same goes for calling people nazis (unless they actually call themselves nazis)

Colonel Panic wrote:Bush is not like Hitler.

Nobody is like Hitler.

I'm sick and tired of people always comparing world leaders to Hitler.

It's such a cheap shot, like the kind of thing you'd hear on an elementary school playground:

"Stupid-head!"

"Poopy-face!"

"Farty breath!"

"HITLER!!!"

Smears/statistics/concretes are what drive political threads in this forum. I read through this post and felt I should chime in, luckily for y'all. "Gramsci's Razor" regarding Rick/Bob posts was good. I really enjoyed the slide show. I spent all last night beating off to those flowers. I'm now absolutely convinced that Iran is Eden. I don't think I saw any women without veils. What's the punishment for a woman exercising her right to make her own decision to arrogantly flaunt her individual beauty in public? Does a government that doesn't uphold an individual's right to live have the right to exist? Discuss.

Here's some info to help:

Iranian Constitution

US Constitution

Any Constitution

More groups of people doing bad things is bad.

Regardless of the behavior of the United States government.

Actually fuck it... let Iran get nukes. Let's have a war.

There's so many opposites,
So many opposites
So many, there's so many, there's so many

Let's have a war
So you can go and die!
Let's have a war!
We could all use the money!
Let's have a war!
We need the space!
Let's have a war!
Clean out this place!

It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!

Let's have a war!
Jack up the Dow Jones!
Let's have a war!
It can start in New Jersey!
Let's have a war!
Blame it on the middle-class!
Let's have a war!
We're like rats in a cage!

It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!

Let's have a war!
Sell the rights to the networks!
Let's have a war!
Let our wallets get fat like last time!
Let's have a war!
Give guns to the queers!
Let's have a war!
The enemy's within!

It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!

Rickiebob wants this war.

Hexpane wrote:

slincire wrote:I'd like to second or third pretty much everything Sparky has said on this thread. It is just as important to recognize the people of Iran as the diverse individuals leading diverse lives, distinct from one another and their government, as it is to recognize the human rights violations that go on in the country. .

I don't understand why that is?

Why? Because the media feeds us only images of Iran as a horrible, human rights violating theocracy, rather than a country populated by people governed by that theocracy. You posted some images later on from a Google search. The internet, Google included, is not Fox News or any other corporate news network, which is where most Americans are getting their information/opinions on Iran. I imagine the average buyer-in of these opinions would be hard pressed to distinguish between a member of the Iranian government and an average Iranian citizen, and thus lumps them all in as the violaters of everything, without realizing the people whose violated rights he should be upset about are part of that lumpen cluster.

Hexpane wrote:I don't think seeing pics of child executions is "as important" as seeing pics of iranians drinking coffee. I see child execution pics as more important.

I agree with this, but again, most of what we see is that Iranians' are not "normal" people, and I think it is important to counteract such an overwhelming example of "non-normalcy" with something "normal."

Hexpane wrote:The idea that "hey there are normal people in arab countries too" is pretty much a given. There are "normal people" all over the world.

Untrue. Someone else mentioned above that it is a given for EA contributors. I doubt that those who buy in to Jack Chick publications and find all things Islamic to be evil share this given.

Hexpane wrote:1. I really don't see any evidenced about me being determined to paint Iran any which way.

Hexpane wrote:Here are some normal people I wish we could export to Iran, they'd fit right in

Hmm...I think I found the evidence.

Gramsci wrote:Yeah, so Ahmadinejad wants the "zionist regime to disappear from the pages of time". That's sooo much better than the "wrong translation".

It is. Because it does not call for the destruction of Israel, only the disappearance of the Zionist regime. Which makes sense as the Zionist regime is based on faulty ideology and has been engaged in the horrible oppression of Palestinians for quite some time now. Think whatever you want about how Ahmadinejad actually feels and would actually carry out the manifestation of his desire, but if we are judging and interpreting his words only, which we are, this is much more acceptable than calling for the destruction of Israel and the Isreali people.

Gramsci wrote:I'm thinking in terms of Real Politik. It is reality that Israel will not stand for a nuclear Iran. The US know the shit storm that will sweep the region/world if Israel turn Tehran's nuclear sites into big glass ashtrays in the sand. If the US strike they will get away with it. The oil producing States in the region are so reliant on the US they'll moan a little and that's about it. France and the EU will back the US this time.

This is pragmatism.

No: this is not pragmatism, this is idiocy. This is support of Bush's bullshit preemptive doctrine. I assume the "glass ashtrays in the sand" will be the result of nuclear strikes. So please, tell me what is at all pragmatic about starting World War III? Unless you're coming from the point of view that the world would be better off without the human race, I don't see how you can.

