TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ahmadinejad to speak at the Columbia University
Pages (8): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z How you found that amusing is beyond me though... |
| quote: |
| posted by sunsnailthat was quick |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles It comes down to this - the same people on this board that defend Iran are the same people who would have defended Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. I love how the terrorist supporters on this board always bash the US yet conveniently leave out many details about the countries they're defending. Oh yes, things are just so great in Iran, honky dory, heavenly even. Everyone is free to roam the streets wearing what they want, thinking what they want, and...oh wait a minute! That's America!!! It's not like Iran has been plotting to get its hands on nuclear weapons for years and years now, right? They just started this process recently when America came to kick the shit out of Sadam right? Oh no, I'm wrong again - the Iranians have been after nuclear weapons for ages now. They have been calling America the great big devil ever since their pathetically backwards "revolution" began in the 70s. Yeah, let's stand by and do nothing while Iran "peacefully" obtains nuclear power  |
. Reaaaaal coool.
Iran is more then just in the axis of evil - it is the center of it.
Again, the Iran defenders and the terrorist supporters on this board try to discredit what I'm saying by ignoring the facts.
Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil long after Iran started it hate-affair with America. So don't give me the whole Iran was upset at Bush spiel.
And people Iran aren't free to wear what they want, and have to be careful as far as what they say in public. This is especially true for women.
Anyone who tells you differently is lying to themselves.
Oh yeah, and I know my history very well thank you. As I've already stated in the past, the so-called popularly elect Iranian PM of the past was someone to compare to Hugo Chavez. Just like Chavez this individual constantly flamed Britain and America.
This was after World War II and the West back then reacted much quicker then it does now. It eliminated him, and rightfully so. Too bad they take their time these days with keeping people like Ahmedanicrap and Chavez alive.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles And people Iran aren't free to wear what they want, and have to be careful as far as what they say in public. This is especially true for women. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Oh yeah, and I know my history very well thank you. As I've already stated in the past, the so-called popularly elect Iranian PM of the past was someone to compare to Hugo Chavez. Just like Chavez this individual constantly flamed Britain and America. This was after World War II and the West back then reacted much quicker then it does now. It eliminated him, and rightfully so. Too bad they take their time these days with keeping people like Ahmedanicrap and Chavez alive. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Iran is more then just in the axis of evil - it is the center of it. Again, the Iran defenders and the terrorist supporters on this board try to discredit what I'm saying by ignoring the facts. Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil long after Iran started it hate-affair with America. So don't give me the whole Iran was upset at Bush spiel. And people Iran aren't free to wear what they want, and have to be careful as far as what they say in public. This is especially true for women. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to themselves. Oh yeah, and I know my history very well thank you. As I've already stated in the past, the so-called popularly elect Iranian PM of the past was someone to compare to Hugo Chavez. Just like Chavez this individual constantly flamed Britain and America. This was after World War II and the West back then reacted much quicker then it does now. It eliminated him, and rightfully so. Too bad they take their time these days with keeping people like Ahmedanicrap and Chavez alive. |
Watch freedom to fascism, the link I posted.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Are you making an argument for: A. Political Assassination? or B. War against Iran? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton You ignore the facts of the history lesson I just gave you. This is the reason why we have a very hostile Iranian regime. There is no such thing as an axis of evil. My friend, Germany, Italy, and Japan were an axis. Iran, NK, and Iraq by no means had set up an alliance or axis. This term was created by Bush to push his neocon, pre emptive warfare doctrine on the people. To identify the supposed enemy we are supposed to fight. Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack, and we responded in kind. What the fuck did Saddam do to us? NOTHING. There in lyes the falsity of the Iraq War and its fraud. If the war was so noble and morally correct, the american people would unanimously support it, such as in wwi, wwii, the first gulf war, etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles The American people prior to Japan's attacks on Pearl Harbor were split on whether or not to join the war. The war could have ended sooner if America had stepped up to the plate sooner rather then wait for Japan to make its move. BTW, I have no sorrow for America using nuclear weapons against Japan in world war II - any country that supported the Nazis as strongly as they did, and that dared to attack America, deserves whatever's coming to them. Let that be a lesson to Iran not to fuck with America, and let that be a lesson to all of you terrorist lovers to either leave America (where you all post from, not Iran) or stop defending anti-American countries. |
Dude, you currently live in Tampa. I lived there myself for 4 years, graduated from USF. While I was there, we had a professor called Sami Al Arian. People were suspicious of him having ties to terrorist activities. He claimed he was innocent, and of course terrorist lovers were out and about to support him...until it was discovered he was not only linked to a terrorist organization, but was actually at the head of a terrorist cell.
