Fundamentalist, theocrat, Holocaust denier, supporter of execution for gays, antiSemite...

[DeepModem Mom]

When has anyone of this description, or anyone described as any one of the above, ever gotten a pass here at DU? Who else could sidestep a question about treatment of gays by denying the existence of gays in an entire nation without a thread about it zooming to the top of the Greatest Page?

Sure he's intelligent, articulate and charming, but most who rise to powerful positions are (unless, of course, your name is George W. Bush).

Is the enemy of our enemy ALWAYS our friend???

[slackmaster]

1. So Recommended it's almost unbelievable

:toast:

[leveymg]

152. So, let's kill a couple million Iranians just to show our outrage.

Time to rescue Bush's failed Iraq war. That's the only reason we're being told to focus on the grimier side of post-revolutionary Iran.

Saudi Arabia has exactly the same sort of religious intolerance and human rights abuses. Worse. They're a monarchy without any democratic institutions or civil participation by women, at all. But, when do we ever hear about that?

Let's just drop the Big One, now

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke:

[rpannier]

159. I seemed to have missed the previous posters

praising of Saudi Arabia or calling upon the US to bomb Iran.

The Sausi governemnt and the Iranian government can both be intollerant,mysoginistic and oppressive.

In fact, many governments around the world suck.

[leveymg]

167. They didn't mention war, either, but that's what's going to happen if we keep this up.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to ignore the consequences of this sort of Ten Minutes of Hate propaganda campaign.

Besides, we're all well aware of the problems in Iran. This just pushes the game into the hard-liners' corner. It's been quite counterproductive, oppression has gotten worse, as external pressure and sanctions have been ratcheded up in the last few years.

The Bush and Olmert regimes have created the conditions from which Ahmadinejad emerged and now thrives. If we get rid of Dubya and Ehud, Mahmood will go away, too. Regime change begins at home.

[slackmaster]

176. Straw Man

:hi:

[liberal N proud]

184. Only if we can strap bu$h to the bomb just like your pic

Then it might just be worth it.

[Voice for Peace]

202. favorite quote

He said, 'your Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, comes to
the Middle East.

And she stands on a hill, and says "we are going to remake
the Middle East."

And the people of the Middle East look at her and say, "who are you?"'

[Rex]

2. So was it a bad idea to let him into the country?

Watcha think?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

102. No. However, that doesn't mean I like him. I think he is an asshole.

But, even our assholes get to speak because we are suppose to be a "principled" nation. At least, he wasn't as inciteful as many of our own assholes. Doesn't change that the man is tyrannical. He IS a tyrannical asshole.

[indepat]

113. We can all take comfort that any nation led by a tyrannical messiah is not automatically bombed into

oblivion, that being led by a tyrannical asshole in and of itself is not reason to give another nation the inalienable right to bomb that nation into oblivion.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

123. ,...otherwise,...WE would be dead?

Seriously.

Wouldn't we be dead?

[Voice for Peace]

203. we would so seriously be dead.

[drobert_bfm]

163. Uh... The U.S. CAN'T keep him out...

He is the leader of a government which is a member of the U.N. The U.S. insisted on having U.N. headquarters on their soil, so that's the price: you have to allow the representatives of any member country to come for the general assembly...

Stop the idiocy. Ahmadinejad is a nasty man, BUT:

1. His is NOT the worst regime in the world. That prize would probably have to go to China, Saudi Arabia or Myanmar. (NOTE FOR THE IDIOTS: That does NOT make him a nice guy, or Iran a wordly paradise!!!)
2. Iran does sponsor organizations which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations, primarily Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. The first two are focused exclusively on Israel, the last one mainly on Lebanon. There is NO evidence of any of those groups targeting U.S. assets outside of Israel and Lebanon. There is no firm evidence of any support by Iran to any other terrorist organization, notwithstanding the U.S. military's unsupported claims to the contrary (when they show us the evidence, we'll see...)
3. One of the true major sponsors of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, consistently get a pass by U.S. authorities. Not only does the U.S. not protest the arrival of Saudi officials, Bush even holds their hands... Saudi Arabia, with the UAE, is the primary source of financing for Al Qa'eda, the Taliban, and is the main source of financing for the Wahhabi network of madrassas around the muslim world, but primarily in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, priming the pump of Islamic extremism.

So Ahmadinejad is a bad guy, but COME THE FUCK ON!!! There are FAR worse prople in the world, and there are far worse regimes than Iran. Ahmadinejad is NOT Hitler; get off it, otherwise you'll end up with another war on your hands, a war you CANNOT POSSIBLY win, a war that might just spell the end of America as you know it... If you think Iraq was bad, just imagine what war with Iran would do to both your blood and your treasure.

[humbled_opinion]

172. As the War Drums Beat and congress marches in lock step...n/t

[Seabiscuit]

177. "there are far worse regimes..." Yup. Just look to Washington, D.C.

[onenote]

206. so do you support bombing myanmar to effectuate regime change?

After all, you just said that they are a terrible regime. If you can say that they're terrible and at the same time not be advocating bombing them, why can't people here say that they think Iran's current regime is bad without them being accused of supporting (or somehow furthering) a military attack on Iran?

Yes there are those in government that would be most happy to see the US engaged militarily against Iran. But does that fact mean that the rest of the world, that doesn't want to see a military engagement, is supposed to look the other way and ignore Iran's human rights abuses?

Silence can be deadly too.

[eShirl]

3. exactly! n/t

[AX10]

4. I'll send this to the greatest page.

k/r

He deserves no pass for his behavior!

Ahmedinejad has the right to speak, and we have the same right too.

[backscatter712]

5. I'll kick this.

I'm not one to stop Ahmedinejad from laying wreaths at the WTC or speaking - he has as much right to express himself as we do.

But I do think we should stop giving him an audience. When he lays that wreath and makes his speech at Columbia, the only sound that should be heard other than his voice is chirping crickets.

Hatred and incitement to violence, be it from our asshole in chief or Iran's asshole in chief, should be met with stony silence.

It's not just to diss Ahmedinejad, but I don't want Bush & Cheney to turn him into Emmanuel Goldstein, and this visit into our Two Minutes Hate.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I don't get it. There are lots of such people in America, and they're allowed to go to NYC....

... Are we SOOOOOOO weak and SUCH whiny ass titty babies that the nation will crumble if THIS asshole goes?

I like to think not, but judging by the hand-wringing concern, maybe I'm wrong.


It, of course, has absolutely ZERO do to with liking him, endorsing him or any other such bullshit made up by the Concerned Ones.

