Look Who's Talking - Again
Posted December 16th, 2007 by Da King
Newsweek magazine has turned over some space within it's covers to that renowned international diplomat, the voice of reason, Columbia university's favorite Jew-hating, armageddon seeking, executor of homosexuals and oppressor of women (but evidently a cool guy because he hates Bush too, same as Newsweek and Columbia do), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Let's give Newsweek and the little america hating fellow a nice hand (or at least one finger of a hand, that's all I could muster). Newsweek shows a nice picture of a smiling Ahmadinejad for a 'special guest commentary' (isn't that special ?) titled 'An Arrogant Approach, The Dangers of Unilateralism - For The United States And The World'. Naturally, it's a condemnation of american foreign policy. If I didn't know it was Ahmadinejad talking, I would have guessed that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who wrote the article. Those two sound so much alike, it's uncanny. Harry must have Mahmoud on speed dial or something, so he can get the latest Iranian talking points heard in the halls of Congress as quickly as possible.
Tell me Ahmadinejad doesn't sound just like the liberal Democrats in Congress or the far left in general:
"After the end of the cold war and the regional confrontations emanating from bipolar competition, many hoped there would be a beautiful spring in international relations, as a multilateral system emerged that offered equal opportunities to all members of the international community. It was hoped that the new world would enable all nations, in light of universally accepted humane norms and mutual respect, to advance together, eradicate poverty and injustice, and set aside bitter memories of the past that were nothing but war, bloodshed, violence and tension.
Those hopes were dashed by the United States and its leaders, who adopted a new and aggressive approach. Their assertion of unchallenged global leadership—and the inability of the international community and the United Nations to challenge it—frustrated hopes for a stable and peaceful world. Instead, once again we witness the re-emergence of a system that produced nothing but tension and insecurity.
"Absolute unilateralism" by the United States is the salient element of the new system adopted by the U.S. government toward world development. It has prevented the American people from playing their proper role in eliminating tyranny and violence and in helping bring peace, justice and security. Why should the prestige of the great American people be tarnished by the selfish and bullying ambitions of their government, whose negative role is clearly visible in many current conflicts, especially in the Middle East?
The worst example of this approach was the U.S. attack on Iraq and its catastrophic consequences. What was the crime of the 700,000 Iraqis, mostly women and children, who have died since, or of the many more that have been disabled, injured and displaced? On the basis of what international norms and rules can the U.S. government justify its actions over the past four and a half years there? Who should be held accountable for the destruction and oppression of the Iraqi people?"
Can't you just see the libs nodding their heads in agreement with Ahmadinejad ? They have to be, because they've been saying the same exact things for years about the Bush administration.
Forget about that little old 444-day Iranian hostage crisis thingy between the USA and Iran. That couldn't be the reason there was no "beautiful spring in international relations" between us, could it ? Naw. That probably didn't even happen, like the Holocaust, which Ahmadinejad also denies. Ahmadinejad condemns the US for removing Saddam, whom Iran also fought for 8 years, but he covers up for that by blaming, guess who, the USA, because we supported Saddam following the IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS. You have to be a complete dunderhead to take this guy seriously (btw, 'complete dunderhead' and 'liberal' are synonyms). Iran also has been seeking war with Israel through it proxies in Syria, by supporting Hezbollah among others, they have openly advocated the destruction of Israel, and they have denied the IAEA access to their nuclear program, so I ask you:
What kind of morons do you have to be to keep giving this lying piece of crap a stage from which to spew his hatemongering propaganda ? That's you, Newsweek. Stop legitimizing Adolph Hitler's spiritual brother, you festering scabs on journalism's butt. This is precisely the man you should be de-legitimizing, as I have just done.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Democracy has been described as messy. What Newsweek did was exercise the great liberty of free expression, and yes, even with people we don't agree with.
I go back and forth all the time with people I disagree with, but that doesn't make me want to limit their freedom to exchange views.
The issue with Iran is about the hyping that it's a threat to us. It simply is not credible that a small, slightly backwards country like Iran is a threat to America.
Diplomacy. Talking. Like Newsweek engaged in…..is exactly what our nation needs more of, not less.
And yes, the part you posted of Ahmadinejab's views are basically correct. Just about the only people who can't see what the U.S. mainstream and the rest of the world sees…..are the one third of the country who still support Junior/Cheney.
Yes, the hostage crisis, yes. Also the million dead Iranians killed by Iraq, at the time the U.S. was supporting Saddam. Ya' know, grudges and all.
I give Newsweek a standing ovation for doing what the media should be doing. Reporting truth. We heard directly from Iran's Ahmadinejab, people can decide for themselves.
