Please stop making sense...some people are trying to spread western hate. Let us hate...it's democratic.
guess someone from this message-board should inform each and every Iranian citizen that has the courage to stand up and fight back that he/she is merely a "tool for spreading western hate",...
To quote the 10C from Newsletter #8: "Please understand we have a lot of members and it is very hard to please everybody. If you are one of those unhappy people...please call 1-900-IDN-TCAR."
"Me knowing the truth, I can not concur."
1996: Toronto - 1998: Chicago, Montreal, Barrie - 2000: Montreal, Toronto - 2002: Seattle X2 (Key Arena) - 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal, Seattle (Benaroya Hall) - 2004: Reading, Toledo, Grand Rapids - 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City - 2006: Toronto X2, Albany, Hartford, Grand Rapids, Cleveland - 2007: Chicago (Vic Theatre) - 2008: NYC X2, Hartford, Mansfield X2 - 2009: Toronto, Chicago X2, Seattle X2, Philadelphia X4 - 2010: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford - 2011: Montreal, Toronto X2, Ottawa, Hamilton - 2012: Missoula - 2013: London, Chicago, Buffalo, Hartford - 2014: Detroit, Moline - 2015: NYC (Global Citizen Festival) - 2016: Greenville, Toronto X2, Chicago 1 - 2017: Brooklyn (RRHOF Induction) - 2018: Chicago 1, Boston 1 - 2022: Fresno, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, NYC, Camden - 2023: St. Paul X2, Austin X2 - 2024: Vancouver X2, Portland, Sacramento, Missoula, Noblesville, Philadelphia X2, Baltimore - 2025: Hollywood X2, Nashville X2, Pittsburgh X2
Dislike of George Bush is understandable. I can't stand the guy either. But that doesn't mean some of you libs should automatically throw your support behind Ahmadinejad. Anyone who values individual freedom, and finds very religious people in positions of power dangerous (as you do Palin) should also find plenty to dislike about Ahmadinejad. It is actually possible to dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad. I know I do.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
guess someone from this message-board should inform each and every Iranian citizen that has the courage to stand up and fight back that he/she is merely a "tool for spreading western hate",...
Question....Is Iran imposing it's beliefs on the west?
Are it's armies occupying US soil? or anyone else's soil for that matter?
What involvement has the US had in Iran's history, how much, and how far back?
find out the answers to those questions first and get back to me
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dislike of George Bush is understandable. I can't stand the guy either. But that doesn't mean some of you libs should automatically throw your support behind Ahmadinejad. Anyone who values individual freedom, and finds very religious people in positions of power dangerous (as you do Palin) should also find plenty to dislike about Ahmadinejad. It is actually possible to dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad. I know I do.
Ahmadinejad (if Christian) would win the necon vote here in the states....he parallels bush in several ways...use religion to get to power, anti-homosexual, disenfranchised voters and lies out of his ass..
Completely agree. Lots of reasons to dislike both of them. Well put.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
find out the answers to those questions first and get back to me
OUTSTANDING discussion/debate skills LOL
BTW dismissing the plight of the true innocents, the Iranian people themselves = priceless
To quote the 10C from Newsletter #8: "Please understand we have a lot of members and it is very hard to please everybody. If you are one of those unhappy people...please call 1-900-IDN-TCAR."
"Me knowing the truth, I can not concur."
1996: Toronto - 1998: Chicago, Montreal, Barrie - 2000: Montreal, Toronto - 2002: Seattle X2 (Key Arena) - 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal, Seattle (Benaroya Hall) - 2004: Reading, Toledo, Grand Rapids - 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City - 2006: Toronto X2, Albany, Hartford, Grand Rapids, Cleveland - 2007: Chicago (Vic Theatre) - 2008: NYC X2, Hartford, Mansfield X2 - 2009: Toronto, Chicago X2, Seattle X2, Philadelphia X4 - 2010: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford - 2011: Montreal, Toronto X2, Ottawa, Hamilton - 2012: Missoula - 2013: London, Chicago, Buffalo, Hartford - 2014: Detroit, Moline - 2015: NYC (Global Citizen Festival) - 2016: Greenville, Toronto X2, Chicago 1 - 2017: Brooklyn (RRHOF Induction) - 2018: Chicago 1, Boston 1 - 2022: Fresno, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, NYC, Camden - 2023: St. Paul X2, Austin X2 - 2024: Vancouver X2, Portland, Sacramento, Missoula, Noblesville, Philadelphia X2, Baltimore - 2025: Hollywood X2, Nashville X2, Pittsburgh X2
I'd love to see an open debate between Bush, Cheney (insert Neo-con here) and Ahmadinejad.