Look it up if you're too ignorant to know this. While you're at it, look up how many things Iran is suspected of being involved in.
Fuckin terrorist lovers and the crap they write. Even telling people that Osama Bin Laden can't take away your freedom. Tell that to the people who lost their loved ones in NYC and DC, and travelling on those flights.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles The American people prior to Japan's attacks on Pearl Harbor were split on whether or not to join the war. The war could have ended sooner if America had stepped up to the plate sooner rather then wait for Japan to make its move. BTW, I have no sorrow for America using nuclear weapons against Japan in world war II - any country that supported the Nazis as strongly as they did, and that dared to attack America, deserves whatever's coming to them. Let that be a lesson to Iran not to fuck with America, and let that be a lesson to all of you terrorist lovers to either leave America (where you all post from, not Iran) or stop defending anti-American countries. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Fuckin terrorist lovers and the crap they write. Even telling people that Osama Bin Laden can't take away your freedom. Tell that to the people who lost their loved ones in NYC and DC, and travelling on those flights. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer oh fuck off with this 911 bullshit man it is getting too old. Iran or Iraq had nothing to do with it.why the fuck dont you go after Saudi Arabi?you know the ones who actually support terrorism?are you forgetting where those highjackers were mainly from? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I am libertarian. My view is a country can do whatever the hell they want inside their territory as long as they don't violate another country's sovereignty. But I guess to neocons, if the country doesn't let their people have western style liberal democracy, they should be invaded. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton My view is a country can do whatever the hell they want inside their territory as long as they don't violate another country's sovereignty. |
then you need to seriously step back and take a look at just what Iran has done for the last 30 years. | quote: |
| Aid and Comfort by Any Other Name It is na�ve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. By David J. Feith & Jordan C. Hirsch Since news broke of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad�s upcoming speech at Columbia University, student groups on campus have been organizing protests to highlight the Iranian regime�s human-rights violations and belligerency. Correct as our peers are to do this, Columbia�s student leaders have wrongly answered the controversy�s central question: What standards should apply to a university�s decision to give an official invitation to a person such as Ahmadinejad? In a joint response to the invitation, a number of prominent student leaders wrote that the Ahmadinejad event �presents an incredible opportunity for the student body to learn about world affairs and to challenge a major controversial figure.� They added that �in a University setting no view is too disreputable to be excluded.� These views echo Columbia President Lee Bollinger�s description of the invitation as an affirmation of academic freedom. Granting that �many, most, or even all of us� find Ahmadinejad �offensive and even odious,� Bollinger wrote this week that to �examine critically all ideas� is �our nation�s most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world.� In Bollinger�s view, �this is America at its best.� But Bollinger is begging the question. Certainly the ideas of a powerful world leader should be studied on American campuses. The true question is whether the university should dignify the Iranian leader by making him an officially invited guest. It is na�ve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. Over the past years, Ahmadinejad�s confrontational rhetoric and policies have resulted in diplomatic isolation and economic hardship for Iran. These developments are unpopular among Iranians. It is beneficial to Ahmadinejad and his regime, then, if he can claim to the Iranian people that his leadership is not hurting their country. If he can demonstrate that he is treated abroad as a respected leader, he will be better able to counter his critics at home. Columbia�s invitation thus gives political assistance to Ahmadinejad. Bollinger has written that �it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas...implies our endorsement of those ideas.� That is true. But the argument against the official invitation of Ahmadinejad is not an argument against listening to his ideas. It is an argument against bestowing prestige on Ahmadinejad. There are many ways Columbia can engage with his ideas without giving him the politically valuable respectability of an official speaking invitation. Columbia can hold a forum on his views. It can play recordings of his speeches and ask experts to comment on them. It can create courses on the history and ideology of the Iranian Revolution. Indeed, if �listening to ideas� is truly Bollinger�s goal, then bringing to campus Ahmadinejad, a master of deception and propaganda, should be one of his last options. The issue here is not free speech. That is a red herring. We have heard no one argue against free speech. The issue is values: What standards should Columbia use in giving out valuable, prestigious official speaking invitations? Whatever standards apply, they should preclude an invitation to the head of a regime that behaves as Iran�s does and they should in particular preclude an invitation to an individual who promotes hatred and violence as Ahmadinejad does. Ahmadinejad�s regime punishes homosexuality by hanging and stoning gays. Religious minorities � Sunni Muslims, Bahais, Jews, and others � are routinely abused by the Islamic police. Women are publicly flogged for not dressing according to regime edict. Academics and students survive in the academy only so long as the regime decides not to purge them as �infidels.� And Ahmadinejad has made repeated calls for Israel�s destruction, fantasizing about mass murder while developing the weapons necessary for achieving his fantasy. Iran is the world�s leading exporter of terrorism. It founded and supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group which is undermining Lebanon, seeks to destroy Israel, and killed nearly 300 American Marines in 1983. In fact, the American death toll at the hands of Iranian terrorism increases daily, as U.S. troops in Iraq are killed and maimed by Iranian-provided improvised explosive devices. Amazingly, American soldiers may be killed by Iranian bombs at the very moment that Ahmadinejad is being hosted by Columbia � and in the name of American ideals, no less. Columbia properly considers free speech its ultimate value. Universities should not try to shield students from controversial views or be fearful of any ideas. But this is beside the point. By its invitation, Columbia has chosen to give Ahmadinejad a valuable political gift that he does not deserve, and that he will use to further repress his people and threaten his neighbors. It is shameful to receive him here as an official guest. � David J. Feith and Jordan C. Hirsch are undergraduates at Columbia University. They are editors of The Current, a journal of politics, culture and Jewish affairs. |
Exactly Q5echo.