I've always regarded that sawed off leader as a paper tiger with a big mouth. For some reason (Israel) neo-cons want us to be sufficiently scared over a punk-ass. Ain't gonna' happen.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:01 am
They have eyes, yet they do not see.
You don't think Israel should be worried about Iran ? I'm speechless. There really is no use talking to you if you can't even see something that obvious.
See that huge tornado coming toward your house ? Move on, nothing to see there. Don't worry.
So what if Iran arms insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are used to kill US soldiers ? Nothing to see there. Move along.
So what if Iran develops nuclear weapons ? Pish tosh. A trifle. Don't worry your pretty little head.
Perhaps you missed the gist of Ahmadinejad's little Newsweek speech. It was nothing but a pack of lies, designed to deceive the american public. You know, much like your blog.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
King,
Yes, Ahmadinejad sounds "just like the liberal Democrats in Congress or the far left in general."
As to why Newsweek gives "this lying piece of crap a stage from which to spew his hatemongering propaganda," the answer is simple. Newsweek, like most of the rest of the drive-by media, is a propaganda arm of the Dims. The media, like the Dims, hate Bush far more than they love America.
In fact, hate, irrationality, and the tendency to always blame america first are the defining characteristic of the Dims, and it has been that way since the early 1970's.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Vince, yes, just the point I was trying to make. The only difference I have with you is that I think the Dems betrayal has been going on since the 50's, at least in part. It exploded in the 60's, and by the 70's, all the retarded liberal policies were mainstreamed in america, much to our detriment.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I wonder what the Reverend would think if Newsweek devoted that space to an editorial by someone like Tony Blair. I'll bet he'd say it's knee-padding.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
King,
I pick the 1970s as the time the Dims turned anti-American because that was when the radicals changed the party's presidential nomination procedures. This allowed crazies of the Left to take over the the party and expel the middle class.
But you're right; even in the 1940s, the Dim's harbored tratiors in high government positions — Hess, etc.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
larry: You know me, I'm only happy when liberal media outlets(and there are millions) are ONLY printing material favorable to Islamofascists-R-Us.
King: 1)Israel is not America. America is not Israel. 2) Israel…100-200 nukes…..Iran….0 nukes.
Your theory here is built on: American and Israeli leaders=good, Iranian, Syrian leaders=bad. I know you know this isn't right but that's how it reads. It's part of good vs evil thinking that labels one party all of one and none of the other. That's just not how life works.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
"Your theory here is built on: American and Israeli leaders=good, Iranian, Syrian leaders=bad. I know you know this isn't right but that's how it reads".
Actually, that is pretty much how I see it, in general terms at least. Of course, I don't think the Iranian, Syrian, or any other peoples are evil (just misled), but their leaders are racist pimples on civilization's butt, the same as the KKK in america. All civilizations are NOT equal, and there are attitudes that cannot be tolerated. They must be resisted.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
"All civilizations are NOT equal"
Watch it, King! The liberal thought police don't like you breaking their multiculturalism taboo.
And if you do speak about Western Civilization, you're suppose to belittle & trash like they do in the public schools & universities. That's so the the Islamic/Arab world and the others don't feel so bad by a fair comparsion.
But instead, you say, "I don't think the Iranian, Syrian, or any other peoples are evil (just misled), but their leaders are racist pimples on civilization's butt."
Tsk, tsk, King. You got to remember that, to the libs, the truth is no defense if you hurt the feelings of Third Worlders. But then again, it doesn't appear that you care what the libs think of you. Hey — you might have a future in politics when the times change.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
"All civilizations are NOT equal, and there are attitudes that cannot be tolerated. They must be resisted."
Noticeable by it's absence would be….who sets themselves up as the "attitude" judge?
Your sentence here actually says more than, I think, you intended to say.
"attitudes" can't be "tolerated". "attitudes" must be "resisted".
Doesn't it go without saying that you think America's "attitude" is THE only acceptable "attitude"? And then any countries who have a different "attitude" can't be "tolerated", instead, "resisted"?
And honestly, how is this viewpoint any different from Bush's, "with us or against us" thinking?
I would suggest that Islamic extremists' "attitude", with some justification, is because they see America as having an invasive and bullying "attitude" towards others, therefore, they should be "resisted".
If you actually believe, along with the extremist Ghost, what you said here, then you do believe in the neo-conservative militaristic doctrine and accept that America SHOULD be an imperialistic power.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Yeah, Vince, I know I'll upset the libs by pointing out that western civilization is superior to the racist, woman oppressing, homosexual murdering, human rights violating, intolerant, Islamofascist crowd, and I see my statement sent the Reverend into full moral relativism mode….
