Koombaya my lord, koombaya.
>> ^NetRunner:

I'd have sat him down, had a really long, cathartic talk about his issues with his parents, and convinced him to set aside his crusade.
Afterwards, he'd have a joint press conference with me, and tell his followers that he was wrong, and that they should surrender themselves, and beg for forgiveness for their sins they've committed against the true will of Allah. He'd then tearfully apologize to the world, and thank me personally for showing him the error of his ways. Then he'd donate all of Al Qaeda's funds to helping Muslim women get a better education, and dedicate his life to preaching non-violence to Muslim extremists.
After that, I'd go talk to Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, then maybe convince Hu Jintao to forgive the US's debts to China.
That might be over 500 words, sorry.

I'd have sat him down, had a really long, cathartic talk about his issues with his parents, and convinced him to set aside his crusade.

Afterwards, he'd have a joint press conference with me, and tell his followers that he was wrong, and that they should surrender themselves, and beg for forgiveness for their sins they've committed against the true will of Allah. He'd then tearfully apologize to the world, and thank me personally for showing him the error of his ways. Then he'd donate all of Al Qaeda's funds to helping Muslim women get a better education, and dedicate his life to preaching non-violence to Muslim extremists.

After that, I'd go talk to Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, then maybe convince Hu Jintao to forgive the US's debts to China.

That might be over 500 words, sorry.

Your video, GPS: Don't Imply Ahmedinejad Is Gay!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Guy kissing guy = gay.
Ahmedinejad kissing a guy = ahmedinejad is gay.

>> ^ledpup:
If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html
It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.

Ba baw! United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. But hey, nice try. Oh, also interesting, the Iran-Contra Affair.


Are you really trying to put this to bed with a WIKIPEDIA article? Yeesh.

I mean, I am no apologist for US foreign policy, and Zakaria has indeed been accused of being one in the past, so I am not surprised this is a 'thing.' Still, all the items listed in the above article would be categorized as dual-use. And I mean, yeah, its pretty ugly what we did, even if we didn't directly provide them with weapons. But I think the original point was how idiotic is was for this guy to pull that shit out when we're talking about the current wrongs of the iranian regime.

If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html
It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.


Ba baw! United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. But hey, nice try. Oh, also interesting, the Iran-Contra Affair.

>> ^acidSpine:
Are all you guys kidding? The only interesting thing here was how Zakaria managed to keep a straight face while denying America had sold weapons to Iraq.
Bill Hicks talks about exactly this
What a fool and you are all fools to for patting this propaganda regurgitating hack on the back over such a nothing interview.


If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html

It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^HaricotVert:
I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

The word "doctrine" may be specific, but "the Bush Doctrine" is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
It is not clear which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to... he was ambiguous on purpose.



She clearly didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was and probably never heard of, it's clear when he asks her what her interpretation of it.

Ask any first year Pol-Sci major who has done a basic course on modern international relations and they'll tell you the Bush Doctrine relates to a speech given in 2002 of which preemptive strike against a perceived threat, immediate or otherwise is a key component. All this rubbish about 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is simply revisionist history. People have to go back and look at when the term was initially used and in what relation, the reason people are claiming there are 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is because the term was high jacked by successive journalists and theorists. It's exactly the same with the crap about "appeasement" of Iran by Obama, they took a term which has a clearly defined meaning and history and tried to turn it into something it's not. The same has happened with the term "Bush Doctrine" however since the term wasn't so widely well known it's been successfully abused.

As the possible VP of the 'most powerful' nation in the world she should have comprehensive knowledge of ALL aspects of the foreign policy her country has subscribed to for the past 8 years regardless of what name it's been given otherwise what the hell is she doing running for VP. She clearly has no idea what she's talking about except to say the same old bs talking points:

"There are evil men/doers/Islamic Extremists/Osama bin Laden/Ahmedinejad/terrorists out there coming to kill you, only we know how to stop them"

In saying that clearly the interviewer was trying to trap her, I would have preferred if he'd just come out and said "do you agree the United States has the right to invade any country which poses a possible threat to the United States and it's interests be that immediate or otherwise?"

Oh and anyone that thinks there is a possibility that McCain won't invade Iran if elected is deluding themselves. Iran is to McCain like Iraq was to Bush jnr. They'll go in and it'll be Iraq II followed by 9/11 part II. McCain is a disgrace, I don't give a toss about his war record, when you come out the way he has running his campaign the way he has you can't say he is a man with honour. Deliberately distorting someone's character with no hesitation or second thought is all I need to know about the man and his character.

Anyone who votes for these two clowns (McCain/Palin) should have to sign on for military service for the duration of their administration if they get elected.

Apologies for the rant but as the last remaining 'super power' citizens of the United States not only have a duty to themselves but a moral responsibility to the rest of the world to elect rational leaders that will think of the consequences before taking such reckless action.

Wow, I'm sure people watching this would think Ahmedinejad has some leadership influence in Iran, and perhaps beyond its borders.

Which, I would happen to think that he does,
but many others on the sift, in their blanket McCain-bashing tradition would (and should if they're consistent) point out as completely erroneous.

</bitterness>

>> ^doogle:
I'm saying McCain ain't necessarily wrong to point to Ahmedinejad. IMHO it's not an unreasonable conclusion considering the blurred lines of the power heads in some countries.


We're not talking about "some countries", we're talking about a country Bush and McCain want to go to war with.

McCain isn't supposed to be just an average American, he wants to be the Commander in Chief, and the political head of our government.

We're talking about who has control of the military of Iran, and who's in charge of their nuclear program.