[DeepModem Mom]

12. I support his presence anywhere, and his saying anything he wants.

I just don't want him glorified.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Ah. Kindly show me who glorifies him, please?

[kenfrequed]

37. This is a waste of time

This is a talking point thread.

Getting all up in arms over it is useless. It plays to Faux News talking points. Is that what we are reduced to? Worrying about this schmuck?

[Skittles]

155. please stop feeding trolls

use IGNORE

[Javaman]

205. I ignored that poster a long time ago. nt

[DeepModem Mom]

39. I'm not going to call out specific fellow DUers. nt

[BlooInBloo]

52. Ah. The "some people" trick.

[DeepModem Mom]

56. I REJECT that. I am not going to refer to specific threads or specific DUers. nt

[BlooInBloo]

62. You know who *I* can't stand??? The BABY-EATING DUers!!! My god!

I'm sorry, I can't call out DUers though, so no examples. Too bad, so sad.

[DeepModem Mom]

69. It's simply against DU rules.

I just responded to another post of yours with appreciation. I'm sorry for offending you to such a degree.

[BlooInBloo]

76. My apologies. I'm too tied up with all the iguana-rapist DUers right now.

[EFerrari]

100. Sell out.

:)

[SlowDownFast]

193. ROFLMAO!!!

:rofl:

[PurpleChez]

164. That's what I was wondering...

[JuniperLea]

36. You are right... I just posted this elsewhere...

... so it's not entirely in response to what you said, but to someone very much like the OP here... The thought police are among us!!



So what? Let him think what he wants.

Some people believe in one God, some another... so what?

Some very old-school Catholics believe homosexuality is an abomination... so what?

I don't care what you believe, and you shouldn't care what I believe. Beliefs and actions are two entirely different things.

I will listen to fools and to sages... I will listen to all possible views... I may not believe in what you have to say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. I hate abortion with every fiber of my being, but I'll be dammed if I will stand back and let someone take that choice away from women.

Sorry, life isn't quite as black and white as you seem to think it should be.

I think we should listen to the man, try to understand his perspective, and try to reason with him... you know, diplomacy. If we don't, we are no better than the worst thing you can think about him.

[DeepModem Mom]

38. I never argued for not listening to him or not speaking to him.

My objection is to giving him a pass that no one else gets here.

[JuniperLea]

45. A pass?

Who is giving him a pass? I've seen nothing even close to that.

[BlooInBloo]

55. Neither are we given even a single example. It's bullshit.

[DeepModem Mom]

63. There seem to be plenty of others responding to this thread who don't think so.

But I respect your opinion, and appreciate your posts.

[BlooInBloo]

66. If any of them give me an example, I'll happily change my tune...

... But purely existence claims without examples are worthless, practically speaking.

[JuniperLea]

91. I agree

A person can link to a thread without pointing to one individual, and we can decide for ourselves... but no. Outrage is quite amusing when there is no target.

[Voice for Peace]

204. If nothing else, he is attempting a dialogue with America, not hiding behind big guns.

" think we should listen to the man, try to understand his perspective,
and try to reason with him... you know, diplomacy. If we don't, we are no
better than the worst thing you can think about him." ** I agree with you.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Discussion of Locke aside

"whiny ass titty babies" is the best phrase I have read in A LONG time.

I'm with you 100% on this one.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Another good idea Locke didn't come up with :) ....

... It's due to Atrios - I just slavishly follow.

[Goblinmonger]

71. You kill me.

I imagine that are PLENTY of ideas Locke didn't come up with.

[BlooInBloo]

78. For someone who had so much to say about ideas, he came up with precious few good ones.

EDIT: Yah - I'm not a big fan of Locke, partly due to the misguided nature of the Cartesian project in general, and partly due simply to his lack of intellectual sophistication. Descartes, Hume, and Kant are of course forces to be dealt with. Though Newton and Kant gave Descartes a pretty thorough drubbing.

[Az]

7. Nope. He's a putz

Thing is he is not the problem though. Its George and is continuing addiction to Wargasms. He needs another war. He needs it bad. And picking on putz's is the surest way to whip up public support for war.

The best thing to do is just ignore this putz. George wants people jumping up and down in anger at him. He wants us to hate him. He wants us to want to kick the snot out of him. How the heck do you think he got permission to come to our country?

[Old and In the Way]

42. He might be a putz, but

would George W. Bush make a similar trip to Iran? Given all of the war rhetoric emenating from the WH and the RW Wurlitzer, I have to say he's a mighty brave man to venture into this country right about now. All we'd need is for some RW whackjob to take it upon himself to eliminate this man....then watch the ME really start to become unhinged.

I think it says something about the American people (at least our side) when we can honor the principles of freedom of speech, even when we don't find the speaker or his agenda particularly appealing.

[babylonsister]

8. No, absolutely not. But since when do we start shutting people up

we don't agree with without an attempt at civil discourse? Besides our citizens? I take freedom of speech to heart, and might just be a bit touchy because the lack of it is so prevalent nowadays.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. I don't object at all to his presence anywhere, or his saying anything he wants.

I just don't want him glorified.

[babylonsister]

17. Speaking for myself, I don't think I've glorified him, just stood up

for his right to be here, and given props to Columbia for hosting him.

[Skidmore]

21. No one's glorifying him, but we do need to see beyond

our own culture and understand the interactions of "others" within their context, something I believe was sorely lacking today. We are in no position to dismiss or demonize another culture at the present time. Actually we have all of the actions/beliefs the OP listed present in our own nation--the great purveyor of free speech and universal truth to the globe.

[DeepModem Mom]

30. I totally reject pointing to things in our own country as part of this.

We are ALL here because we recognize and condemn so much that's going on in the U.S. We all agree on that.

[Skidmore]

40. Do we recognize and condemn them?

Maybe we do here at DU, but there is a segment of this nation, supported by some politicians, who have no problem with these ideas. They are very much present here. Ask any battered woman, try asking Matthew Shepard's family, talk to the Jena 6 and their families, any person who has been held in the American gulag under FISA..

America's face is just as ugly and its soul just as dark.

[DeepModem Mom]

44. My post was about Ahmedinajad and DU. That was all. nt

[Carolina]

50. you are absolutely right

[FiveGoodMen]

25. Doesn't seem likely that he'll be glorified in the US, does it?

Not defending the guy at all, but I don't think his presence or his making a speech is much of a threat. Seems like one of the few things we can just safely ignore.

