum of the earth but that doesnt mean he cannot be reasoned with; all men have their breaking points.


[/ QUOTE ]

TT,

Assume this is all true (I think you're probably 50%-75% right, FWIW.) Why would the desirability of having a dialogue with this man coincide with a desire to have him visit Ground Zero in his official capacity?

We can do all of those things without simultaneously letting a guy who thinks the Holocaust is a hoax and quite probably believes a bunch of Jews didn't show up for work on 9/11 have his official photo op next to a particularly sacred-ish hole in the ground.

[*TT*]

I spent 20 minutes trying to confirm this post and I couldn't. I think TT was the victim of some bad information.

[*TT*]

update - Ahmadinejad will give a speech at Columbia University

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i think i can counter this rather easily.




1) Ahmadinejad's antisemitism stems from political growth. The Zionist statements are what the ignorant masses want to hear in Iran, and thats what he gives them to stay in power.




2) We have no evidence to show that these are deeply held beliefs, his position changed after he went ascended into office so there is no past history to compare to.





sounds like a typical american politician to me, changing with the wind to assure he keeps his job. Isnt it odd that his rhetoric is never as venomous when he speaks to the world body at the UN?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how much power Ahmadinejad actually possesses. He is a front for the clerics. I think this is part of the problem, the clerics are much more behind the scenes than Ahmadinejad and it's pretty hard to guess what any of them are thinking.

The other problem is whether he means what he says or not, he is still saying it, and he is still inciting crowds with his rhetoric. Now step into Israel's shoes, what they said is on the table 100% while one can only guestimate about their sincerity. And even if one can assume that Ahmadinejad (and hence, the clerics) are not as sincere as they sound, the people they govern probably are as are many higher ups in the government apparatus.

I can understand Israel determination to react with force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a bomb.

[ QUOTE ]
PS to John Kilduff : "The Bomb" is not as big of concern that it was in WWII or in the cold war with Russia, non-conventional weapons such as water source poisoning or planes flown into skyscrapers are far more damaging than a nuke can be. 9/11 caused more destruction than a typical suitcase nuke would (the most likely use of a nuclear weapon at this stage), the greatest strength of a nuke bomb is the terror it would spread, not the actual explosion itself. A nuclear bomb is crippled without a delivery method, and unless Iran can fly a series of bombers over American cities (very unlikely) we have little to fear. The most likely candidate for a nuke would be a dirty bomb, which packs enough power to damage a few 1,000 feet at most + radiation sickness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the risk of terrorists denotating a nuclear bomb are extremely slim. To all those who believe the risk is real, look into how much a nuclear bomb costs to create. When the United States built the reactors to make the material for the first three bombs, 50,000 people were employed to build the reactors in Washington state. Who knows how many were employed at Los Alamos and other sites? Take the extreme costs a bomb's creator faces, and then add in the extreme risk of reprisal said creator faces when it's determined he supplied the bomb. It's rather apparent that saying Iran or Lil'Kim are going to give a bomb to terrorists is propaganda.

However, from a military perspective, there is simply no weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb for the projection of power. Iran has delivery systems in place to project its power on all the regions the United States and Israel are worried about. US cities are not at risk, but all of the Middle East, including Israel, is.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
However, from a military perspective, there is simply no weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb for the projection of power. Iran has delivery systems in place to project its power on all the regions the United States and Israel are worried about. US cities are not at risk, but all of the Middle East, including Israel, is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I tend to ignore that Israel is a strategic and fiscal investment and Iran's real threat is to the region not the US, your absolutely right - that is the real risk. Interesting... in the 40's Israel was strategically important because of the proximity to the USSR, now its because of the proximity to other Middle East countries, its too great a risk to loose Israel.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the risk of terrorists denotating a nuclear bomb are extremely slim. To all those who believe the risk is real, look into how much a nuclear bomb costs to create. When the United States built the reactors to make the material for the first three bombs, 50,000 people were employed to build the reactors in Washington state. Who knows how many were employed at Los Alamos and other sites? Take the extreme costs a bomb's creator faces, and then add in the extreme risk of reprisal said creator faces when it's determined he supplied the bomb. It's rather apparent that saying Iran or Lil'Kim are going to give a bomb to terrorists is propaganda.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quick hijack:

It doesn't really get talked about much, but I think the biggest terrorist/nuclear threat is Russia. My understanding is that the Russian Mob basically controls the country and there's no shortage corrupt politicians/generals/bureaucrats/etc. IMO the most likely way for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon would be buying one from Russia, not building one themselves.

Pakistan is probably a major threat here too. They already have the nukes, there are a lot of fundamentalists in the population, and the government appears to be somewhat unstable.