It would probably be the thing on TV in the past 20 years.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I have little time to retype what I've already said in this forum 100 times before...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I suppose the situation is best summed up as one side imposing it's beliefs through force, while the other wises to be left alone. I think it would be fair to allow a civilization of people to be left to their own devices and develop without lethal intervention from an outside influence.
Spreading ones beliefs at the end of gun barrel is not going to solve anything as far as I can see.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I don't get this sometimes...people who are comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad...it is possible to think both are odious. It's possible for someone to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time, that Bush is one of our worst presidents who sent us to war on a lie and eroded our civil liberties, and is dangerous to the world at large and realize that Ahmadinejad is an unstable, brutal leader who is dangerous to the world at large. Why do people have trouble reconciling these two notions? Hell, they're cut from the same cloth.
I don't get this sometimes...people who are comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad...it is possible to think both are odious. It's possible for someone to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time, that Bush is one of our worst presidents who sent us to war on a lie and eroded our civil liberties, and is dangerous to the world at large and realize that Ahmadinejad is an unstable, brutal leader who is dangerous to the world at large. Why do people have trouble reconciling these two notions? Hell, they're cut from the same cloth.
So you think Iran will nuke the entire world as soon it can?
Are you really sure about that? It will most certainly guarantee their immediate annihilation. Do you think they (or anyone) is that insane or stupid?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Where did I say Iran and Ahmadinejad would nuke the entire world as soon as it can?
It's really the only danger Iran could pose, as their military is no match. I'm just not seeing this "danger to the world at large" from a guy that has tried three times now to open public dialogs and debates with US govt officials. I mean the guy is not being led in handcuffs to Larry kings studio.
I wish they would take him up on his offer so the rest of the world can see through this ongoing sham of a "global threat" Iran is being made out to be in the western media.
edit:
I suppose the potential threat is to Israel and the development of their ethnically exclusive plot of land. They might have to actually learn to get along with the Palestinians and start treating them better, or work out a two state solution instead of making continual land grabs. It looks like Israel isn;t ready to come to terms with that. They have too much money and don;t care to be told anything except take more land...take more everything.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's really the only danger Iran could pose, as their military is no match. I'm just not seeing this "danger to the world at large" from a guy that has tried three times now to open public dialogs and debates with US govt officials. I mean the guy is not being led in handcuffs to Larry kings studio.
I wish they would take him up on his offer so the rest of the world can see through this ongoing sham of a "global threat" Iran is being made out to be in the western media.
edit:
I suppose the potential threat is to Israel and the development of their ethnically exclusive plot of land. They might have to actually learn to get along with the Palestinians and start treating them better, or work out a two state solution instead of making continual land grabs. It looks like Israel isn;t ready to come to terms with that. They have too much money and don;t care to be told anything except take more land...take more everything.
You're putting quite a few words into my mouth. I didn't say diplomacy with Iran should not be attempted. My disdain for Ahmadinejad and my belief that he is a murderous leader of his country doesn't change that one bit. I was wondering why so many people could not dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad...I mean, it makes perfect sense that if you dislike one you should dislike the other. Iran with nukes is as dangerous as any country with a ruler such as he would be with nukes; nukes are dangerous in general. He's said Israel should be wiped off the mouth. I don't make this stuff up. I believe Israel needs to compromise far more than it has been willing to, and needs to accept the necessity of a Palestinian state, but I also don't believe in the dissolution of Israel as a state. That, coupled with Ahmadinejad's horrid human rights record, make me think he's an asshole. I don't know why that's so hard a case to make to some people in this thread.