And please people, just because Ahmadinejed made some sensible and apt criticisms of US foreign policy in general and toward Iran in particular that is the same and just as agreeable as the criticism coming from the Left, it does not mean that the Left is embracing him and everything he stands for. The fact that they do agree on these points is probably more harmful to the goals of leftists who share his views than it is beneficial. As has been mentioned on this thread before (and should really be common sense), agreeing with certain views of an individual or institution does not mean wholesale endorsement of everything that person or group says or does.

o_d_m wrote:However, some (though I don't know their political leanings) cheered wildly at his anti-Israel rhetoric during his speech at Columbia.

ok, as a columbia student, who was there, i can tell you a few things....

first off, using a phrase such as

o_d_m wrote:cheered wildly

is a cheap exaggeration. when people cheer, in any situation, it's easy to say that they cheered wildly, like some wild cheering chimpanzees out of the wild. how can you ever argue against that? if there was any cheering, how can you ever argue that it wasn't wild cheering?

anyhow i have too much fun pointing out dumb stuff like this. back to my original point... as an eyewitness to this event, i can tell you that there was just as much "wild cheering", if not much more, coming from the pro-israel factions in the audience and on campus, when university president bollinger delivered each of his publicity-whore/sensationalist comments that made him look like an idiot. in addition, many of those cheering for ahmadinejad seemed to be either: A: in the extreme minority of students, or B: from his own guests and constituents that he brought along.

this whole event, as i witnessed it, was really just some BS controversy-baiting publicity that had nothing to do with anything academic, and really crowded and congested the whole campus for no good reason.

Stuff:



Fun.

In 1933, Hans Luther, the German Ambassador to the United States, was the featured speaker at the Institute of Arts and Sciences at Columbia University. As he began to speak, a woman in the audience called out “Why did they burn the homes of exiled professors?” The NY Times reported that an usher and a cop pounced on her at the same time and dragged her out. Another two protesters were subsequently removed from the audience. After Luther finished his remarks, Russell Potter, the head of the institute, denounced them as “ill-mannered children.”

Dismissing the student criticism, [Columbia University] President Butler indicated that he held Ambassador Luther in high esteem. He declared that Luther “is the official diplomatic representative to the Government of the United States on the part of the government of a friendly people,” and was entitled to “the greatest courtesy and respect.” Butler announced that the Nazi ambassador was a “gentleman,” and that Columbia would provide him with “a welcome appropriate to his distinguished position.” He was pleased to receive any guest like Ambassador Luther who was “intelligent, honest, and well-mannered”; he did not care what his views were.

Hwup.


10 questions for Bollinger.

Andrew L. wrote: Hwup.

...requires a subscription...

Rick Reuben wrote:I don't have to trust them to argue that they don't deserve to be bombed. All I have to do is look at who is arguing the loudest for the bombing, identify them as Zionist scum, Zionist puppets and agents of the military-industrial complex, and then, based on who's selling, recommend not buying.

Wow, you use words that make it hard to distinguish whether you're on the extreme right or extreme left. Zionist scum? Zionist puppets? ZOG me up before you go-go.

Rick Reuben wrote:World history has taught us that Mutual Assured Destruction is the only effective deterrent to war between nations with nuclear arms. Two enemies with equal weaponry glare at each other. See: US-USSR, Pakistan-India.

Funny you mention Pakistan-India, who fought a war against each other in 1999 allthough they both have nukes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

Nukes might have deterred open war between the USA and the USSR, but that's why there were proxy wars all over the world during the cold war. So that case of MAD didn't actually prevent so many wars either.

Tell me Rick, how will a nuclear armed Iran prevent any further iranian proxy wars against, if you pardon the expression, Israel?

Actually, a nuclear umbrella would give Iran the opportunity to attack any of it's neighbouring countries without the risk of a ground invasion of Iran by the US or any international coalition. If a nuclear-armed Iran marches into Iraq or Saudi-Arabia, any counter-offensive would have to stop at the Iranian border or risk mushroom clouds over Riyadh, Tel Aviv or Paris.

Rick Reuben wrote:One enemy with an overwhelming power advantage always ends up attacking the weaker opponent. See US-Iraq, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Lebanon.

Having the power disadvantage didn't exactly stop Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah from attacking Israel. Or Al-Qaida from attacking the US. Or Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973.

Grenouille wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:One enemy with an overwhelming power advantage always ends up attacking the weaker opponent. See US-Iraq, Israel-Gaza, Israel-Lebanon.

Having the power disadvantage didn't exactly stop Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah from attacking Israel. Or Al-Qaida from attacking the US. Or Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973.

You seem to be right about in contradicting the stronger-attacking-weaker scenario. But you don't take into account the desperation/frustration element of all the weaker-on-stronger attacks that you mention. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah all have just as much justification for attacking Israel as Israel has for attacking them, they just have less power. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization that preys on the justifiable anger and malleability of young, predominately Arabic men. Their acts may be weaker against stronger, as well as reprehensible and unjustified, but seeing the reason behind them is easy with just the slightest bit of empathy. Egypt and Syria also had valid reasons for attacking Israel, more so that Israel had or has for oppressing the Palestinians and for taking land that was never theirs from another people that already lived there. So why don't you continue supporting the War on Terror. Why not get behind the War on Drugs while you're at it. Stand strong behind two of the biggest mistakes ever in US policy. Bravo.