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.
A little while after the comment about 'wiping Israel' he gave an Interview to a german magazine ('Der Spiegel') and they asked him about this as you provoke an enormous outrage with remarks like that here nowadays. He explained that he has no problem with a state 'Israel' in general but want to 'move it' to another part of the world. He suggested (as an example) that Germany could provide some land for this as they feel commited to an israelian state due to the holocaust.
Bottom line: this guy is far from being a nice person but he's also not a new Hitler or the devil himself. I think he's not more or less dangerous to the world than some leaders of former soviet republics. But since security is a big business these days big global threats are needed, why not exaggerate a
bit...?
Saw the interview. One thing that struck me -- agree with his principles or not, he is much more thoughtful and intellectual than our president. The way he considers responses. He has an intellect that is not evident in Bush or Palin for that matter.
Another thing that struck me is that the western press tends to take many things this guy says on their face. Leaders in the middle east do not speak like our western leaders. They use more symbolism and grandeur, and the reason for that is much of what they are saying is rooted in deep religious principles. When he says things like that there are no gays in Iran, he does not mean there are no gays. He means it is illegal there by religious law. As in "It doesn't happen, got it?" The western press jumps all over that of course to point out that this guy is a kook. He's not a kook. Underestimating people's intellect is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
Now, do I agree with his principles? Some, but certainly not all. I do think that our atrocities surpass his country's. I do think diplomacy is vital. I do think that speaking to the guy is important in the world we have now. These old ideas of labeling someone a terrorist because he believes something you don't, and then blindly sticking to "We don't talk to terrorists" is another old way that is proven not to work.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
For those who continue to defend President Ahmadinejad in whatever manner, here's a different kind of record I follow when examining someone's ability as a leader and as a dangerous to their citizens and others.
The person who mentioned that he is not a Hitler is correct; Hitler spread his plans throughout an invasion of Europe, and Iran has not moved beyond its' borders (although it does aid with financing of some so-called terrorist organizations). But just because he's not a Hitler (which, admittedly, is quite a high bar of crazy asshole murderous fanatic to reach by anyone) doesn't mean we can't be realistic about the state of human rights in Iran.
Some of the more recent postings include hangings of homosexuals and stonings of accused adulterers, torture of detained activist students, and unfair and unlawful imprisonment.
To those who say that the United States has a worse record on human rights, maybe so; we do practice extraordinary rendition but then again we haven't in recent memory executed someone for the criminal charge of homosexuality. But fine, the US has a worse record. So if I kill three people, and you kill two people, it's ok that you killed two because I killed more? Why are we unwilling to call rulers dictators and dangerous to their own citizens, even if they are enemies to our current president? It doesn't mean we go into bomb Iran. It doesn't mean we do not engage in direct and aggressive diplomacy. It means we're honest about the kind of leader Ahmadinejad is. Why is that such a difficult acknowledgement to make?
For those who continue to defend President Ahmadinejad in whatever manner, here's a different kind of record I follow when examining someone's ability as a leader and as a dangerous to their citizens and others.
The person who mentioned that he is not a Hitler is correct; Hitler spread his plans throughout an invasion of Europe, and Iran has not moved beyond its' borders (although it does aid with financing of some so-called terrorist organizations). But just because he's not a Hitler (which, admittedly, is quite a high bar of crazy asshole murderous fanatic to reach by anyone) doesn't mean we can't be realistic about the state of human rights in Iran.
Some of the more recent postings include hangings of homosexuals and stonings of accused adulterers, torture of detained activist students, and unfair and unlawful imprisonment.
To those who say that the United States has a worse record on human rights, maybe so; we do practice extraordinary rendition but then again we haven't in recent memory executed someone for the criminal charge of homosexuality. But fine, the US has a worse record. So if I kill three people, and you kill two people, it's ok that you killed two because I killed more? Why are we unwilling to call rulers dictators and dangerous to their own citizens, even if they are enemies to our current president? It doesn't mean we go into bomb Iran. It doesn't mean we do not engage in direct and aggressive diplomacy. It means we're honest about the kind of leader Ahmadinejad is. Why is that such a difficult acknowledgement to make?
It is their world and the majority of their people want to live the way they do.
Why is it America's business to interfere everywhere around the world? Let's worry about our own problems. Education, health care, and infrastructure.