I don't get this sometimes...people who are comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad...it is possible to think both are odious. It's possible for someone to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time, that Bush is one of our worst presidents who sent us to war on a lie and eroded our civil liberties, and is dangerous to the world at large and realize that Ahmadinejad is an unstable, brutal leader who is dangerous to the world at large. Why do people have trouble reconciling these two notions? Hell, they're cut from the same cloth.
I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will. That's where Bush and him differ.
And people on this board such as Saveuplife would most likely be a Muslim terrorist had they been born in Iran. Exact same mentality, only they are right wing fundamentalists here.
You're putting quite a few words into my mouth. I didn't say diplomacy with Iran should not be attempted. My disdain for Ahmadinejad and my belief that he is a murderous leader of his country doesn't change that one bit. I was wondering why so many people could not dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad...I mean, it makes perfect sense that if you dislike one you should dislike the other. Iran with nukes is as dangerous as any country with a ruler such as he would be with nukes; nukes are dangerous in general. He's said Israel should be wiped off the mouth. I don't make this stuff up. I believe Israel needs to compromise far more than it has been willing to, and needs to accept the necessity of a Palestinian state, but I also don't believe in the dissolution of Israel as a state. That, coupled with Ahmadinejad's horrid human rights record, make me think he's an asshole. I don't know why that's so hard a case to make to some people in this thread.
I completely agree with you and I think you make the point well. I think some people fall into the mentality that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I completely agree with you and I think you make the point well. I think some people fall into the mentality that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
I think what bothers a lot of us is that there are far worse dictators and governments throughout the world, yet the Bush admin chooses to focus on Iran. And tries to make it appear as though Iran is dangerous. I ask why this is? And the only answers that are apparent are OIL and RELIGION!!!!
I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will. That's where Bush and him differ.
And people on this board such as Saveuplife would most likely be a Muslim terrorist had they been born in Iran. Exact same mentality, only they are right wing fundamentalists here.
I disagree with the idea that it's none of our business. If human rights are violated in the world, by our country's government or any other, I think it is everybody's business. That doesn't necessarily mean military intervention, but that also doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand.
The thing I keep saying is that it's OK. People who dislike Bush as I do CAN have it both ways. I disagree with jeffbr on most things, but he's right in this regard, for our enemy's enemy is not our friend. Bush and Ahmadinejad are both pieces of crap and are dangerous, dangerous men.
I disagree with the idea that it's none of our business. If human rights are violated in the world, by our country's government or any other, I think it is everybody's business. That doesn't necessarily mean military intervention, but that also doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand.
The thing I keep saying is that it's OK. People who dislike Bush as I do CAN have it both ways. I disagree with jeffbr on most things, but he's right in this regard, for our enemy's enemy is not our friend. Bush and Ahmadinejad are both pieces of crap and are dangerous, dangerous men.
Who wants to stick their head in the sand? I'm all for diplomacy. The Bush admin has refused to even talk to Iran. It's pathetic. Did you watch the interview tonight?
Edit: Also, I would consider Bush far more dangerous worldwide. Ahmadinejad may be dangerous to his people(unproven), but he certainly isn't dangerous to me.
Who wants to stick their head in the sand? I'm all for diplomacy. The Bush admin has refused to even talk to Iran. It's pathetic. Did you watch the interview tonight?
"I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will."
I consider believing that the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world and in our own country is "none of our business" is a form of sticking your head in the sand. And as I said two posts earlier, I believe strongly in firm diplomacy. This is another thing; why is it since I'm claiming that Ahmadinejad is a horrific ruler and constant human rights violator, I'm saying that we must send in the troops right away? How is everyone getting that notion from my posts?
"I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will."
