So…the substance of your complaint is more On’s contempt for Bush than regard for Mr. A.? I would remind you that it is a contempt shared by any number of people.
When you rewatch, listen for what Ahmadinejad said about the US providing Iran with nuclear materials, until “something” happened between the US and Israel, at which time the US stopped. (Obviously I got it wrong earlier.)
If Ahmadinejad’s background includes torture, why on earth wouldn’t Wallace ask him about that?
I didn’t open the thread to start a debate, although I’m finding it interesting. I just wanted to share my little epiphany, which is that since nobody can know what’s in anyone else’s mind, we can only judge people by what they do.
Sorry to hear that Ahmadinejad hasn’t lived up to his campaign promises after one year in office. What’s Bush done after five and one-half?
Still holding firm against animal-human hybrids! Oh, and we’re going to Mars.
Not that I like Ahmadinejad, but who’s done more damage ? Bush, easily. If anyone is a blight on the world, Bush is; Ahmadinejad is more of a local irritant. Not the the Nazi comparison is really fair either; Bush lacks the vision and drive to achieve that level of evil.
Ahmadinejad and Bush are both liars, imo. Anything that comes out of either of their mouths is strictly for effect. They both tend to say different things, or state things with wildly different spin according to what audience they are speaking to. I’m entirely too lazy to find you any cites, but based on various things I’ve read and heard, that’s my impression of them.
I will give two examples, though. I don’t think anybody honestly beleves that Bush is not pro-torture, pro-"we can do whatever we want, hehehe’. Neither do I think anybody believes that Iran is not out to build weapons, not just an energy program. Honestly? Does anyone? Just my two lousy cents.
It’s a contempt I feel more strongly than most people, so no, his contempt for Bush is not the problem for me. It’s not even a problem. The problem is that he’s playing nice with Ahmadinejad, who doesn’t deserve it in the slightest. The fact that he won’t give the same respect to Bush, who doesn’t deserve it but is guilty of many of the same crimes and personal defects, just makes it silly. Also, 'madi [got tired of typing all that] calls for the destruction of Israel and Bush gets compared to the Nazis? If that doesn’t earn some contempt, I don’t know what does.
I wouldn’t argue against that, although I think that capability is a big reason. Bush is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful army in the world and 'madz is the puppet head of a much, much less powerful country that’s just hoping to ward off Israel and increase its regional influence. If you let 'moud loose with the USA’s weapons, I think the results would be worse.
I agree, but this is because the Bush administration (and the media) keep telling us that the Mideast is a powderkeg of fundamentalist crazies who want to destroy the US and take over the world. Of course they want nukes, all Mideast countries want nukes. :rolleyes: or 
I sure as hell don’t know.
You have a point, but here’s another. The U.S. is not the only country that is rather concerned. I don’t think they are all in on Bush’s rhetoric, though I suppose it is possible.
Well, isn’t that true of bad/evil leaders in general ? I’m sure there have been and are many, many people as bad or worse than Hitler; it’s just that they never got the power to kill millions.
I think that if you are going to judge them, you should probably mention whether you are doing so on a purely moral/sanity basis, or on the basis of what damage they’ve actually managed to do. Otherwise, it’s easy to come up with arguments where two people are talking past each other because they are actually speaking of two different things.
Yes, it is. It’s why I generally don’t judge ‘evilness’ based on a leader’s body count.
Fair enough. I’d say it’s well-nigh indisputable that Bush has done worse things. On a moral/sanity basis, I have to say that Bush is better than Ahmadinejad, and I suppose that’s the core of what I’ve been arguing about in this thread.
So Bush has done worse things, but is a better person. You’re ethical matrix is too subtle for me.
Considering how tangential it is to the thread topic, I don’t really feel like re-explaining it (I thought I already did) unless you have an actual question.
Back to what you were saying to me, though: the problem isn’t that Onomatopoeia criticized Bush, it’s that he keeps softpedalling things with Ahmadinejad. Does that make sense?
I can’t believe you’re so surprised. Ono is just joining Der Trihs waving an I Hate Bush and America is Evil banner. Luci has stooped to help them carry it. Just another day at SDMB.
Fuck the three of 'em. I suggest you leave them to pat each other on the back and jerk off as they chant Amadman-jihad’s name.
Will singing “Kumbaya” work just as well?
cough While I agree with you there’s been some pretty knee-jerk responses, do you not think “Amadman-jihad” is pretty ironic?
:rolleyes: Did I say I approved of him in any way ? No. Do you have any rational reason to think that a militant atheist like myself would be fond of the head of a theocratic state ? No you don’t. Stop trying to use me in your persecution fantasies.
The man has a blog.
Swear to Og.
Personably, I figure he’s both smarter and crazier than Bush; the former’s not tough, I’ll admit, but the latter is a somewhat higher hurdle, and makes me nervous at night.
And yes, he’s a Holocaust denying scumsucker, who’d easily incinerate Israel given half a chance. Which is what I mean when I say he’s crazier. It also means he’s not even on the same moral plane as Bush.
Bush is stupid, careless, and an ideologue. Ahmedinijad is smart, careful, and a far, far more vile ideologue.
Or, to put it another way, the only thing worse than Bush having his finger on the button, is Cheney. Worse than both is this genocidal nutball with his finger on a nuclear button.
Pass me the freakin’ bong. I need a hit.
Moderator’s Warning: No personal insults or “flaming” outside the Pit. That also goes for speculations about other poster’s alleged sexual habits.
What’s the problem? I was suggesting we give them some privacy so they could enjoy themselves without distraction. I thought it was the polite thing to do.
Only kidding. I actually forgot I was in GD. My apologies to all. Seriously. I am a fan of keeping GD GP.
Pfft. I thought the same thing watching the edited version, but today they showed the whole interview unedited on cspan and that completely changed my mind. It was an hour long and I caught most of it. Mike Wallace was totally respectful for most of the interview and Ahmadinejad deserved Wallace’s criticism for not answering questions. He rambled quite a lot, and tended to answer very direct questions with unrelated speeches. His complaint at one point that Mike Wallace asked him a three minute question (he didn’t) and then refused to let him answer was frankly laughable after watching the whole interview.
Whoever edited this for 60 Minutes did Iran a big favor and Mike Wallace none. It makes me wonder about rumors that CBS is trying to dump Wallace. But I do know that if Wallace had any say in the editing he deserves credit for not worrying how he looks and being very generous to Ahmadinejad. (Although it may also be that Wallace was afraid to look too respectful to him). In any event Wallace ends up looking like he’s not giving Ahmadinejad a chance to answer, when in fact he’s only asking him to get to the point after patiently listening for almost an hour.
I’m not saying that Ahmadinejad didn’t make his share of points and touchees, but the edited interview basically excerpted his best moments leaving the dreck (most of it) behind. Nor was it a shining example of interviewing technique on Wallace’s part. He seemed occasionally lost and mostly unable to effectively call Ahmadinejad on his propaganda. I’d attribute it to his age, but Wallace has never been an agile debater on the level of a Ted Koppel or Chris Matthews, and these are not simple issues.
And for God’s sake, don’t fret about Ahmadinejad’s impression of Americans. This guy’s a battle hardened politican trying to look like a benevolent misunderstood innocent to the American public. I guarantee you whatever impression he has of America is already fully-formed. Given his politics I’m pretty sure it includes the word “satanic” somewhere in there. He’s not giving this interview because he loves America and wants to make peace with us. He’s giving it because he knows that Bush’s support is eroding and he wants to do whatever he can to undermine it further. It’s exactly the same strategy that some people wanted to use on the Iranian population when they heard that they were turning against the Mullahs.