Experts say it's not blurry, it's Ayatollah Khamenei.

That doesn't mean McCain "ain't necessarily wrong", it means McCain either doesn't know who Khamenei is, or thinks there's a good reason to browbeat a reporter for the merest suggestion that there is more than one person in the government of Iran.

If McCain knew who the guy was, why not say "You make a good point, but I'm still against diplomacy with anyone from the Iranian government because..." and then behind the scenes go "ya know, Ayatollah Khamenei is a scarier name, and I'm sure he's said bad stuff about Israel, next time let's see if we can't incorporate him and quotes from in our speech..."

Instead, his response made it pretty clear he didn't have the faintest clue who Khamenei was, and arrogantly proclaimed the questioner must be wrong.

That confident ignorance is the other main element of the video, I would say.

McCain didn't just say 2 + 2 = 5 on camera, he continued on insisting that despite mathematicians saying 2 + 2 = 4, he's still right about 2 + 2 equalling 5, and tried to ridicule mathematicians for saying otherwise.

It's this willful denial of inconvenient facts that is the most poisonous aspect of the Bush regime, and McCain is signaling here that he intends to mimic that aspect as well.

Kronos -
I wasn't speaking to your tongue-in-cheek posting - I was speaking to the video. But do keep your satire - I read it there.

You, and the journalist, have made your points - Ahmedinejad isn't the head of Iran. You're both right and I don't dispute that. And I support it as well, as my examples have as well. I'm saying McCain ain't necessarily wrong to point to Ahmedinejad. IMHO it's not an unreasonable conclusion considering the blurred lines of the power heads in some countries.

>> ^doogle:
I don't think I can say that this journalist has anything on McCain here.
If McCain has anything to be blamed for, it's for making the leap that it's Iran that Obama is talking about, but that one isn't much.
Comparing the formal and political leaders of Iran (Ahmedinejad vs. TheOtherGuy) is like pointing out the Queen is the head of state of Britain and Gordon Brown (new guy) isn't.
It gets even muddier here in Canada, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (who?) isn't the formal head of state, and Governor General Michaelle Jean (who?), is actually the Queen's representative in Canada.
McCain may not be right, but he's not wrong to point out Ahmedinejad as the political leader.


We're talking about REAL power here, doogle, not just mere formalities. QE2 has for all intents and purposes ZERO power in Canada AND the UK, whereas Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has REAL power in Iran. He is NO mere figurehead, like Canada's Governor General, or Her Majesty herself. Be informed before you downvote someone's opinion, even if I'm speaking in a satirical voice.

I don't think I can say that this journalist has anything on McCain here.
If McCain has anything to be blamed for, it's for making the leap that it's Iran that Obama is talking about, but that one isn't much.

Comparing the formal and political leaders of Iran (Ahmedinejad vs. TheOtherGuy) is like pointing out the Queen is the head of state of Britain and Gordon Brown (new guy) isn't.

It gets even muddier here in Canada, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (who?) isn't the formal head of state, and Governor General Michaelle Jean (who?), is actually the Queen's representative in Canada.

McCain may not be right, but he's not wrong to point out Ahmedinejad as the political leader.

From what I've seen in recent years (though it might be because I live and work in an academic setting), the concept of the "enemy" is a dying one in western culture. Personally I only consider myself to have one enemy--pleased to meet you, hope you guess his name--and more and more people are joining my camp. Since the end of the cold war, the death of racism (at least partially), and the rise of fast global communication, people have more opportunity to SEE foreigners and better understand them. We look at war as something fought between governments or organizations more than between citizens of two nations. We don't look at radical Islamic fascism as a nation. We see it as an organization within a nation (or nations really). We still perceive "your average citizen" as a friend in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So the enemy is the organization who's shooting at you. Even the MEMBERS of that organization are often viewed as victims more than enemies. For example, Iran is not an enemy, Ahmedinejad (by his insistence) is. North Korea is not an enemy, Kim Jong Il is.

Unfortunately that perspective is not reciprocated by the Jihadis. They certainly believe in the concept of the enemy. They would certainly not call a Jew, a Christian, or really any westerner a "friend" or and "innocent."

Of course there are still a HUGE number of people in the west still living with the WWII mentality of Us vs. Them, but in popular culture and in and "civilized" society, they are being marginalized and shunned like racists were 20 years ago.

As for what is evil and what isn't? People are evil in general, but that's beside the point; most people try to be good at least. I guess my opinion is that if someone is shooting at you and telling them to stop doesn't help, shooting them is not evil. Unfortunate maybe, but not evil. In an ideal world, you might be able to negotiate every argument, but in this world, some people only understand the sword.

War is stupid, but sometimes it's the only viable option. As long as there is a single Imperialistic convert-or-die religion (or philosophy), there will be war.

There does however see to be one thing that prevents war. MONEY. Rich countries don't fight. The only exception is when a country is trying to conquer land... or if you still have an insane dictator running your country into the ground. We will never be fighting the UAE for example. We are rich. They are rich. No loony leaders. Nobody wants to waste time fighting when we can be trading and getting richer. Prosperity is a profound deterrent of war. We've never been at war with a country that has McDonalds. When you're rich and prosperous, the only thing to fight over is land.

Anyway, we shouldn't consider any particular intelligence report a holy document not to be criticized. Bolton makes good points. I'm still reserving my judgment until we get more info. I do not trust Ahmedinejad. His apocalyptic talk is just too zealous to be ignored. I'm at least comforted that much of his country allegedly does not support his views on those things.