I consider believing that the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world and in our own country is "none of our business" is a form of sticking your head in the sand. And as I said two posts earlier, I believe strongly in firm diplomacy. This is another thing; why is it since I'm claiming that Ahmadinejad is a horrific ruler and constant human rights violator, I'm saying that we must send in the troops right away? How is everyone getting that notion from my posts?
It's not your posts I get that notion from. It's the plotting of the neocons. And the way they have used the media to portray ahmadinajad as evil.
Again I ask if you saw the interview? Because basically Ahmadinejad was begging to be friendly with the American people and pleading with them and the govt to come to Iran and see the country for themselves. He is trying to be peaceful.
It's not your posts I get that notion from. It's the plotting of the neocons. And the way they have used the media to portray ahmadinajad as evil.
Again I ask if you saw the interview? Because basically Ahmadinejad was begging to be friendly with the American people and pleading with them and the govt to come to Iran and see the country for themselves. He is trying to be peaceful.
How could you be so cognizant of Bush's lies and be so unwilling to admit that other leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, would be lying as well, particularly with an interview on national television? I saw the interview, and I saw a good performance. I've seen good performances from several horrible presidents and many terrible dictators. It seems strange that you would question Bush constantly (as you and we should), yet accept Ahmadinejad at his word.
I should also say that Ahmadinejad is very dangerous to his people, and it has been proven. He does not have a satisfactory human rights record, nor do many other ruling governments in that region.
You're putting quite a few words into my mouth. I didn't say diplomacy with Iran should not be attempted. My disdain for Ahmadinejad and my belief that he is a murderous leader of his country doesn't change that one bit. I was wondering why so many people could not dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad...I mean, it makes perfect sense that if you dislike one you should dislike the other. Iran with nukes is as dangerous as any country with a ruler such as he would be with nukes; nukes are dangerous in general. He's said Israel should be wiped off the mouth. I don't make this stuff up. I believe Israel needs to compromise far more than it has been willing to, and needs to accept the necessity of a Palestinian state, but I also don't believe in the dissolution of Israel as a state. That, coupled with Ahmadinejad's horrid human rights record, make me think he's an asshole. I don't know why that's so hard a case to make to some people in this thread.
First off, he's not a dangerous threat to the world. By saying that, it kinda implies a few things by default namely he's a lethal threat to the world for starters.
He has definitely said the current Zionist regime in Israel will be wiped from the pages of history. He never ever at any point said he would specifically do it, but rather it will not stand the test of time....as in it's a broken philosophy that is doomed to failure in practice. I happen to think he's right about that. This is where the media played up a lot of people's heads to the point it's still being repeated incorrectly.
I don't necessarily like him, but I happen to agree with him in that Western culture has very little understanding of what is required to maintain order in their society. It's a very deep rooted culture nothing like what people experience in the west. Western influence is causing problems with the Muslim puritan ideologies within their society..
Many things we take for granted are a sin to them.... like experiencing any sexual feelings for another woman outside of marriage for example. This is why many women choose to cover themselves up. Is it oppressive? To some western women raised on hollywood, sex , drugs and rock and roll.... yes it's oppressive. To those living a clean Muslim lifestyle... it isn't. should they be threatened and bombed over it? I would think not.
Religion is the root problem here, and so is oil, but it's all a gigantic sham as to why we should be hating these people. Propaganda concocted in the media by US/Israeli interests to overthrow and eliminate the Muslim ideology as an evil one. It's insanity packaged in neat little soundbytes played over and over again on the news in order to sway beliefs and brainwash thought processes against these people. It's just wrong.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
How could you be so cognizant of Bush's lies and be so unwilling to admit that other leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, would be lying as well, particularly with an interview on national television? I saw the interview, and I saw a good performance. I've seen good performances from several horrible presidents and many terrible dictators. It seems strange that you would question Bush constantly (as you and we should), yet accept Ahmadinejad at his word.
I should also say that Ahmadinejad is very dangerous to his people, and it has been proven. He does not have a satisfactory human rights record, nor do many other ruling governments in that region.
Well at least he's trying to extend an olive branch. I don't see that from Bush, Obama, or McCain for that matter.