Our foreign policy around the world is what's creating the terrorism. Quit fucking with your neighbors house and clean your own home! Especially when your neighbors don't bother you.
It is their world and the majority of their people want to live the way they do.
Why is it America's business to interfere everywhere around the world? Let's worry about our own problems. Education, health care, and infrastructure.
Our foreign policy around the world is what's creating the terrorism. Quit fucking with your neighbors house and clean your own home! Especially when your neighbors don't bother you.
Did you read any of that? Executing homosexuals on the basis of their orientation is going a little far beyond the majority of the people living the 'way they want to.' You act like it's impossible to have it both ways, but you know what, you can! Bush does abuse human rights of American and Iraqi citizens, and the President of Iran does abuse the rights of his own citizens and Iraqi civillians. I believe that there is a basic human decency that all humans should afford one another that does not involve a government executing its' people for an offense that is not an offense. With that in mind, if it makes you feel better to call me a Western imperialist, than so be it. But it's wrong when any leader brutalizes his or her people, not just when America does it.
As a citizen not only of the United States, but of the world yes I guess you could say it does bother me when this happens. It bothers me when soldiers make prisoners perform sexual acts on each other in Abu Gharib. It bothers me when janjaweed militiamen use rape as a form of organized intimidation in Darfur. It bothers me when it is legislative law that an accused adultress can be stoned to death. It bothers me when the high court of Saudi Arabia says that it is OK for any Muslim to kill any Muslim who engages in showing what they describe as 'objectionable' films. These things don't bother you? Many of us here, including myself, have acknowledged Bush's human rights atrocities and have protested them. Why do we not do the same when it happens elsewhere in the world?
Why is it America's business to interfere everywhere around the world? Let's worry about our own problems. Education, health care, and infrastructure.
Our foreign policy around the world is what's creating the terrorism. Quit fucking with your neighbors house and clean your own home! Especially when your neighbors don't bother you.
I left out the first line. What do you think about these issues?
To those who say that the United States has a worse record on human rights, maybe so; we do practice extraordinary rendition but then again we haven't in recent memory executed someone for the criminal charge of homosexuality. But fine, the US has a worse record. So if I kill three people, and you kill two people, it's ok that you killed two because I killed more? Why are we unwilling to call rulers dictators and dangerous to their own citizens, even if they are enemies to our current president? It doesn't mean we go into bomb Iran. It doesn't mean we do not engage in direct and aggressive diplomacy. It means we're honest about the kind of leader Ahmadinejad is. Why is that such a difficult acknowledgement to make?
I agree that the US record concerning human rights shouldn't be an issue here, I think everybody knows the problems by now and I'm quite sure that there will be changes very soon. Using this as an excuse is a little bit like kindergarten-behaviour...
But I also think some things need to be clarified. In Iran justice relies on the sharia, so it's not the president who is responsible for it but the ayatollah and the religious council (I don't know the english term for it, maybe someone can help me out).
Then by definition he's not a dictator. He's the elected president of Iran and their elections are far from perfect, but they're not faked as in autocratic systems.
For the diplomacy - I think concerning Iran there isn't any which could be the problem. I think the next US president should talk to this guy, if it work's - great. If not - next step.
I left out the first line. What do you think about these issues?
I'm not seeing the point. Issues at home and issues abroad are not mutually exclusive. Stern isolationism also didn't really work out too well for us between the two world wars, either. I also don't consider campaigning, through legislation and citizen action, for human rights at home and abroad to be a horrific kind of interference. I think I state my point as well as I can in the post two above this one.
why dont our leaders sit down and talk to him? seriously? what would be the harm?
I have nothing against the everyday Iranian. I would be willing to bet they have nothing against me. Lets talk to them.
While I agree that some sort of communication line must be open...I think the fear is that a meeting of that kind would result in Iran having images, etc to use as propoganda for their own puposes...I think it's a legit concern, but still the benfits outweigh the costs in my opinion.
He never said that. Do I have to repost the translation again?
I think I remember him saying that shortly after his election but changing his point after the worldwide outrage. But my memory could be wrong about that. As I wrote later, he definitely promoted the idea of 'moving' Israel to Europe in a german magazine. And he used the word 'ismihlal' towards Israel which can be translated as 'destruction' (he did this 4 months ago).
