Ahmadinejad Ground Zero request

[andyfox]

Why do you think he's a self-avowed enemy of our country? I know he's a lunatic. And a demagogue. Do you think that's all there is to it?

[2/325Falcon]

Giving him a photo op won't diffuse any tensions.

[vulturesrow]

It would literally sicken me if they allowed that man to come to Ground Zero. His country is a direct supplier of the deadliest IEDs in Iraq. All the other stuff, e.g., his vitriolic rants, his anti-Semitisim, I could almost ignore if I thought he were sincere. I dont think he is and as a US serviceman I take it as a personal affront that this guy wants to pay his respects at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks while at the same time he assists in the killing of American Soldiers and Marines.

[andyfox]

Is it a surprise that his country is participating in the war in Iraq? Shouldn't the administration have considered that invading the two countries on either side of Iran would engender a military response, especially considering the history our relations with Iran, and the nature of this guy's persona?

The guy's a jerk, no question about it. But he's the jerk who leads a big country. For me, I have a bigger problem with the leader of our country sending American soldiers and marines into a country refusing to consider all the advice it received on what would happen. The administration was told there would be Sunni/Shiite trouble, that looting would likely occur, that disbanding the army was a mistake, that the infrastructure would need attention, that the Kurds would want a de facto independent state, that wholesale deBaathification would lead to chaos. And what was their response? "Stuff happens," said the Secretary of Defense. That's much more upsetting to me than the garbage that the leader of Iran spouts because if the administration hadn't been so callous our boys wouldn't be facing those IEDs today.

Best regards,
Andy

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the type of man with whom it would be wise to diffuse tensions.

And I still say the worst part about Munich is how often it's brought up in situations to which is has absolutely no relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm trying to point out with Ahmadinejad's quotes, is that...we can't truly diffuse tensions with Ahmadinejad. The underlying differences are simply too great. Any diffusion will be superficial and temporary. Nothing will change his fundamental views towards the necessity of removing Israel from the world or any of his other hard-line beliefs (the same goes approximately also for Iran's top mullahs/leaders, devout Islamists that they are).

The reason I brought up Hitler is because both he and Ahmadinejad are equally fixed in their beliefs, and their beliefs are incompatible with what we believe. "Irreconcilable Impasse" would be an accurate descriptive term in both historical cases.

Once Iran gets the Bomb, it would be reasonable to expect their already belligerent postures to manifest even more forthrightly and materially.

Don't you see that this is how it really is? Do you suppose that the man who made all of those statements is going to change his mind about those beliefs? Really?

I am sure that you always look for the good in everyone. That's admirable and worthy of emulation, but this situation isn't a question of finding the good or evil in people: it's a matter of deeply held beliefs. Push must eventually come to shove and it will be either before Iran gets the Bomb, or after. Beliefs are not changing in this picture. And tensions are the product of inevitable collision of the irreconcilable beliefs of the two sides.

Thanks for your response and consideration.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a surprise that his country is participating in the war in Iraq? Shouldn't the administration have considered that invading the two countries on either side of Iran would engender a military response, especially considering the history our relations with Iran, and the nature of this guy's persona?

The guy's a jerk, no question about it. But he's the jerk who leads a big country. For me, I have a bigger problem with the leader of our country sending American soldiers and marines into a country refusing to consider all the advice it received on what would happen. The administration was told there would be Sunni/Shiite trouble, that looting would likely occur, that disbanding the army was a mistake, that the infrastructure would need attention, that the Kurds would want a de facto independent state, that wholesale deBaathification would lead to chaos. And what was their response? "Stuff happens," said the Secretary of Defense. That's much more upsetting to me than the garbage that the leader of Iran spouts because if the administration hadn't been so callous our boys wouldn't be facing those IEDs today.

Best regards,
Andy

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this 100%. That isn't going to change the developing situation with Iran, though, nor are Ahmadinejad's beliefs going to change, nor is Iran going to slow down her race to acquire nuclear weapons. Then what?

[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 ]
It would literally sicken me if they allowed that man to come to Ground Zero. His country is a direct supplier of the deadliest IEDs in Iraq. All the other stuff, e.g., his vitriolic rants, his Antisemitism, I could almost ignore if I thought he were sincere. I dont think he is and as a US serviceman I take it as a personal affront that this guy wants to pay his respects at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks while at the same time he assists in the killing of American Soldiers and Marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question - is there any proof yet that Iran is sponsoring the transportation of IEDs into Iraq? Because if there was solid proof I think the war would have expanded already into Iran. There is proof that individuals with agendas separate from the nation of Iran are trafficking arms and fighters, but I think our government is still looking for the link to the Iranian government which so far doesn't exist (I am not saying there wont be a link found or that the link will be as legitimate as the link between Sadam's and Osama, only that one doesn't exist yet).

We are having a hard time accepting the truth that nations are no longer the soul source of armys, in this area of the world militias exist that are outside the control of their home government. The problem is its much easier to say Iran is the enemy than to say rouge arms traffickers operating outside of the Iranian government control is the enemy.