First off, he's not a dangerous threat to the world. By saying that, it kinda implies a few things by default namely he's a lethal threat to the world for starters.
He has definitely said the current Zionist regime in Israel will be wiped from the pages of history. He never ever at any point said he would specifically do it, but rather it will not stand the test of time....as in it's a broken philosophy that is doomed to failure in practice. I happen to think he's right about that. This is where the media played up a lot of people's heads to the point it's still being repeated incorrectly.
I don't necessarily like him, but I happen to agree with him in that Western culture has very little understanding of what is required to maintain order in their society. It's a very deep rooted culture nothing like what people experience in the west. Western influence is causing problems with the Muslim puritan ideologies within their society..
Many things we take for granted are a sin to them.... like experiencing any sexual feelings for another woman outside of marriage for example. This is why many women choose to cover themselves up. Is it oppressive? To some western women raised on hollywood, sex , drugs and rock and roll.... yes it's oppressive. To those living a clean Muslim lifestyle... it isn't. should they be threatened and bombed over it? I would think not.
Religion is the root problem here, and so is oil, but it's all a gigantic sham as to why we should be hating these people. Propaganda concocted in the media by US/Israeli interests to overthrow and eliminate the Muslim ideology as an evil one. It's insanity packaged in neat little soundbytes played over and over again on the news in order to sway beliefs and brainwash thought processes against these people. It's just wrong.
Once again, I don't see where I'm saying they should be bombed, but I can't keep repeating myself over and over again. So we'll just leave that be.
I do consider him a dangerous threat to the world, and I also consider Bush a dangerous threat to the world. I consider them both threats because I believe fundamentalist, violent rulers are dangerous to the world. I also believe that there is oppression inherent in a law that requires women to cover themselves completely and be entirely subservient to her husband, but I'm not an expert on the Koran and am not in a position to judge religious doctrine. However, I am against physical and mental violence perpetrated against women, minority groups and political activists. Dozens of women are stoned to death in Iran every year due to claims of adultery. Do I consider that a problem? Yes, I do. Do I fault the leader of Iran for such an atrocity? I certainly do. And of course, let's not forget we're talking about the leader of a nation who has denied that the Holocaust happened. These are a few of the problems with Iran's leader. Are those deaths part of the 'US/Israel' conspiracy? No, the fact is they are not. As I've said before, human rights violations around the world disturb me and deserve fierce condemnation, and if something can be done short of military intervention to stop such violations, it should be done immediately.
Again, my disdain of Ahmadinejad has no bearing on my feelings regarding American policy in the Middle East, or of my own leaders. Why are we speaking as if a condemnation of Ahmadinejad is an endorsement of those policies?
That's not true. He wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', which is bad enough but not exactly the same thing.
I think the problem most western governments have in dealing with the guy is that Iran doesn't fit in their "we want to bring freedom and democracy to every country"-agenda. Ahmadinedjad has won a democratic election (yes, there are issues with democracy in Iran but he at least got more votes than his opponents) and is not comparable to dictators like Saddam Hussein or Kim Yong-Il. What we learn is: western world leaders want to spread democracy, but only as long as the results please them (= economic interests).
And yes, the guy in probably an idiot but he's not nearly as dangerous as he's portrayed in parts of western media. He won't be able to nuke anything, Israel won't even let him come near anything that looks like the bomb. So he's certainly not the one who'll start the next global war.
I have an idea instead of pretending to know Bush and MaAhm and the nations they rule why dont you read both of their addresses to the UN and tell me what you think.
Now I know they are only words but give it a try..
Im not defending the guy bec I just done know enough about him and his country, I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own country and "leaders".
Even thou the western media took the "wipe Israel off the map" comment and ran with it implying that MaAh wanted to bomb Israel off the map read the following link to see what was really meant by the comment... I beleive he meant literally wipw the word "Israel" off the "map" much like the USSR.
Comments
guess someone from this message-board should inform each and every Iranian citizen that has the courage to stand up and fight back that he/she is merely a "tool for spreading western hate",...