As for those talking about how America should be at war with Saudi Arabia rather then Iran, again they're showing their terrorist-loving colors, and ignoring the facts.
The facts are that Osama and his men are wanted in Saudi Arabia, and are enemies of the state. The facts are that the Saudi government doesn't call the US the devil country. The facts are if the US were to go to war with Iran, the Saudis would be more then happy to let the American military use its land as command centers.
The Iranian threat is a big threat not only to America, but to many arab countries as well.
As for Saudi Arabia and women, things are slowly but surely improving. 10 years from now Saudi Arabia is expected to be a different place, much more tolerant towards women. While this may be in part due to the pressure the Saudis receive from western countries, it's also due to growing pressure from Saudi women.
So why hadn't the US just went to war with Iran back in the day when the "revolution" just started? We had a weak president named Jimmy Carter, we just got out of Vietnam a few years earlier so Americans were tired of fighting abroad, and we had a much bigger war which Raegan successfully focused on - the war with the USSR.
in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo wtf do you have against Hirsch...that he's Jewish? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag my panthers need me |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag in 4 minutes he managed to read Q5 article (Hirsh nonetheless) and write that brilliant evaluation intermixed with a Carter example.. ya'll may want to back off, we have a genius in our midst |
I have to admit that I haven't kept up on this news as much as I should. But I also have to admit that I don't think it was the wisest of choices for Columbia U. to give this idiot a voice. His own people can't stand him, let alone the rest of the world. Not that I agree with our Administration's divine ignorance of diplomacy with his country, but giving him a platform at one of our universities is a bit misplaced.
I don't understand how there are hawks in this country who are so quick to pick up arms and go to war. Iran poses no serious security threat to the United States or any of our allies - and don't give me this "they have nukes they'll use on Israel business." Ahmadinejad might be an idiot, but he knows full well his country (and his hold on power) is toast if he even makes a move on Tel Aviv. There are indeed factions within the Iranian government that are as hardline as Cheney or our friend Charles here, but they're increasingly becoming marginalized within their own country. Moderate forms of Islam are emerging across the country, to the point where some regions have completely abandoned the head scarves and have adopted Western reading and listening habits.