[The Stranger]

101. "Glorified"? What planet have you been living on?

Having said that, you have pretty much taken care of this topic.

[RaleighNCDUer]

168. I agree. I am SO tired of all the threads saying

"Ahmadinejad is my HREO, and the last best hope for mankind!"

(Is :sarcasm: really necessary?)

[Zandor]

9. HUGE K & R

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

11. Just Because We Have Our Own ASSHOLE,

Doesn't mean that this guy is not an ASSHOLE also.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Especially when he has the various qualities detailed in this Thread's title.

[AlCzervik]

13. well said. It is possible to hold both Bush and Ahmandinajad in contempt.

Ahmandinajad's dislike of Bush doesn't make me like Bush more or Ahmandinajad.

[JackRiddler]

14. I don't give him a pass...

It's just that I understand who intends to wage nuclear war on whom, and I refuse to allow the hate campaign now being run in the media and by the government in order to justify the nuclear holocaust that the Bush regime wishes to visit upon millions of people in Iran.

[DeepModem Mom]

27. Furthering the administration's war-mongering is a really regrettable part of all this. nt

[JackRiddler]

74. You've got to be kidding?

"Regrettable"? Millions more may die, that's regrettable?

[DeepModem Mom]

82. Okay -- if this contributes to war with Iran, which it might...

it is fucking horrendous. I'm sorry if I hurried, and understated. I'm truly sorry.

[angstlessk]

15. Sounds like David Duke to me??? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

75. They have a lot in common!

[TZ]

128. David Duke attended a conference about

Holocaust revisionism in Iran hosted by this guy not too long ago either as some members seem to have forgotten!!

[CGowen]

178. I don't know who David Duke is, but I know they had a cartoon contest

http://www.nysun.com/article/42837

[Bucky]

18. Is the OP talking about Ahmedinejab or Pat Buchanan?

[Jacobin]

94. !!

Bad, Bucky. Bad bad bad. :spank:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. should we abandon our principles because he is not our friend?

free speech. respect of sovereign nations etc are more important than the irani president

[Clintonista2]

23. I agree, but nobody on DU advocates going to war with Iran

The OP is referring to the "I have a lot of respect for him" threads that have popped up today.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. you can always respect certain aspects of a person. for instance i respect the masterful way

he handled the reporter yesterday.

do i respect his domestic policies? no.

[Clintonista2]

28. The same could be said of Bush, or Hitler

How much respect should they recieve?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. i dont see your objection because i truly dont believe people on du respect him

i think they are more afraid of where we are headed as a nation with constantly having one person to hate etc.

thats all.

first saddam, now this.

[Clintonista2]

32. Well, here's a specific example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3545027&mesg_id=3545027

The OP claims to have "just gained a lot of respect" for him.

[kenfrequed]

43. Where?

Where is this "respect for him"?

When will these stupid Faux news talking point posts end. The guy is a shmuck. Ignore him. The only reason to chase our tails over this is to trump up the case against his visit. Turn his stupid political stunt into a stupid political stunt for the bushies.

Hooray one group of religious fundamentalists trying to work at another!!! Whoopie!!! Let's all post over it and help them out with another damned war!!!

[Clintonista2]

53. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3545027&mesg_id=3545027

Quote: "Either he is full of shit or I have just gained a lot of respect for that man."

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. That's it??? That's the voluminous pledge of friendship???

With all the posts condemning the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit, you'd think that most DUers were putting Ahmedenijad For President in their fucking signature lines. You find ONE marginal, ambiguous post!?

This is truly fucking hilarious. There are hundreds of posts condemning an event that never happened. Yup. I'm a Ahmendenijad Friendship Denier!

:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

68. I was asked for an example, I provided one. nt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. Great job!

:rofl:

I know I'm convinced!

[kenfrequed]

72. ok...

So the best you can do is to point to a poster who babbled that the guy might have said some things right-though the poster readily admits they could be wrong and the guy could be full of crap?

That is your groundswell of sympathy?

Wouldn't a corrective post pointing out his record have been more constructive? Is there a reason to start a whole post dedicated to the guy being a douchbag WHILE the administration is clearly beating the drum of war with Iran?

Wise?

I think not.

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. We're Going to war with Iran: No doubt about it

I would have said "No way," even this morning, but the number - the sheer volume - of stupid fucking gullible idiots on THIS VERY BOARD has sealed it for me. Yet another Bad Guy Villain set up for the maniacs. We'll be airstriking Iran before next summer, guaranteed.

Fucking stupid gullible fools fall for it every time.

[Clintonista2]

85. So wait...

I'm a "stupid gullible fool" because I don't like him, due to his comments on gays/women/etc?

[mhatrw]

92. Yes. Who cares about this guy?

What is up with Americans that they ALWAYS fall for these lame personality driven two minute hatefests? Sodamn Insane!

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. You don't have to like him

But my comment stands.

[kenfrequed]

87. Yeah

It really disappoints me. Well Hillary will take the nomination and then lose next Fall. Sometime after that America will collapse. What a friggin Monday.

When will we learn?

[Clintonista2]

80. You asked me "where", I showed you "where"

Sorry.

[kenfrequed]

84. Yeah

You made your case soooo effectively.

Oh wait, you didn't.

[Clintonista2]

88. I didn't?

I don't see what I did wrong. I made the claim that some people on DU have been talking about how much respect they had for him. You denied anybody saying that, accused me of using Fox talking points, and then challenged me to provide an example of somebody saying that. I provided an example. You then tried to save face by rambling incoherently. What did I do wrong again?

[kenfrequed]

108. Uhm

Your example lacked the punch of yoru initial accusations. At best the person agreed with what the Iranian PM said about a few particular US policies. And to be honest the poster you sites even acknowledged the change that he could be lying.

If this is the best you have, than you have nothing other than the posting of someone who suspends judgement long enough to listen to what the person in question had to say.

And as to the obsession about Ahmadinejad, well he happens to top out the stories listed on the frontpage of Foxnews.com with four seperate sub-stories. So... by talking about this shmuck who are you actually helping?

You associate him with DU.
You bring up the guy repeatedly to make him news.
You point out Fox news positions stating that he is somehow all the more heinous for wanting to drop off a damned wreath.

I ask again, who are you helping?

[Clintonista2]

116. How did my example "lack the punch" of my "initial accusation"?

First of all, I didn't make any "accusations." Somebody thought that this topic was about going to war with Iran, and I stated: "The OP is referring to the "I have a lot of respect for him" threads that have popped up today." That's not an accusation. You denied there were any "I have a lot of respect for him" threads, I provided you with an example. What's the big deal? As for your "who are you helping" question... I geuss I'm helping the person who didn't understand what this topic is about.