"Me knowing the truth, I can not concur."
1996: Toronto - 1998: Chicago, Montreal, Barrie - 2000: Montreal, Toronto - 2002: Seattle X2 (Key Arena) - 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal, Seattle (Benaroya Hall) - 2004: Reading, Toledo, Grand Rapids - 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City - 2006: Toronto X2, Albany, Hartford, Grand Rapids, Cleveland - 2007: Chicago (Vic Theatre) - 2008: NYC X2, Hartford, Mansfield X2 - 2009: Toronto, Chicago X2, Seattle X2, Philadelphia X4 - 2010: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford - 2011: Montreal, Toronto X2, Ottawa, Hamilton - 2012: Missoula - 2013: London, Chicago, Buffalo, Hartford - 2014: Detroit, Moline - 2015: NYC (Global Citizen Festival) - 2016: Greenville, Toronto X2, Chicago 1 - 2017: Brooklyn (RRHOF Induction) - 2018: Chicago 1, Boston 1 - 2022: Fresno, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, NYC, Camden - 2023: St. Paul X2, Austin X2 - 2024: Vancouver X2, Portland, Sacramento, Missoula, Noblesville, Philadelphia X2, Baltimore - 2025: Hollywood X2, Nashville X2, Pittsburgh X2
Question....Is Iran imposing it's beliefs on the west?
Are it's armies occupying US soil? or anyone else's soil for that matter?
What involvement has the US had in Iran's history, how much, and how far back?
find out the answers to those questions first and get back to me
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Completely agree. Lots of reasons to dislike both of them. Well put.
OUTSTANDING discussion/debate skills LOL
BTW dismissing the plight of the true innocents, the Iranian people themselves = priceless
"Me knowing the truth, I can not concur."
1996: Toronto - 1998: Chicago, Montreal, Barrie - 2000: Montreal, Toronto - 2002: Seattle X2 (Key Arena) - 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal, Seattle (Benaroya Hall) - 2004: Reading, Toledo, Grand Rapids - 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City - 2006: Toronto X2, Albany, Hartford, Grand Rapids, Cleveland - 2007: Chicago (Vic Theatre) - 2008: NYC X2, Hartford, Mansfield X2 - 2009: Toronto, Chicago X2, Seattle X2, Philadelphia X4 - 2010: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford - 2011: Montreal, Toronto X2, Ottawa, Hamilton - 2012: Missoula - 2013: London, Chicago, Buffalo, Hartford - 2014: Detroit, Moline - 2015: NYC (Global Citizen Festival) - 2016: Greenville, Toronto X2, Chicago 1 - 2017: Brooklyn (RRHOF Induction) - 2018: Chicago 1, Boston 1 - 2022: Fresno, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, NYC, Camden - 2023: St. Paul X2, Austin X2 - 2024: Vancouver X2, Portland, Sacramento, Missoula, Noblesville, Philadelphia X2, Baltimore - 2025: Hollywood X2, Nashville X2, Pittsburgh X2
Well, I think posters like brandon10, Abuskedti, blackredyellow, Mr. Brian, and others would identify themselves as liberal.
It would probably be the thing on TV in the past 20 years.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so you know the answers then?
I have little time to retype what I've already said in this forum 100 times before...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Spreading ones beliefs at the end of gun barrel is not going to solve anything as far as I can see.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
For those who approve of the President of Iran.
I don't get this sometimes...people who are comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad...it is possible to think both are odious. It's possible for someone to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time, that Bush is one of our worst presidents who sent us to war on a lie and eroded our civil liberties, and is dangerous to the world at large and realize that Ahmadinejad is an unstable, brutal leader who is dangerous to the world at large. Why do people have trouble reconciling these two notions? Hell, they're cut from the same cloth.
So you think Iran will nuke the entire world as soon it can?
Are you really sure about that? It will most certainly guarantee their immediate annihilation. Do you think they (or anyone) is that insane or stupid?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Where did I say Iran and Ahmadinejad would nuke the entire world as soon as it can?