By the way - this guy visited Germany for the World Cup 06 and there had been discussions about arresting him since he made some remarks about the Holocaust being a 'conspiracy' of the allies. Denial of the Holocaust is a felony in Germany.
Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. He did not say that they should be violently dealt with, but that there should not be a state of Israel. He believes in a one-state solution as opposed to a two-state solution. He has also called the Holocaust a myth and a conspiracy designed by "Zionists" to pressure the international community into creating the state of Israel. Those are his stands as far as I understand them.
I'm not seeing the point. Issues at home and issues abroad are not mutually exclusive. Stern isolationism also didn't really work out too well for us between the two world wars, either. I also don't consider campaigning, through legislation and citizen action, for human rights at home and abroad to be a horrific kind of interference. I think I state my point as well as I can in the post two above this one.
The point is lets for once learn from the past. It's been proven time and again that interfering militarily in cultures and religions we don't understand hurts us.
So maybe they are behind us with human rights issues. But look what happened in this country 100, even 60 years ago. Well we fixed it on our own. We didn't need some other nation that spoke another language and didn't understand our cultures to help us. Let them fix their own problems. They do not threaten us!
But I also think some things need to be clarified. In Iran justice relies on the sharia, so it's not the president who is responsible for it but the ayatollah and the religious council (I don't know the english term for it, maybe someone can help me out).
Then by definition he's not a dictator. He's the elected president of Iran and their elections are far from perfect, but they're not faked as in autocratic systems.
For the diplomacy - I think concerning Iran there isn't any which could be the problem. I think the next US president should talk to this guy, if it work's - great. If not - next step.
I agree with all that, or most of it. However, I think saying he has no part of it is like saying that President Bush had no hand in the Patriot Act because it was authorized by Congress. It is not a dictator situation, you're right, and that was a misstatement on my part. I should have said that the human rights situation in Iran is similar to other violent dictator states.
I also agree that diplomacy does not mean acqueisance. I don't condone the use of military force in Iran (however, I'm not willing to say that I never condone the use of force as a means to stop genocide/mass ethnic cleansing), but diplomacy, despite involving compromises, is not and should not be viewed as letting Ahmadinejad walk all over whoever he is speaking to. I think Obama has made that clear.
The World would be better off without brainwashed religious fuckers controlling any nation.... including the jewish and christian bloodthirsty cocksuckers that run our nation and other superpowers.
The point is lets for once learn from the past. It's been proven time and again that interfering militarily in cultures and religions we don't understand hurts us.
So maybe they are behind us with human rights issues. But look what happened in this country 100, even 60 years ago. Well we fixed it on our own. We didn't need some other nation that spoke another language and didn't understand our cultures to help us. Let them fix their own problems. They do not threaten us!
This is not always the case. There are situations where it has worked in the past. There was a genocide in Kosovo, but it would have been far worse had there not been international intervention. Kosovo is now on its' way to becoming a stable nation. Think of if we had intervened in any manner possible in Rwanda before hundreds of thousands were dead. Iran is not the same as those examples, but the human rights record in that nation is not at all strong. And I think when there are atrocities in the world, I don't consider it wise to simply sit on the sidelines. Again, the type of strict isolationism you speak about did not work between World War I and World War II. Between then, Hitler arose. Would the war have happened anyway even if we were involved in international relations? Perhaps, but we'll never know.
And once again, you speak about interfering militarily; when have I once said in this entire debate that I advocate use of military force against Iran? It hasn't happened one time. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't; our military's stretched far too thin. I believe in aggressive diplomacy, international pressure, and divestments from businesses doing business with that country. These tools, along with an incredibly strong national resistance movement in country, brought down the apartheid government of South Africa. That is the international interference I believe in. We should use our leverage to bring about change in Iran and other countries (including our own) with significantly deficient human rights records. Saying "it's not my problem" and washing our hands completely clean is like walking by a homeless man and saying "it's not my problem. He should just pull himself up by his own bootstraps." I think it avoids reality to the detriment of many people in this world.
This, of course, brings us back to energy; we have no leverage with many countries in the Middle East, including many with deplorable human rights records, because we need them for our oil supply. It's why we need independent alternative energy sources as quickly as possible.
