Ah, but if only someone would do some fact-checking on his fact-checking. Ahmadinejad didn't say "Zionism," he said "regime" (a government in power).

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.)- WP

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

"All in all not ideal conditions for any presidency."

If he had answered the terrorist attacks the correct way, by going full force against bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think he could have avoided most of those less-than-ideal conditions. He would have told the world that we were against the individuals who attacked us, and not starting a War on Terror in general. The world knows we can't stop everybody we hate all at once. And history shows the catastrophy that a two-front war yields.

If we had not invaded Iraq on the premise of a War on Terror, we would not have created more instability in the region and in the world, so the global market would not have seized the way it did. Higher gas prices are a direct result of our invasion and occupation, and in our attitude toward people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If we had not invaded and occupied Iraq, and decided to speak to people we dislike, maybe we'd have bin Laden in the Hague right now. Or in a coffin. And the Taliban would not be resurgent in Afghanistan. Everybody says they want the troops to come home, but that won't happen, even if they leave Iraq. If they're shipped out of Iraq, it will only be to send them back to the place they should have been all along--Afghanistan.

So I understand Bush has had some trials occur during his Presidency, but most of them have occurred because he shot himself in the foot.

Decent answers by Ahmadinejad, mediocre translation.

Surely the hypocrisy of the USA's policy on nuclear proliferation has angered some. (i.e., refusing to ratify the test ban treaty while invading Iraq allegedly on suspicion of WMDs) Yes it may be rational self-defense, but it's still hypocritical, and anything that pisses people off has negative side effects on national defense.

Here's the full interview Brian Williams had with Ahamadinejad.

So to those who like to read the CFR tea leaves, what are we to make of this assessment of the situation, and the recommendation for diplomacy?

*news

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.

Whether or not you agree with Hamas' political mandate this is the Palestinian people's democratic right, and they elected Hamas to power based on that mandate. Oppressed nations always vote in the hard liners, this is how it has always been, this is why Northern Ireland now has the two extremist political parties sharing power.

It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.

There will never be peace with borders and checkpoints, boundary dissolution *is* the route to peace.

Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.

There is peace in Northern Ireland even though one of the sharing parties refuses to recognise the North of Ireland as British. This is a stable, tenable, peaceful political position with democratic support. Just as the British forces pulled out of the North of Ireland when this was achieved, so should Isreal have pulled out of Palestine when Hamas was elected- but they did not, and they continue to invade that country.

Many political charters around the world use strong extremist language, this is the way of the world, this is how democracy works, this is what political stability is all about.

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

I agree with him completely about the audacity of the US being a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The task of that organization is to keep world peace, and we go around bombing the fuck out of everybody we don't like. Before they even attack us!

And I agree that it represents his beliefs more than any blurb you'll see in the States. You can tell it's not from American television because there's no ticker on the bottom of the screen talking about Angelina Jolie's babies.

>> ^NetRunner:
Interesting, and definitely more information there about Iran's public stance on both Israel and America than you'll ever find in the news here.
Sounded like echoes of Bush from the other side. Remind people of the open wounds about Israel, then deftly tie it to America's genesis, and then rally on about America's crimes to get the more reasonable non-US governments out there going, and then call for us to lose our seat on the Security Council.
Kinda neat to see him essentially openly discuss the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons. I'm surprised that's not on an endless loop in our own local propaganda outlets.

If he wants to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, why hasn't he started with the thousands of Jews that live in Iran?

Israel offered those Jews money to move to either California or Israel, and the Persian Jews refused, calling it an obvious political tactic.

And notice in the video he says, "Death to Israel," not "Death to Jews."

Also:

Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all suspected terrorists from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history.

Do you really see Bush that way? Because I do.

>> ^choggie:
I can.
Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all Jews from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history..
Kill this piece of human garbage quickly-if we don't Israel will.....excise the cancer, from the host, before it becomes aggressive and unstoppable....
Oh but wait....part of the deal Bush and his ilk made with the oil sheiks, was this phase of geopolitical abortion, that this is their time, to run free, in the name of peace, unity, acceptance and tolerance of another's religions, customs, and fucking sick programs.....forest for the trees folks, forest for the trees......Who lets a cocksucker like this run a country into oblivion???.....Find these fuckers and destroy their bloodlines......

the so-called "good points" thinker, are part of any successful propagandist's rhetoric.....appeals to everyone, very effective, especially with an undereducated and subservient populace.....
Strap Hackmenhandjob to a nice missile, and launch his stupid ass onnit, trajectory: Dead Sea.

While the Miley jokes were mildly amusing, this gets the upvote for the final comment about Etchisketchistan. Oh and for the Crawl!

"Oral-B recalls combination toothbrush and razor following string of horrific injuries"

"Report: US Metabolism falls to 5 year low"

"New York Police Department reports supervillain who fell from building into river certainly dead"

"Sports Update: Michael Pelfrey throws 1000mph pitch thanks to performance enhancing typo"

"News from Montana: Newly discovered cluster of dinosaur bones suggest existence of a 200-million-year-old natural history museum"

" 'The idea of Portland' tops Time Magazine's list of "America's best cities" "

" McDonalds adds employee benefits to dollar menu"

"Plans for invasion of Iran canceled after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accidentally CC'ed on Pentagon E-mail"

"News from Uganda: Last Remaining Mountain Gorilla just wants to be left alone"

"Crayola Crayon Factory named nation's most miserable place to work"


Love the Onion...

^ That video was more about the abject denial of the possibility that someone else might be worth negotiating with in Iran, and McCain pretty much looking like he'd never heard the name before.

Ahmadinejad is still part of the leadership of Iran, and the one the media treats as the absolute ruler of the country.

This video isn't about the scope of Ahmadinejad's authority within Iran, it's about the media using editing to reverse the message of what the guy said, to make him look like he's evil, while our government rattles sabers at him.

While you can argue there's perhaps a partisan fascination with the video you cite, the kind of thing you see in this video should be concerning to anyone in America, regardless of their political affiliation.

"Notice that iran doesn't believe in the existence of Israel because it isn't a democratic government because it refutes the Palestinian government.

Hamas (as opposed to Abbas) is widely considered a terrorist organization,1 and it's a stretch to suggest it's defendable for Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust or threaten that "Israel is about to die"(June 2008).

The question he was asked by Wallace, which is cut off in this video, is "'Israel must be wiped off the map.' Why?" Ahmadinejad's argument for wiping Israel off the map is that "Israel is a fabricated government."

His argument that Palestinians don't have democracy also seems deceptive. They have democracy, but part of their current government (Hamas, not Abbas) is subjected to physical interference from Israel and financial constraints from many other countries because it's broadly regarded as a terrorist organization.1 That doesn't sound like a legitimate support for Ahmadinejad's thesis that Israel must be wiped off the map.

With the jingoistic threats and lies Ahmadinejad consistently authors (the holocaust is a "fairytale"), it doesn't seem reasonable to defend him any more than you defend Bush.

The American media does seem to have a fascination with supporting Palestine over Israel. Dunno why. And the 60 Minutes interview gave Ahmadinejad more free press in American than anything that came before.