[kenfrequed]

126. I demanded evidence.

You provided a shadow of that evidence in the form of a poster who had doubts.

As to who you are helping I would say that your obsession with this helps the aforementioned drumbeat for war in Iran.

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. Why am I reminded of the attacks on Bill Mahr after he spoke of

the 9/11 hijackers as 'courageous'? You don't have to agree with what they did to admit it takes nerve to go on a suicide mission. Just as you don't need to agree with Ahmadinejad to admit that it takes a certain panache to beard the lion in its den.

HE IS TRYING TO FEND OFF AN ATTACK ON HIS COUNTRY.

He attempted a conciliatory, respectful homage to the victims of 9/11 in the hopes that we might remember that Iran helped us then, sealing their border against the Taliban and giving us valuable intelligence about the Taliban's movements and organization -- in return for which we decalared them part of the Axis of Evil.

By adding your voice to the administration's Two Minute Hate, you give impetus for that attack on Iran.

[spirit of wine]

20. I agree the Iranian President is all that, but it is our relative

open society that can at least still give the stage to hear what he has to say, even though some of it can be disagreed with. I also think it pisses off most of the conservatives to allow anyone that they disagree with an open mic., so I was glad for their anger. People say many things, but the president of Iran has less power than we give him credit for. Since Iran is a theocracy, the president is the one who is seen as a figurehead.

[The Traveler]

22. Oh hell no!

But that is the value in letting the man confront/meet common Americans directly in this fashion. He gets to see us, and we get to see him. More clearly. Eyeball to eyeball.

Perhaps some real communication can develop from such meetings ... and perhaps not. It is far too soon to speculate on that. But when his comments about gays in Iran were greeted with mocking laughter from a crowd that gave him applause on more reasonable points, I think it might have sent a more powerful message than any that could have been delivered by Condi Rice.

Just because he has the scholar's passion for learning and investigating does not mean he is not an intolerant, racist prick. On the other hand, just because he can't be trusted doesn't mean there are no grounds for talk, for discussion, for finding a way to avoid war.

[Marrah_G]

24. Some people can't get past "he hates Bush like we do"

It infuriates me to see this guy and his government get a pass.

He stands for everything our party is against.

Before anyone claims otherwise, I don't want to see Iran attacked.

[spirit of wine]

33. I hope this wasn't Irans last ditch effort to escape any kind of

attack on their country that we know of. Diplomacy is key, and it seems the Iranian president wants to extend the olive branch while Bush continues to only want to solve this solution with blunt weapons. We must find a middle path or keep the dialogue open, war is outdated.

[mhatrw]

96. He stands for everything our party is against?

Economic justice? National sovereignty?

[Marrah_G]

105. Yes

Womens rights, choice, gay rights, freedom of religion, seperation of church and state, etc etc.

I should have worded it " He is against everything our party is for"

[mhatrw]

109. Those are all social issues and he lives halfway across the globe.

How do his beliefs on social issues affect us? Wouldn't we be better served if we worried a lot more about our own Supreme Court justices who agree with him on these issues?

[Marrah_G]

111. I am capable of being concerned about these issues in many places at the same time

[mhatrw]

112. Sure you are. In this case, what does your "concern" consist of besides joining

in on our most recent government and corporate media sponsored two minutes of hate?

[sinkingfeeling]

29. I know I'll be blasted for asking, but just why is Iran our enemy? So what, if they have

a "Fundamentalist, theocrat, Holocaust denier, supporter of execution for gays, antiSemite" as president? We could certainly come up with a similar list to describe our own president: "Fundamentalist, anti-science, reditioning, denier of civil rights, killer of innocents, anti-Islamic, etc"

Why do you say Iran is our enemy? What is it that Iran has done to the USA that makes them our enemy?

[DeepModem Mom]

35. My reference was to Ahmedinajad as Bush's declared enemy. nt

[vssmith]

125. I agree

Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust for a reason--as a jab in the side of the Israelis. He knows the Holocaust happened and he also knows Israel came into existence because of the Holocaust. He knows how to raise their ire.

[kenfrequed]

34. I don't give him a pass

I don't talk about him. Is focusing on our own nations and our own problems giving this guy a pass? Are we forced to play the re-pukes game of bringing up their top ten list of bad guys constantly?

Am I the only one that is concerned with the sudden attention here with Iran? Why are we making a big deal? If he is dropping wreaths or what not shouldn't we just ignore it? Or are some of us posting Faux News talking points in an other-than-Ironic fashion?

[klyon]

41. Are those things true?

"Fundamentalist, theocrat, Holocaust denier, supporter of execution for gays, antiSemite... "
I'll also add dictator since the Pres of the University and Pres Bush called him one.
Is he? He was elected. It has been said he was misquoted on the Israel thing. Does he kill gays? I find it interesting that Republicans throw that one out there but don't support or even believe gays when they say what is in their hearts.

We have a lot of people in this country that are racists and "Fundamentalist, theocrat, Holocaust denier, supporter of execution for gays, antiSemite..." should they lose their rights?

Let there be free speech not name calling. Poof is all I ask.

[Marrah_G]

46. It's easy enough to google n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

49. I listened to his entire speech and his answers, and didn't hear anything...

to convince me otherwise. But if you have info, I'd certainly take a look at it.

[klyon]

61. I have no answers. Just asking the question.

?????

[f the letter]

131. i agree with you but

labeling his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel as "it has been said he has been misquoted" is a bit off.

The part that comes after this isn't directed as a reply to you.



i am in favor of anybody, having any viewpoints or no viewpoints whatsoever, being allowed to speak at Columbia or anywhere else, about whatever they want. Period. i don't trust the man for a second (although i trust him no less than most other world leaders), but what is the big damn deal? Haven't we as a country already tried not talking to people we don't like for decades on end? It doesn't seem to get a whole lot done.

On NPR today was an interview with the guy (having trouble finding his name, anyone know?) who set up meetings with leaders of warring factions in Iraq, along with formerly bitter enemies of opposing sides in Ireland and South Africa. Why is talking to 'enemies' bad?

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. Yep but Bush doesn't like him so he must be a terrific guy

DU logic at its finest.

[liberation]

196. When building such large straw men it is advice to have plenty of fire extinguishers at hand....

[Carolina]

48. But don't bomb the nation

and its people because of him.