Why go to war with an entire nation when your so-called beef is with the words of a select few government officials? There is no confirmed intelligence that Iran is within 10 years of achieving any sort of nuclear capability. And, furthermore, the Europeans have had some success through negotiation with the regime (much of which become mired and stalled each and every time the United States decries Iran as evil). There are way too many people playing with fire these days, and we are most definitely going to get burned. But it's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran are actually higher than Bush's in... well, anywhere.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't understand how there are hawks in this country who are so quick to pick up arms and go to war. Iran poses no serious security threat to the United States or any of our allies - and don't give me this "they have nukes they'll use on Israel business." Ahmadinejad might be an idiot, but he knows full well his country (and his hold on power) is toast if he even makes a move on Tel Aviv. There are indeed factions within the Iranian government that are as hardline as Cheney or our friend Charles here, but they're increasingly becoming marginalized within their own country. Moderate forms of Islam are emerging across the country, to the point where some regions have completely abandoned the head scarves and have adopted Western reading and listening habits. Why go to war with an entire nation when your so-called beef is with the words of a select few government officials? There is no confirmed intelligence that Iran is within 10 years of achieving any sort of nuclear capability. And, furthermore, the Europeans have had some success through negotiation with the regime (much of which become mired and stalled each and every time the United States decries Iran as evil). There are way too many people playing with fire these days, and we are most definitely going to get burned. But it's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran are actually higher than Bush's in... well, anywhere. |
| quote: |
| In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 18, 2006; A16 Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said. Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand. "At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," said Flynt Leverett, who was a senior director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement." While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials. Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to defeat during a bloody eight-year war. The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation. Newsday has previously reported that the document was primarily the work of Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann. The Swiss government is a diplomatic channel for communications between Tehran and Washington because the two countries broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of U.S. embassy personnel. Leverett said Guldimann included a cover letter that it was an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stressed that the U.S. decision to join the nuclear talks was not an effort to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran. Earlier this month, she made the first official confirmation of the Iranian proposal in an interview with National Public Radio. "What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser when the fax was received. "Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in." Current White House and State Department officials declined to comment further on the Iranian offer. Paul R. Pillar, former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, said that it is true "there is less daylight between the United States and Europe, thanks in part to Rice's energetic diplomacy." But he said that only partially offsets the fact that the U.S. position is "inherently weaker now" because of Iraq. He described the Iranian approach as part of a series of efforts by Iran to engage with the Bush administration. "I think there have been a lot of lost opportunities," he said, citing as one example a failure to build on the useful cooperation Iran provided in Afghanistan. Richard N. Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration "the bias was toward a policy of regime change." He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully supported by the "multiple governments" that run Iran, but he felt it was worth exploring. "To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole," he said. "But I didn't see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the brink." Parsi said that based on his conversations with the Iranian officials, he believes the failure of the United States to even respond to the offer had an impact on the government. Parsi, who is writing a book on Iran-Israeli relations, said he believes the Iranians were ready to dramatically soften their stance on Israel, essentially taking the position of other Islamic countries such as Malaysia. Instead, Iranian officials decided that the United States cared not about Iranian policies but about Iranian power. The incident "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance," Parsi said. � 2006 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1700727_pf.html |
| quote: |
| AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about this proposal that came to the US? You have Karl Rove who knew, the very close relationship between � well, it was Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice who went with President Bush to South Korea, just them together. Do you have any awareness or knowledge of President Bush knowing about this? TRITA PARSI: Well, according to many people that I have interviewed in the Bush administration, they did have a discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration, and basically the hard line of the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld basically ensured that they would not proceed with the negotiations. In fact, they actually reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it. And the argument by the hardliners, the hawks in the Washington � in the White House at the time was basically that Iran is weak and it�s giving this proposal precisely because of the fact that it is fearful of the United States and that the US can achieve more by taking on the Iranian regime and just removing it than by negotiating. So we had this situation in which, back then, because of America�s strength, the Bush administration argued that it could not negotiate. And we have the opposite situation right now. Now, the Bush administration is saying that because it�s weak, it cannot negotiate. But if you can�t negotiate when you�re strong, because you�re strong, and you can�t negotiate when you�re weak, because you�re weak, that basically means that you�re not interested in negotiations at all. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read you a clip by Gareth Porter, �Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal.� And it says that �the identification of Rove as a recipient of the secret Iranian proposal throws new light on the question of who in the Bush administration was aware of the Iranian proposal at the time. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied in Congressional testimony [last week] that she had seen the Iranian offer in 2003 and even chastised former State Department, National Security Council and [Central Intelligence Agency] official Flynt Leverett for having failed to bring it to her attention at the time. �At a Capital Hill conference on U.S.-Iran relations Wednesday, sponsored by the New America Foundation and [your organization, Trita Parsi] NIAC, Leverett responded to Rice�s criticism by saying it was �unthinkable that it would not have been brought to her attention� and [demanding] an apology from her.� TRITA PARSI: Well, I would agree that it is absolutely unthinkable that a proposal of this importance would not have reached the Secretary of State or at the time the National Security Advisor, particularly mindful of the fact that Flynt Leverett, who was at the NSC at the time, did see it � his wife Hillary Mann, who was also at the NSC, did see it � who had a discussion with Colin Powell about it, according to his testimony at our conference two weeks ago. So I find it highly unlikely that they did not see it. I frankly believe that it�s beyond unlikely that they didn�t see. But, again, I think it�s partly because of the fact that they�re fearful that if there are going to be any negotiations down the road, not negotiations that they themselves choose to have, but they�re basically forced to have, that they don�t want the result of those negotiations to be compared to what they could have achieved back in 2003. http://www.democracynow.org/article...7241#transcript |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov There are indeed factions within the Iranian government that are as hardline as Cheney or our friend Charles here, |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.