This is not always the case. There are situations where it has worked in the past. There was a genocide in Kosovo, but it would have been far worse had there not been international intervention. Kosovo is now on its' way to becoming a stable nation. Think of if we had intervened in any manner possible in Rwanda before hundreds of thousands were dead. Iran is not the same as those examples, but the human rights record in that nation is not at all strong. And I think when there are atrocities in the world, I don't consider it wise to simply sit on the sidelines. Again, the type of strict isolationism you speak about did not work between World War I and World War II. Between then, Hitler arose. Would the war have happened anyway even if we were involved in international relations? Perhaps, but we'll never know.
And once again, you speak about interfering militarily; when have I once said in this entire debate that I advocate use of military force against Iran? It hasn't happened one time. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't; our military's stretched far too thin. I believe in aggressive diplomacy, international pressure, and divestments from businesses doing business with that country. These tools, along with an incredibly strong national resistance movement in country, brought down the apartheid government of South Africa. That is the international interference I believe in. We should use our leverage to bring about change in Iran and other countries (including our own) with significantly deficient human rights records. Saying "it's not my problem" and washing our hands completely clean is like walking by a homeless man and saying "it's not my problem. He should just pull himself up by his own bootstraps." I think it avoids reality to the detriment of many people in this world.
This, of course, brings us back to energy; we have no leverage with many countries in the Middle East, including many with deplorable human rights records, because we need them for our oil supply. It's why we need independent alternative energy sources as quickly as possible.
I agree with the last line in your last post. And will add that because of our involvement in Iraq and Israel that we have little influence or respect in that region. And because of this, it's tough for most Iranians to believe our intentions are to help the people of that nation.
Does anyone here really believe that our intentions are to help citizens of Iran?
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
Saw the interview. One thing that struck me -- agree with his principles or not, he is much more thoughtful and intellectual than our president. The way he considers responses. He has an intellect that is not evident in Bush or Palin for that matter.
Another thing that struck me is that the western press tends to take many things this guy says on their face. Leaders in the middle east do not speak like our western leaders. They use more symbolism and grandeur, and the reason for that is much of what they are saying is rooted in deep religious principles. When he says things like that there are no gays in Iran, he does not mean there are no gays. He means it is illegal there by religious law. As in "It doesn't happen, got it?" The western press jumps all over that of course to point out that this guy is a kook. He's not a kook. Underestimating people's intellect is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
Now, do I agree with his principles? Some, but certainly not all. I do think that our atrocities surpass his country's. I do think diplomacy is vital. I do think that speaking to the guy is important in the world we have now. These old ideas of labeling someone a terrorist because he believes something you don't, and then blindly sticking to "We don't talk to terrorists" is another old way that is proven not to work.
Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?
Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?
If he was running for VP or president HERE I would be extremely concerned.
That would work and diminish my argument if I was basing it on what the Bush Administration's intentions were. I'm stating what our intentions should be.
That would work and diminish my argument if I was basing it on what the Bush Administration's intentions were. I'm stating what our intentions should be.
I agree. But it's the intentions of the govt that influence foreign policy. Not our intentions.
Not when it comes to his beliefs about homosexuality. It doesn't concern me that he or the majority of his people have strange beliefs.
Wow, you totally avoid the issues don't you?
It's not just about his views on gays, it about the pass someone gave him because his view is due to his religious beliefs. So, it would go for all issues, not just gays.
Comments
A little while after the comment about 'wiping Israel' he gave an Interview to a german magazine ('Der Spiegel') and they asked him about this as you provoke an enormous outrage with remarks like that here nowadays. He explained that he has no problem with a state 'Israel' in general but want to 'move it' to another part of the world. He suggested (as an example) that Germany could provide some land for this as they feel commited to an israelian state due to the holocaust.
Bottom line: this guy is far from being a nice person but he's also not a new Hitler or the devil himself. I think he's not more or less dangerous to the world than some leaders of former soviet republics. But since security is a big business these days big global threats are needed, why not exaggerate a
bit...?