We've coddled, even installed, evil dictators and right wing regimes before.

No doubt, this guy is bad, dangerous ... but the problem is our misleaders will paint with a broad brush and use HIM as reason enough to go to war.

[DeepModem Mom]

51. I couldn't agree more!!! nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Oy vey....

1,800th thread today with the same exact fucking argument. DeepModem: you are usually so original. Why go with the lowest common denominator stupidity on this subject? Are you seeking the applause of the other 1,799? Could you possibly be being honest with this nonsense? I don't get it.

I want to see all the threads where people make pledges of friendship with Ahmedenijad...:eyes:

[DeepModem Mom]

89. When I posted, most all the threads were making a different point.

I'm sorry we disagree on this.

[Maven]

57. Exactly.

I can't believe there's a thread on the fucking greatest page that says, "Except for his comment about homosexuals..."

What an insult.

K/R

[Sapphire Blue]

58. "When has anyone of this description, or anyone described as any one of the above, ever gotten a ...

... pass here at DU?" Today.

K&R

[BurtWorm]

59. Furthermore, I doubt he is much beloved by the Iranian people either.

He's a tool of the theocrats. If he were a drunk, he'd be an Iranian Bush.

[Malikshah]

60. Warmonger.

oops.

No pass here for the demagogue.

But for those who wish to bomb and kill more-- F*&^ you.

[distantearlywarning]

70. Completely agree 100%.

I'm surprised that this is even a point of contention here.

[devilgrrl]

77. I'm shocked that he doesn't get along with the GOP.

Talk about brothers in arms.

[Enoch1981]

81. And?

I don't think too many people view him as a 'enemy of my enemy'...afterall they still cling to the moronic 'he's just like G.W' meme. But I agree with an earlier poster who said basically why do we care what someone thinks?

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. There are no thought-crimes...and given that he doesn't seem to have any real power I puzzled at what people would expect him to be able to do. I mean, is he executing gays himself? The way people talk, you'd think he was some commandant at Auschwitz or something...but I don't think he's that old, lol. Sorry, but I really don't see why we should care that he's a holocaust denier or antisemite. I could understand if he was running for office here, but he's not. One's outrage is better spent on Iran's human rights record, Darfur, Iraq, Burma, and not on whether someone believes that something happened more then 60 years ago. I don't know why something that happened in the past is more important then things that happen now.

[candymarl]

83. Charming Charlatan

Is it any wonder he toned down the rhetoric for his US visit? He is a bad leader we don't support. He is every thing you say. But we support Saudi Arabia where public executions happen. I personally watched a video from Saudi TV. What was it about? Instruction on "how to beat your wife". Saudi Arabia also supports schools/mosques where an Anti-Semite philosophy is taught. Jordan has a King, not exactly a democracy. Pakistan, a military dictatorship, there's democracy for ya. After all, a non-elected military despot is our bestest buddy. Egypt, our ally, is known for it's torture techniques. China, our good friend, with apologies from Mattel, is seething with freedom. Kuwait, ruled by another royal family. This makes the Iranian president's argument for him. We support other fundamentalist dictatorships where homosexuality is also a death sentence. Just not this one. Some dictators we like. Others we don't. If we're about freedom, democracy, and equality, we should be consistent.

[mhatrw]

86. You are buying the media spin hook, line and sinker.

Why the intense personalization? Do the beliefs of this guy actually even matter except for the media to paint him as some sort of deranged super-villain?

His culture is intensely theocratic, homophobic and critical of Jews by our standards. (You know, like your average bunch of "Christian" rednecks.) He is a product of his culture, not ours. If we want to see the man turned into a super-villain, all we have to do is turn on the TV or read the papers. We come to DU for a more balanced and less warmongering perspective.

[DeepModem Mom]

93. I'm a close follower of the media, and not fooled by it.

In fact I posted earlier today, wondering about the next media "liberal" villain -- MoveOn, and now Columbia. I was posting only about reaction here at DU. And I want no part of Cheney's desired war with Iran.

[mhatrw]

99. Then don't enable it.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Wirthlin's job, Alsop explained, was "to identify the messages that really resonate emotionally with the American people." The theme that struck the deepest emotional chord, they discovered, was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was a madman who had committed atrocities even against his own people, and had tremendous power to do further damage, and he needed to be stopped."

[BadgerLaw2010]

120. What media spin? You think he likes gays and Jews and women's rights?

[rpannier]

161. Warmongering???

Being critical of this putz makes the OP a warmongerer???

Wow!!! So, does that extend to criticisms of Putin, Gim Jeong-il and John Howard by people here as well?
When we criticize those leaders and their governments are we really seeking to go to war???

[hiphopnation]

90. m'eh

there are fundies, theocrats, holocaust deniers, probably those that would support the execution of gays, and definitely antisemites...RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. they're often ignored here not because anyone feels they should "get a pass" but because giving lunatics attention is not generally advisable.

I have no problem ignoring them. You're giving him exactly what he (and Bush) wants: an audience. We've all been duped by the bush fundies that the biggest threat to this country is beyond our borders and not right here living amongst us. DUPED! HOODWINKED! BAMBOOZLED!

[tears4terra]

95. No he's not our friend...

But it was interesting to hear him speak. I honestly don't understand all the outrage about letting him tell us his POV.

Should we bomb Iran because we don't agree with him?

[DeepModem Mom]

144. It WAS interesting, and I support his visit, his speaking, and his going anywhere.

And I certainly don't support bombing him.

[Dorian Gray]

97. "Is the enemy of our enemy ALWAYS our friend????"

ABOSLUTELY NOT! Nor is he. If today's speech doesn't solidify that, I don't know what will.

He hates Bush. Whoopdedoo! So does over 3/4 of the world. And not all of those people are liberal progressives, either.

[DeepModem Mom]

98. THANKS TO EVERYONE RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD --

I have to step away from the computer now. I think I've stayed long enough not to be accused of drive-by posting. Probably everything has been said that needs to be said here anyway, and we could all "move on." Peace.

[BlooInBloo]

104. MOVE ON??? Just get over it????

heh-heh. Just kidding.

:)

[DeepModem Mom]

143. You got me with that!

:)

[yurbud]

106. who's giving him a pass? The question is do those things make Iran a threat to us?

[DeepModem Mom]

142. The answer is no, and that was not the question I was addressing in the OP. nt

[yurbud]

107. Will letting Bush incinerate his grandma, kids, and dog change his mind?

[DeepModem Mom]

141. I hope you're not implying that my OP indicated I advocated incinerating anyone.

I was posting in reaction to some posts here today, that seemed to me out of character for DU.