It's really the only danger Iran could pose, as their military is no match. I'm just not seeing this "danger to the world at large" from a guy that has tried three times now to open public dialogs and debates with US govt officials. I mean the guy is not being led in handcuffs to Larry kings studio.
I wish they would take him up on his offer so the rest of the world can see through this ongoing sham of a "global threat" Iran is being made out to be in the western media.
edit:
I suppose the potential threat is to Israel and the development of their ethnically exclusive plot of land. They might have to actually learn to get along with the Palestinians and start treating them better, or work out a two state solution instead of making continual land grabs. It looks like Israel isn;t ready to come to terms with that. They have too much money and don;t care to be told anything except take more land...take more everything.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You're putting quite a few words into my mouth. I didn't say diplomacy with Iran should not be attempted. My disdain for Ahmadinejad and my belief that he is a murderous leader of his country doesn't change that one bit. I was wondering why so many people could not dislike both Bush and Ahmadinejad...I mean, it makes perfect sense that if you dislike one you should dislike the other. Iran with nukes is as dangerous as any country with a ruler such as he would be with nukes; nukes are dangerous in general. He's said Israel should be wiped off the mouth. I don't make this stuff up. I believe Israel needs to compromise far more than it has been willing to, and needs to accept the necessity of a Palestinian state, but I also don't believe in the dissolution of Israel as a state. That, coupled with Ahmadinejad's horrid human rights record, make me think he's an asshole. I don't know why that's so hard a case to make to some people in this thread.
I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will. That's where Bush and him differ.
And people on this board such as Saveuplife would most likely be a Muslim terrorist had they been born in Iran. Exact same mentality, only they are right wing fundamentalists here.
I completely agree with you and I think you make the point well. I think some people fall into the mentality that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
I think what bothers a lot of us is that there are far worse dictators and governments throughout the world, yet the Bush admin chooses to focus on Iran. And tries to make it appear as though Iran is dangerous. I ask why this is? And the only answers that are apparent are OIL and RELIGION!!!!
I disagree with the idea that it's none of our business. If human rights are violated in the world, by our country's government or any other, I think it is everybody's business. That doesn't necessarily mean military intervention, but that also doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand.
The thing I keep saying is that it's OK. People who dislike Bush as I do CAN have it both ways. I disagree with jeffbr on most things, but he's right in this regard, for our enemy's enemy is not our friend. Bush and Ahmadinejad are both pieces of crap and are dangerous, dangerous men.
Who wants to stick their head in the sand? I'm all for diplomacy. The Bush admin has refused to even talk to Iran. It's pathetic. Did you watch the interview tonight?
Edit: Also, I would consider Bush far more dangerous worldwide. Ahmadinejad may be dangerous to his people(unproven), but he certainly isn't dangerous to me.
"I really believe that ahmadinejad does repress his people. And I am happy as hell I don't live in Iran. But I really feel like it's none of my business and that Iran has not posed their beliefs by force on any other nation and I highly doubt they ever will."
I consider believing that the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world and in our own country is "none of our business" is a form of sticking your head in the sand. And as I said two posts earlier, I believe strongly in firm diplomacy. This is another thing; why is it since I'm claiming that Ahmadinejad is a horrific ruler and constant human rights violator, I'm saying that we must send in the troops right away? How is everyone getting that notion from my posts?
It's not your posts I get that notion from. It's the plotting of the neocons. And the way they have used the media to portray ahmadinajad as evil.
Again I ask if you saw the interview? Because basically Ahmadinejad was begging to be friendly with the American people and pleading with them and the govt to come to Iran and see the country for themselves. He is trying to be peaceful.
How could you be so cognizant of Bush's lies and be so unwilling to admit that other leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, would be lying as well, particularly with an interview on national television? I saw the interview, and I saw a good performance. I've seen good performances from several horrible presidents and many terrible dictators. It seems strange that you would question Bush constantly (as you and we should), yet accept Ahmadinejad at his word.
