Ahmadinejad Ground Zero request

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, probably. I would have replaced Neilso with "X" but It won't let me edit now. I don't really know what Neilso's view is so that was dumb. But its certainly the view of many video's hes linked such as Zeitgeist and that dude who died recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be kinda surprised if Aaron Rousso was anti-semitic. His family lived in beverly hills, and had a ton of jewish friends. Jewish people I knew liked Aaron, but thought he was probably a bit nutty. Do you have information I should know about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched the video interview and film that Neislo linked. In the interview he explains his wild conspiracy theories about the federal reserve and international bankers claiming they want a 'New World Order' and to control everyone with electronic chips. I guess it just so happens that these theories coinside with the anti-semitic ones. Also the Zeitgeist film that Neislo linked with the same theory seemed to emphasise the names of the 'Goldstein's' etc. amongst the international bankers.

Rousso also said that 'democracy is THE worst sort of government because it means a majority rule'. I don't think he really knew WTF he was talking about. I actually assumed he was Jewish himself- im not accusing him of being anti-semitic.

[vulturesrow]

TT,

First off, welcome to the Politics. Its always nice to see posters I like from other forums posting here. Hopefully you arent too turned off. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

For Andy,

I think the world of you in spite of your goofy liberal views [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] and I dont necessarily disagree with much of what you wrote. But I'm relatively certain that the leader of Iran has a lot to do with American's dying over there. I also agree with John Kilduff that I dont think letting him go to Ground Zero is going to do a whole hell of a lot to improve relations with Iran.

Anyways on to your question. I can't give you more than a vague answer. I tend to err well on the side of caution when it comes to what I know and what I dont know. My personal opinion is that the Iranian government is complicit in the funneling of arm and training into Iraq. Dont assume this would automatically mean that we would expand into Iran.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another article further detailing some of Bush's views on Jews specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

he was joking, it was taken out of context. Everyone knows Bush is a Zionist because he believes without Isreal there can be no rapture.

[*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.

[AlexM]

There are no good reasons to stop him from going there, just political ones.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Iran was a partner with the US in the Afghanistan raids to topple the Taliban

[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing altruistic about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess the French shouldn't give a damn that we liberated them in WWII since there was nothing altruistic about it? That seems to fly in the face of everything I heard conservatives say.

[andyfox]

It's not the photo op that's important. Tell him he can have the photo op, and while you're in town, let's sit down and go over some issues.

[andyfox]

Those "beliefs," as pointed out in another post in this thread, may not be truthfully held. But even if they are, if there are "great differences" between out two countries' positions, that gulf can be diminished in either of two ways: by him moving a bit towards us, or by us moving a bit towards him. Simply insulting and threatening each other does not bode well for the future.

I'm not looking for the good in him. I'm looking for the practical. Sometimes, as all poker players know, money talks and bullsh*t walks.

[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.

[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.