[yurbud]

110. What's really sad is the implication was anti-Semitism was why we fought Hitler in WWII

I didn't know until I read it on the Simon Wiesenthal Center website that we didn't do much to help the Jews Hitler was persecuting before the war, and we only liberated concentration camps as we came across them.

We were far more concerned about Hitler's territorial gains than how he treated those within his empire.

When you want to go to war, you make up a list of the sins of those you want to invade.

When we kept the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, McKinley said it was to "Christianize" the Philippinos even though they were already Catholic.

Try to learn to distinguish between excuses for war and legitimate provocations, the latter being very few and far between.

[AuntPatsy]

114. you post deserves its own thread because its more factual then far too

many ive seen on the subject today.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. No. We could have bombed the rail lines and stopped the trains to the camps.

We didn't. There was a massive denial in the government and the press that the Holocaust was happening.

Terrible.

[EFerrari]

124. The response to that is always, they could repair them quickly.

I have no idea if that's true. But, that's what gets forwarded.

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. Well said and all very true. But the sad irony is that

Ahmadinejad clings to the degree of power that he has (he is not Iran's leader) in part by whipping up nationalist sentiments inside Iran over American threats toward that nation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if Ahmadinejad is intentionally goading America to bomb Iran. The experts I have read all say that the most we can do with bombs is set back Iran's nuclear program by several years, with the next edition of it being less vulnerable to American attack - that is if they don't get resupplied sooner by elements in Pakistan that might become ascendant after another U.S. attack on another Islamic nation. We certainly aren't going to try to occupy Iran.

With Iran's population overwhelmingly 30 and younger and largely chafing at the religious bit, the best bet the arch right in Iran has to consolidate power there might be the aftermath of an American attack on that nation. Talk about the power of martyrs...

[Warren DeMontague]

117. No, he's a shithead. And you can call him a shithead without being in favor of war with his country.

Shithead, Shithead, Shithead. He's a shithead.

And he's a prime example of why you shouldn't let Flat-Earth Fundy Kooks run your government. The fact that 3 out of the 10 GOP candidates for President "don't believe" in Evolution ought to be a BIG wake up call to all of us.

[kineneb]

119. George, Dick or Ahmadinejad?

"Fundamentalist, theocrat, Holocaust denier, supporter of execution for gays, antiSemite..."

sounds rather like most of the NeoCons, Republican party and fundamentalist televangelists

[hiphopnation]

121. my exact point! (above) eom

[DeepModem Mom]

140. Yes, and they, and their opinons, are usually roundly criticized by DUers. nt

[Katherine Brengle]

122. I don't think he's getting a pass -- I think many of us see the hypocrisy of who our gov't does and

does not deem acceptable and this hilights that hypocrisy.

We'll get in bed with a dictator/theocrat/dissident executor/what-have-you whenever it's convenient, and fight them whenever it's convenient -- there is no policy, other than follow the money.

[DeepModem Mom]

139. Our foreign policy is hypocritical. I was posting only about DU, not about our country. nt

[rucky]

127. I see all these threads chiding people for praising this guy...

and not a single post of praise.

I don't doubt there have been a couple few, and I just got here... but what's with all the posturing?

[nashville_brook]

129. it's a mad dash to the middle. soon DU will be clamoring to nuke Tehran.

[DeepModem Mom]

137. That really doesn't seem fair. My OP was about nothing more than the reaction of some here...

to a man whose views are usually abhored. I have not moved my political compass, nor do I support any kind of attack on Iran, not to speak of a nuclear attack.

[rpannier]

162. Nice...you completely missed the point of the OP

By your logic...everyone critical of him is somehow a centrist and a supporter of war with Iran.

So...does this extend to criticism of all world leaders or just those that hate gays and support a more theocratic style of government?

[MedleyMisty]

132. reminds me of past arguments on DU

Like all the threads about how everyone on DU hated Paris Hilton with a burning hate equal to that of a Klan rally. I saw a lot more hating on the supposed haters than actual hate on Paris Hilton, just like now I'm seeing a lot more hating on Ahmedinejad lovers than actual love for Ahmedinejad.

That's the only other one I can specifically recall right now, but I know I remember more of this same basic pattern about stuff like the Snickers commercial, etc. - pick a very few posts, claim that's how all of DU feels, and start flame after flame about it with lots of "Well, I've seen it everywhere." claims but no back up. And if backing it up is against the rules, just don't start the thread in the first place and deal with the posts in the thread that they're posted in. Otherwise, people will assume that you are generalizing to all of DU and to anyone who posted that he had the right to speak and to lay a wreath and that we shouldn't invade Iran. For all we know from the OP, that's what you mean by giving him a pass or having a love-fest for him or whatever. It's not like most of DU has seen the couple of posts that you're basing this on. And so the circular arguments about "You're buying into the propaganda!" "Nuh-uh, I can froth with hate over the target of the current Two Minute Hate without wanting to invade his country." go on. It's always the same pattern, with both sides probably agreeing at heart but not listening to each other and generalizing about each other and and being way too defensive and getting all heated over nothing.

[DeepModem Mom]

136. You're so right. I don't know what OP some are replying to.

I posted only about reaction on DU to a man with his views. I support the visit, the speaking, the right to travel anywhere. I adamantly oppose bombing, or going to war with, Iran.

[MedleyMisty]

165. Remembered another specific incident - Imus

Remember, everyone equating boycotts with fascism and saying that anyone who didn't have a problem with the boycott wanted to take away free speech? Will Pitt even posted a diatribe against supposed bogeymen who wanted to get rid of the First Amendment, although I think he apologized for it later.

[DeepModem Mom]

138. I posted this thread hours and hours ago, in the immediate aftermath of the speech...

and at that time it seemed to me that some, or many, were being supportive of a man whose views are usually abhored here.

[varun]

130. many of these "descriptors" fit Bush

He is a fundamentalist, theocrat, anti gay...

Should he be banned from stepping in more secular countries such as Sweden and Denmark?

[DeepModem Mom]

134. Please, I said nothing about banning him. I support his visit, and his speaking --

and would have supported allowing him to go anywhere.

[Semper_FiFi]

133. Bravo! K&R

beautifully stated. The man is a pig in a cheap suit. I don't understand why people make excuses for him?

[Baby Snooks]

135. Unfortunately

Unfortunately his hateful rhetoric is such that were we to now attack Iran, quite a few Americans would support it.