But that's what we do it
December 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Reverend, I've thought all along that your entire problem was that you so easily lose perspective, and your last post proves it in spades. When I condemn Iran for it's terrorist supporting, Islamofascist, homosexual murdering, woman oppressing, police state, racist, intolerant, human rights violating ways - somehow you turn that into "Doesn't it go without saying that you think America's "attitude" is THE only acceptable "attitude" ? ". NO !!! It doesn't mean that in the least. It doesn't mean anything remotely close to that. What it means is - Islamofascism, racism, intolerance, gay killing, treating women as chattel, running a police state, and violating human rights is BAD !!! IT MUST BE RESISTED. It must be fought against. Believe it or not, this is no great mystery for anyone within shouting distance of morality. The only amazing thing here is that due to your Bush and Republican hatred, you can't see any of it. What I'm standing up for here are the same principles as were stood up for in the Civil Rights Movement, women's suffrage, and abolition. What you are doing here is the equivalent of being an apologist for the KKK. Wake up, dude. I know you feel like you have to disagree with everything I say, but this is ridiculous.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I am contrary, that's true.
What I don't get, though,…I thought conservatives didn't believe in meddling in other countries. Instead, I always thought it was the far left that held to U.S. interference in other nation's societies, leaders, etc.
To me, what I keep reading in your words on this topic boils down to pre-emption. A unilateral (if necessary) pre-emptive foreign policy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
What I think is really strange is how the entire MSM started talking about a 'shift in US foreign policy' and 'pre-emption' when Bush went into Iraq, as if it never happened before. What a pantload. That was a case of the media telling an outright lie (one of many). What about Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, and on and on ? None of those countries was ever threatening the US, and our country acted unilaterally in several of them. Suddenly, the word 'unilateral' is also being used regarding Iraq as if that never happened before either, and despite the fact that the Iraq war wasn't even a unilateral action. It's been nothing but a ball of lies from our left-controlled media since the beginning. They haven't told the truth about one single thing.
Some on the right don't believe in an interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is one of the most extreme examples of that. There is a case to be made on both sides. On the one hand, do you sit back and watch genocide occur and do nothing ? That seems pretty immoral to me, but that is just what Ron Paul advocates. He says to stay out of it. That seems like it would lead to some real monstrosities to me. I don't think it's right to watch millions of people being slaughtered and suffering and do nothing. That's inhuman. On the other hand, we don't want to look like imperialists either, forcing our beliefs on others.
I think the key distinction is that we should always stand on the side of human rights, against tyranny, and let that lead where it leads.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
I don't disagree here. The only distinction I would point out, however, with Kosovo, Vietnam, or Korea, is that those three conflicts were not touted to the American people as imminent threats. Genocide with Kosovo. Dominoes eventually falling with Nam and Korea. Iraq, on the other hand, was sold as an imminent threat.
Secondly, there's the oil thing.
I am arguing, and have been arguing that Iraq is an act of naked imperialistic aggression because of the oil. Nothing that has happened in the last 6 years has changed my mind about this. With nothing but oilmen in this White House….it's no leap of faith to believe what I'm saying.
To argue that the reason for invading Iraq was Saddam's brutality to his people is simply not credible any longer.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Vietnam and Korea were both painted as threats to america. The domino theory was all about threat. The threat of the spread of communism. Quite a hot button back then. Kosovo was not painted as a threat though. You are right there.
There is a big problem with the 'we went to war for oil' theory. We didn't take the Iraqi oil, we still have to buy it from Iraq, just like we did before. If we went to war for oil, that doesn't make much sense. We gained nothing.
It was about removing Saddam and attempting to remake the Middle East.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
"There is a big problem with the 'we went to war for oil' theory. We didn't take the Iraqi oil, we still have to buy it from Iraq, just like we did before. If we went to war for oil, that doesn't make much sense. We gained nothing."
If you read what the early neo-cons wrote down, you would see that they believe the fall of the Soviets presented America with a unique opportunity to organize the world and it's resources for the benefit of America. Being the lone Superpower gave America the opportunity to prevent any other major threats to Empire from mounting.
This plan included the weaponizing of space and having CONTROL of the most precious warmaking necessity…OIL. China comes up in the neo-cons doctrine. Quite rightly the neos see China as a rising giant. Pre-emptively, neos wanted to CONTROL oil, not necessarily steal it. Their thinking was to prevent China, or anyone else, from CONTROLLING the oil. Other countries would have a difficult, if not impossible, task if they warred against America while America CONTROLLED the OIL.
That's why we're in Iraq. That's where the oil is that we have to CONTROL.