Arnhem 06 Antwerp 06 Berlin 06
Düsseldorf 07 Nijmegen 07
Neil Young And Friends Berlin 95
Another thing that struck me is that the western press tends to take many things this guy says on their face. Leaders in the middle east do not speak like our western leaders. They use more symbolism and grandeur, and the reason for that is much of what they are saying is rooted in deep religious principles. When he says things like that there are no gays in Iran, he does not mean there are no gays. He means it is illegal there by religious law. As in "It doesn't happen, got it?" The western press jumps all over that of course to point out that this guy is a kook. He's not a kook. Underestimating people's intellect is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
Now, do I agree with his principles? Some, but certainly not all. I do think that our atrocities surpass his country's. I do think diplomacy is vital. I do think that speaking to the guy is important in the world we have now. These old ideas of labeling someone a terrorist because he believes something you don't, and then blindly sticking to "We don't talk to terrorists" is another old way that is proven not to work.
I have nothing against the everyday Iranian. I would be willing to bet they have nothing against me. Lets talk to them.
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran
The person who mentioned that he is not a Hitler is correct; Hitler spread his plans throughout an invasion of Europe, and Iran has not moved beyond its' borders (although it does aid with financing of some so-called terrorist organizations). But just because he's not a Hitler (which, admittedly, is quite a high bar of crazy asshole murderous fanatic to reach by anyone) doesn't mean we can't be realistic about the state of human rights in Iran.
Some of the more recent postings include hangings of homosexuals and stonings of accused adulterers, torture of detained activist students, and unfair and unlawful imprisonment.
To those who say that the United States has a worse record on human rights, maybe so; we do practice extraordinary rendition but then again we haven't in recent memory executed someone for the criminal charge of homosexuality. But fine, the US has a worse record. So if I kill three people, and you kill two people, it's ok that you killed two because I killed more? Why are we unwilling to call rulers dictators and dangerous to their own citizens, even if they are enemies to our current president? It doesn't mean we go into bomb Iran. It doesn't mean we do not engage in direct and aggressive diplomacy. It means we're honest about the kind of leader Ahmadinejad is. Why is that such a difficult acknowledgement to make?
It is their world and the majority of their people want to live the way they do.
Why is it America's business to interfere everywhere around the world? Let's worry about our own problems. Education, health care, and infrastructure.
Our foreign policy around the world is what's creating the terrorism. Quit fucking with your neighbors house and clean your own home! Especially when your neighbors don't bother you.
Did you read any of that? Executing homosexuals on the basis of their orientation is going a little far beyond the majority of the people living the 'way they want to.' You act like it's impossible to have it both ways, but you know what, you can! Bush does abuse human rights of American and Iraqi citizens, and the President of Iran does abuse the rights of his own citizens and Iraqi civillians. I believe that there is a basic human decency that all humans should afford one another that does not involve a government executing its' people for an offense that is not an offense. With that in mind, if it makes you feel better to call me a Western imperialist, than so be it. But it's wrong when any leader brutalizes his or her people, not just when America does it.
As a citizen not only of the United States, but of the world yes I guess you could say it does bother me when this happens. It bothers me when soldiers make prisoners perform sexual acts on each other in Abu Gharib. It bothers me when janjaweed militiamen use rape as a form of organized intimidation in Darfur. It bothers me when it is legislative law that an accused adultress can be stoned to death. It bothers me when the high court of Saudi Arabia says that it is OK for any Muslim to kill any Muslim who engages in showing what they describe as 'objectionable' films. These things don't bother you? Many of us here, including myself, have acknowledged Bush's human rights atrocities and have protested them. Why do we not do the same when it happens elsewhere in the world?
I left out the first line. What do you think about these issues?
I agree that the US record concerning human rights shouldn't be an issue here, I think everybody knows the problems by now and I'm quite sure that there will be changes very soon. Using this as an excuse is a little bit like kindergarten-behaviour...
But I also think some things need to be clarified. In Iran justice relies on the sharia, so it's not the president who is responsible for it but the ayatollah and the religious council (I don't know the english term for it, maybe someone can help me out).
Then by definition he's not a dictator. He's the elected president of Iran and their elections are far from perfect, but they're not faked as in autocratic systems.
For the diplomacy - I think concerning Iran there isn't any which could be the problem. I think the next US president should talk to this guy, if it work's - great. If not - next step.
Arnhem 06 Antwerp 06 Berlin 06
Düsseldorf 07 Nijmegen 07
Neil Young And Friends Berlin 95
I'm not seeing the point. Issues at home and issues abroad are not mutually exclusive. Stern isolationism also didn't really work out too well for us between the two world wars, either. I also don't consider campaigning, through legislation and citizen action, for human rights at home and abroad to be a horrific kind of interference. I think I state my point as well as I can in the post two above this one.