I should also say that Ahmadinejad is very dangerous to his people, and it has been proven. He does not have a satisfactory human rights record, nor do many other ruling governments in that region.
First off, he's not a dangerous threat to the world. By saying that, it kinda implies a few things by default namely he's a lethal threat to the world for starters.
He has definitely said the current Zionist regime in Israel will be wiped from the pages of history. He never ever at any point said he would specifically do it, but rather it will not stand the test of time....as in it's a broken philosophy that is doomed to failure in practice. I happen to think he's right about that. This is where the media played up a lot of people's heads to the point it's still being repeated incorrectly.
I don't necessarily like him, but I happen to agree with him in that Western culture has very little understanding of what is required to maintain order in their society. It's a very deep rooted culture nothing like what people experience in the west. Western influence is causing problems with the Muslim puritan ideologies within their society..
Many things we take for granted are a sin to them.... like experiencing any sexual feelings for another woman outside of marriage for example. This is why many women choose to cover themselves up. Is it oppressive? To some western women raised on hollywood, sex , drugs and rock and roll.... yes it's oppressive. To those living a clean Muslim lifestyle... it isn't. should they be threatened and bombed over it? I would think not.
Religion is the root problem here, and so is oil, but it's all a gigantic sham as to why we should be hating these people. Propaganda concocted in the media by US/Israeli interests to overthrow and eliminate the Muslim ideology as an evil one. It's insanity packaged in neat little soundbytes played over and over again on the news in order to sway beliefs and brainwash thought processes against these people. It's just wrong.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well at least he's trying to extend an olive branch. I don't see that from Bush, Obama, or McCain for that matter.
Once again, I don't see where I'm saying they should be bombed, but I can't keep repeating myself over and over again. So we'll just leave that be.
I do consider him a dangerous threat to the world, and I also consider Bush a dangerous threat to the world. I consider them both threats because I believe fundamentalist, violent rulers are dangerous to the world. I also believe that there is oppression inherent in a law that requires women to cover themselves completely and be entirely subservient to her husband, but I'm not an expert on the Koran and am not in a position to judge religious doctrine. However, I am against physical and mental violence perpetrated against women, minority groups and political activists. Dozens of women are stoned to death in Iran every year due to claims of adultery. Do I consider that a problem? Yes, I do. Do I fault the leader of Iran for such an atrocity? I certainly do. And of course, let's not forget we're talking about the leader of a nation who has denied that the Holocaust happened. These are a few of the problems with Iran's leader. Are those deaths part of the 'US/Israel' conspiracy? No, the fact is they are not. As I've said before, human rights violations around the world disturb me and deserve fierce condemnation, and if something can be done short of military intervention to stop such violations, it should be done immediately.
Again, my disdain of Ahmadinejad has no bearing on my feelings regarding American policy in the Middle East, or of my own leaders. Why are we speaking as if a condemnation of Ahmadinejad is an endorsement of those policies?
That's not true. He wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', which is bad enough but not exactly the same thing.
I think the problem most western governments have in dealing with the guy is that Iran doesn't fit in their "we want to bring freedom and democracy to every country"-agenda. Ahmadinedjad has won a democratic election (yes, there are issues with democracy in Iran but he at least got more votes than his opponents) and is not comparable to dictators like Saddam Hussein or Kim Yong-Il. What we learn is: western world leaders want to spread democracy, but only as long as the results please them (= economic interests).
And yes, the guy in probably an idiot but he's not nearly as dangerous as he's portrayed in parts of western media. He won't be able to nuke anything, Israel won't even let him come near anything that looks like the bomb. So he's certainly not the one who'll start the next global war.
Arnhem 06 Antwerp 06 Berlin 06
Düsseldorf 07 Nijmegen 07
Neil Young And Friends Berlin 95
Now I know they are only words but give it a try..
Even thou the western media took the "wipe Israel off the map" comment and ran with it implying that MaAh wanted to bomb Israel off the map read the following link to see what was really meant by the comment... I beleive he meant literally wipw the word "Israel" off the "map" much like the USSR.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html