The three faces of Evil. Bush, bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. The unholy trinity.

[provis99]

145. how does criticizing Bush mean we support Iranian kooks?

Because thats the underlying premise of your posting; its the same thing I see on FoxNews. Criticizing Bush means you support crazed Iranian leaders.

[DeepModem Mom]

147. No, no -- let me make myself clearer.

What I meant to say was that at the time I posted, just after the speech, DUers seemed to be embracing Ahmadinejad, and that seemed misplaced to me, given that we here usually abhor views like his. I thought that because Bush has declared Ahmadinejad an enemy, and all of us here oppose Bush (and criticize him, including myself!), that maybe some thought this enemy of Bush should be embraced by us as a friend. And I disagreed with that.

That's probably not any clearer -- sorry, provis99!

[HughMoran]

146. Really good point

"I'm a dinner jacket" is a hateful buffoon just like Bush, he's just 10x smarter, that's the only difference.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. This is a lot of fuss over nothing

Read the article in Monday's New York Times about how Ahmedjinedab is mostly a figurehead within Iran itself and the Iranians are puzzled as to why he's getting so much attention.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

149. I hate to be 43rd in line to do something, but I'm happy to give this another recommend

How could ANYONE defend this piece of crap?

[Usrename]

150. I would only ask one question.

Do you believe that it's wrong to bear false witness against thy neighbor?

I'm just wondering how you feel about such concepts or ideas. I honestly don't see how one can look into another's soul and see what kind of person they are.

I've seen young Iranians interviewed through certain outlets (like LinkTV) that say there is no open homosexuality in Iran. It seems to be a VERY REAL taboo there, AFAICT.

If you have some way of knowing things are different there, then please fill me in. As for all the other accusations, yeah, I've heard them all before, too. I'm just not so easily convinced that this description is accurate.

A whole lot of scholars that are fluent in English and Farsi make a pretty good argument that he's getting a bad rap from the propaganda experts in the west. I'll choose to believe almost anyone else's version before I blindly buy into Bush's version, thank you.

[DeepModem Mom]

151. I appreciate your question. I watched Ahmadinejad today...

and didn't really hear anything to convince me that the general understanding of his views is incorrect. I watched Keith Olbermann's segment on the speech, and there was no indication from him or guests that there was misunderstanding of Ahmadinejad's views. If anyone has more, or conflicting, information, I'd certainly take a look at it, however.

And I'm sure that those who want war with Iran would like to stir up as much animosity toward Iran as possible. While I wouldn't want to encourage Cheney's warmongering, neither do I want to embrace, or make excuses for, someone whose views I abhor.

[humbled_opinion]

175. Ahmadinejad said Blah, Blah, Blah...

His Holocaust Rhetoric is pretty scary... more or less he said it deserves views from different perspectives? i.e., how many perspectives of genocide are there?

His Freedom Rhetoric was all about how science and technology are the right of all nations...(no argument there as long as your use is peaceful).

But the coupe de grace was that Iran is a country of "Don't ask Don't tell and I never did here him deny that if you were gay and found out about would you be murdered... SCARY STUFF

[Usrename]

198. You are probably right about this.

It's much more important, when we denounce someone, to be sure about how others feel about him than to know what is in that person's heart.

I also watched and listened, and I heard nothing that convinces me that any of those charges are true. The anti-Semitic charge is perhaps the most troubling in my mind because all I heard him say (more than once) about the Jews was that there are many places, including Iran, where people of different faiths (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) live side by side in perfect harmony.

Would an anti-Semite really say that? None of the real anti-Semites that I have ever known would ever say such a thing. So that particular charge seems disproved to me, especially since I have a total lack of any positive proof.

But you are still probably right. It's more important, nowadays, to know what most other people think and say about him, than it is to know anything about what he thinks or says.

[JDPriestly]

153. I've heard about it, but haven't heard or seen any of the actual talk and questioning.

He is an intolerant hateful demagogue.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

154. Waitaminute...

He's not a saint fer sure, not arguing, his halocaust denial and antisemitic, antigay rhetoric are repellent, but theres' a few important points that are notably (and deliberately) absent in all the media hulabaloo surrounding Iran.

First if we want to talk about radical violent theocratic dictatorships we should be talking about Saudi Arabia, bush's pals. They make Iran look progressive and moderate by comparison.

Secondly, he's president, but not president like we think of it, the council of Ayatollahs really rule the country, he doesn't have that much official power.

While antisemitism is disgusting, the Israeli govt. has repeatedly invaded it's neighbors, holds and tortures 1000's of prisoners, has committed repeated human rights violations, and is strangling the palestinian refugees to death by demolishing they're homes, cutting off they're water supplies, shelling in civilian areas, oh, and they have a nuclear arsenal. Of dangerous, violent regimes in the middle east I'd say Israel takes the cake, that they've been a US client state for so long is why this is so underreported in the west.

Iran has made at least four attempts to have diplomatic talks with the Bush administration, all off which have been rebuffed, no surprise, he's talking to the wrong administration for peace.

Also, any hostility Iran MIGHT feel towards the US is counterbalanced by the fact that the CIA overthrew they're govt. in the 1950's and replaced it with a brutal us client dictatorship that shot and tortured thousands. What bothers me is the arrogance of the American press acting incredulous that Iranians would have any greivances with us, this is widely documented, it's not like they don't know, it's just part of our history that the powers that be don't want us talking about.

And lastly, Iran is POSSIBLY in the process of creating, take a deep breath everybody,...ONE nuclear warhead! We have thousands, enough to destroy the human race. Moreover, the idea that Iran would use such a device is REDICULOUS,but despite official doctrine US policy promotes nuclear proliferation by ignoring non-nuclear states, AND by VETOING non-proliferation agreements that would make us all safer. The real danger is in the white house and the pentagon.

[Fading Captain]

156. Uh, he's not our problem.

He's Iran's problem.

He's no hero. Just like Saddam was no hero.

They shouldn't be viewed as great leaders or great men.

They should be viewed as the backward thinking pigs they are/were.

Still, I do not feel comfortable with joining the attack chorus because I know what the next verse is.

[6000eliot]

157. A lot of what you're saying here also applies to Bush, you know.

He and his fundamentalist supporters would sure LIKE to be able to say there are no gays in this country. Hell, half of them can't acknowledge THEY are gay, apparently. He's no friend of mine, but then neither are our leaders.

[Gravel2008]

158. Proud to give you recommendation #50!

Anyone who supports this asshole ever so slightly is pure SCUM in my book.