While I agree that some sort of communication line must be open...I think the fear is that a meeting of that kind would result in Iran having images, etc to use as propoganda for their own puposes...I think it's a legit concern, but still the benfits outweigh the costs in my opinion.
I think I remember him saying that shortly after his election but changing his point after the worldwide outrage. But my memory could be wrong about that. As I wrote later, he definitely promoted the idea of 'moving' Israel to Europe in a german magazine. And he used the word 'ismihlal' towards Israel which can be translated as 'destruction' (he did this 4 months ago).
By the way - this guy visited Germany for the World Cup 06 and there had been discussions about arresting him since he made some remarks about the Holocaust being a 'conspiracy' of the allies. Denial of the Holocaust is a felony in Germany.
Arnhem 06 Antwerp 06 Berlin 06
Düsseldorf 07 Nijmegen 07
Neil Young And Friends Berlin 95
The point is lets for once learn from the past. It's been proven time and again that interfering militarily in cultures and religions we don't understand hurts us.
So maybe they are behind us with human rights issues. But look what happened in this country 100, even 60 years ago. Well we fixed it on our own. We didn't need some other nation that spoke another language and didn't understand our cultures to help us. Let them fix their own problems. They do not threaten us!
I agree with all that, or most of it. However, I think saying he has no part of it is like saying that President Bush had no hand in the Patriot Act because it was authorized by Congress. It is not a dictator situation, you're right, and that was a misstatement on my part. I should have said that the human rights situation in Iran is similar to other violent dictator states.
I also agree that diplomacy does not mean acqueisance. I don't condone the use of military force in Iran (however, I'm not willing to say that I never condone the use of force as a means to stop genocide/mass ethnic cleansing), but diplomacy, despite involving compromises, is not and should not be viewed as letting Ahmadinejad walk all over whoever he is speaking to. I think Obama has made that clear.
This is not always the case. There are situations where it has worked in the past. There was a genocide in Kosovo, but it would have been far worse had there not been international intervention. Kosovo is now on its' way to becoming a stable nation. Think of if we had intervened in any manner possible in Rwanda before hundreds of thousands were dead. Iran is not the same as those examples, but the human rights record in that nation is not at all strong. And I think when there are atrocities in the world, I don't consider it wise to simply sit on the sidelines. Again, the type of strict isolationism you speak about did not work between World War I and World War II. Between then, Hitler arose. Would the war have happened anyway even if we were involved in international relations? Perhaps, but we'll never know.
And once again, you speak about interfering militarily; when have I once said in this entire debate that I advocate use of military force against Iran? It hasn't happened one time. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't; our military's stretched far too thin. I believe in aggressive diplomacy, international pressure, and divestments from businesses doing business with that country. These tools, along with an incredibly strong national resistance movement in country, brought down the apartheid government of South Africa. That is the international interference I believe in. We should use our leverage to bring about change in Iran and other countries (including our own) with significantly deficient human rights records. Saying "it's not my problem" and washing our hands completely clean is like walking by a homeless man and saying "it's not my problem. He should just pull himself up by his own bootstraps." I think it avoids reality to the detriment of many people in this world.
This, of course, brings us back to energy; we have no leverage with many countries in the Middle East, including many with deplorable human rights records, because we need them for our oil supply. It's why we need independent alternative energy sources as quickly as possible.
I agree with the last line in your last post. And will add that because of our involvement in Iraq and Israel that we have little influence or respect in that region. And because of this, it's tough for most Iranians to believe our intentions are to help the people of that nation.
Exactly
And to answer your question. Nope.
Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?
If he was running for VP or president HERE I would be extremely concerned.
That would work and diminish my argument if I was basing it on what the Bush Administration's intentions were. I'm stating what our intentions should be.
I'd hope you'd be concerned that he was leading a nation anywhere if you're scared of Palin.
I agree. But it's the intentions of the govt that influence foreign policy. Not our intentions.
Not when it comes to his beliefs about homosexuality. It doesn't concern me that he or the majority of his people have strange beliefs.
Wow, you totally avoid the issues don't you?
It's not just about his views on gays, it about the pass someone gave him because his view is due to his religious beliefs. So, it would go for all issues, not just gays.
Nevermind, not worth it.
Well, that's a pretty depressing thought.