[Swamp Rat]

160. Osama Bin Robertson?

:D

[CJCRANE]

166. Some very good comments

from new DUers on this thread about the hypocrisy of focussing on Ahmedinajad but ignoring similar or worse statements or policies by our "allies".

[sinkingfeeling]

170. I hope that you will take the time to read this ...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadin...

[DeepModem Mom]

174. There 's a problem with the link, sinkingfeeling. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

181. Try this one..

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/index.html

[DeepModem Mom]

187. Thank you! I couldn't agree more that the hawks are using Ahmadinejad to ratchet up...

their apparent movement toward war with Iran. My post was not about this. My post was limited to a perception at the time of posting right after the speech that posts on the board were out of character for DU. I know many here are angry about my post, and to be involved in such divisiveness is unusual and out of character for me. It's been really unsettling.

I appreciate Cole's informative defense of Ahmadinejad, but I stand by my original posting that the response to him here is not in keeping with the response usually given to anyone with views approaching his.

[BlueJac]

171. Bomb them all to hell!!

Do you feel better now!!!!



Just think people!

[DeepModem Mom]

173. There is absolutely nothing in my OP that indicates I advocate bombing of any kind....

and, of course, I do not! The post yesterday was about DU.

[onenote]

207. Ignore human rights abuses!!

Do you feel better now?

[sojourner]

179. Frankly, he's only one among many "demons" the bush government would have us hate.

That way we can go attack their government and bring them down like we did evil old Saddam. I don't care about this guy any more than I did Saddam. I am just sick to death of being manipulated by a bloodthirsty regime intent on owning all the oil beneath somebody else's soil.

[onenote]

208. You may choose not to care about someone who commits human rights abuses

others of us choose to care.

That doesn't mean that by criticizing him and shining a light on his abuses that I'm advocating or supporting military action by the US any more than by criticizing the regime in Mynamar I'm advocating military action there.

[sojourner]

209. that's a good clarification. feels like many are falling into a trap about

the "evil-doers" and some divine right of the US to punish and wipe them out.

using your definition of "care" -- naturally i care about those whom they cause to suffer -- however i would prefer to focus on what might help bring about change than to spend my time demonizing one despot over another.

[blindpig]

180. Yes! And don't forget the babies thrown out of incubators....

Oh wait....

And please spare me the denial of war mongering, same old shit, different day.

[DeepModem Mom]

185. If you're saying I would support war with Iran, you would be mistaken. nt

[blindpig]

194. Well OK......

but why then the hyper-inflamatory subject line? How is that different from the propaganda we've heard in the run up to our most recent adventures in imperialism?

[DeepModem Mom]

195. I posted at a time yesterday, right after the speech, when there were threads all over the place...

about it. My interest, as said, was in what was to me an uncharacteristic response here. Most of the thread subject lines expressing what I was feeling seemed unclear. I wanted to be clear in expressing my own feeling, and to provide an opportunity for others to do the same if they wished.

Posting, and even posting IN, a thread that's turned out to be so "hot" isn't characteristic of my participation here. It's been unsettling to me, especially when all kinds of things have been read into the thread that are just not there.

Thanks for giving me a chance to respond.

[blindpig]

200. Yet

there was a good amount of similar sentiment going on around here at the beginning of the most recent attack on the Middle East."Saddam is a bad man, it would be best if we take him out." That sort of thing. Be assured, many of the unsavory characteristics which you ascribe to that nattily dressed fellow will repeated many times as the drum beat of war reaches it's crescendo. Willing or not, you are aiding and abetting.

[youthere]

182. PRECISELY!

Ahmedinejad gets no pass from me.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

183. You forgot "Director of Apocalypto"

And you're right. This guy is no friend of democracy or decency -- which does not mean that we should invade his country any more than we should break into Dick Cheney's garage.

[smiley_glad_hands]

186. It would be much easier to dislike them

if our own country wasn't run by religious fanatics also. I do know this: The Iranian government is an enemy to the people of the USA. They are religious fanatics and the American people are much more liberal than they are.

[Lerkfish]

188. a lot of us are trying to look at the larger issue.

and that issue is that we're being spoon-fed hatred of the Iranian president in order to make us feel more comfortable when Cheney preemptively bombs their country.

One should be examining the spoon feeding itself, as well as what is in the spoon.

I guess I have a longer memory than most: I recall how Iran USED to be a stable democracy, and how US destabilized it and installed the puppet Shah in order to control the oil for US oil companies. By all accounts, the Shah was as ruthless to his people as Saddam, be he was OUR pet dictator.

I do not defend bad leaders, but I also do not swallow whole blatantly obvious black propaganda.

Don't forget, Ari FLiescher has been given millions to influence public opinion for invading Iran.

Your post is proof its working.

Try upping your bullshit threshold and start thinking critically.

[DeepModem Mom]

190. I am capable of critical thinking and looking at a larger issue. I understand...

what you're saying, and agree with you. In my OP, I was making a limited observation about reaction on DU after the speech; it seemed out of character to me. I did not publish the OP, or even enter it into my Journal, which is read by non-DUers I know. Despite all sorts of insults, I stand by the post.

[onehandle]

189. There are certain figures that make us look bad by any association whatsoever.

He is one of them.

This is when we truly appear to be the "looney left."

[Lerkfish]

191. I resent the implication

If you are incapable of looking at the larger picture, you open yourself up to easy manipulation by the propaganda.

Because I'm wary of WHY I'm being pushed to demonize Iran NOW, I'm looking past the details of the leader and asking what they are wanting to accomplish by demonizing him?

they want us to fell ok with ourselves when Cheney launches a preemptive attack against Iran.

period.

Its not like those in power really care about gay rights, antisemitism or fundamentalism. If they did, there are much better targets, Most of them our allies in the region.

If you buy into this propaganda wave, then you should not be calling the left looney. You're proving yourself dangerously gullible.

[mzteris]

192. while this is all true

I think this whole Iran thing was a deliberate attempt to "whip up the masses into a frenzy" - on BOTH sides.

And I think we're all playing right into bushco's rovian plans.

[ironflange]

197. You forgot Olive Garden patron

Why do you think he came to New York in the first place?

[BeliQueen]

199. Don't like him.....

Just don't want us to go to war with him.

I think that's the major concern for most people who are "supporting" him.

Plus, I did like his interview on 60 Minutes--the little bit that I caught.

Still think he should be ousted, but again, don't want to go to war with him.

[liberalsoldier5]

201. Excellent thread!

Thanks for speaking the truth! :patriot: