No, it’s comments like this:
that make people question your sanity.
I’ve already asked in this thread, and now i’ll ask again: Who, exactly, has defended the Iranian President’s comments, or said that the destruction of Israel is OK?
And Israel gives 244 million hits. So about 1% of the population can’t spell Israel.
Besides, the top “isreal” sites on google were about how Israel wasn’t spelled “Isreal”.
(and thanks to the friendly mod code fixer!)
For pete’s sake, duffer, get the fucking chip off your shoulder! You somehow think that viewing the situation in terms of realpolitik is defending Ahmadinejad. You are wrong.
What did you want in this thread? A chorus of, “Yes, let’s nuke Teheran tonight!”
No one said its ok but a fundamentalist Islamic country calling for the destruction of Israel is simply just not news. It happens all the time and there just isn’t anything left to discuss about it. Iran knows that Israel has nukes, a better army and the support of the international community. There is no chance that Iran will invade. These statements are just idle threats by a leader pandering to his base. No different from Castro talking about overthrowing the U.S.
oh come on, talking points #3 clearly states that if liberals hear an obviously idiotic statement from a lunatic and fail to immediately call for them being invaded, that is exactly the same as supporting the statement. gosh, you’d think you’d have realized this by now.
I meant “Saudi King” of course.
What **mhendo ** said.
And some other comments:
Well, people like you disregarded the opinion that invading Iraq was going to make the situation in the ME worse. Bush said essentially that when we took iraq and [del]prevented the WMD from reaching Osama or sent to the US[/del] make it a democratic paradise, that it was going to pacify the ME, who was correct?
I do think that bastard head of state needs a lesson, but I am infuriated that we are mired in Iraq right now.
None.
I take it you are not good at golf. I have a couple of questions for you.
Does Israel do no wrong?
We, as a country, are going broke. Should we continue giving Israel billions of dollars a year?
What do you think Israel does with the money we give them?
Lonesome
By what army? There is zero chance of the US invading Iran or anyone else, the US army is just about tapped out now, not to mention the defense budget and the willingness of most Americans to support any more military adventurism. Quit writing checks you can’t cash, you windbag.
Incidentally, there is already a thread on this subject in GD: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341588.
So duffer can’t claim that dopers were ignoring this issue. (Sure, the other thread was started by Rune, another SDMB conservative, but both liberals and conservatives are currently discussing the issue there.)
As for Iran’s president’s comments, I liked Neurotik’s comments in the other thread (see here). Let’s face it, Iran’s position for many years has been the destruction of Israel. These comments do not bring anything new to the situation. Their only function is in terms of Iranian interior politics. I’d be really surprised if Iran tried to attack Israel or any other Western country; even though some people in their government are very ideological, others are pragmatic and know they don’t stand a chance. Will Israel or the US attack Iran? And should they? Well, I didn’t study this issue, so I won’t say anything to this.
I’m teaching a class this term, and the teacher for the other section, with whom I’m preparing my course material such as assignments and tests, is Iranian. Are you saying he secretly wants to kill me? Oh, I see, you mean their government. Well, read my comments earlier: they bark a lot, but I don’t think they bite. Sure, maybe I’m naïve.
Are you completely fucking insane? Do you always open threads and see messages posted that don’t really exist anywhere except in your imagination?
Or maybe I missed all the posts by noted SDMB leftists about how it’s okay for Iran to advocate the annihilation of Israel. I’d better re-read this thread.
No, I was right. They aren’t there. You’re a lunatic.
Roughly 49%…
Just time it after they murder another 50 hindus in India.
You know, duffer, if Iran was a country the administration was supporting financially or politically, the outrage and criticism of its policies and ambitions would inflame these pages. It’s only when the U.S. can be criticized accordingly that other countries’ wrong-doing tends to incite outrage here. Other than that…hey, it’s a foreign culture. Who are we to interfere?
I’ve always been wondered why it is that liberal concern for human rights seems to evaporate at the country’s border. Treat a woman badly here, or kill her because of some religious motive, and the screeching could be heard (and rightfully so, I might add) for miles; let it happen elsewhere in the world, and…eh, so what?..who are we to interfere with another culture?
I don’t think I’ll earn many friends… but I tend to agree with this.
The US could waltz into Iran with a few mechanized brigades and flatten Tehran if Bush gave the order. The USAF could do it much quicker while virtually exterminating any air units Iran cared to bring out of a hole. They could most likely start and finish before you hear about it on the 6 o’clock news. Don’t let the sensationalist news confuse you on the capablities of the US armed forces. The current situation in Iraq has nothing to do with those capabilities. The job we are making them do now is impossible since the subjugation of an entire country by an army has never been done without the ability to use the force they are trained to use. If anything, the war has highlighted just how awesome the military might of the US is. Experts are stunned about how masterful the invasion was.
If we invade another country ever again with the intention of rebuilding it, then we are fucking idiots. It’s a new phenomenon as far as I know. Even when the North beat the South, it was to force their will on an entire population, and the way we treated our own people would make Guantanimo look like a trip to Kiddieland.
The only problem the military has is that we pusses at home have lost the balls to either take what we won or at least walk away. Instead of rewarding them with a jobe very well done, we put them in an impossible situation and ridicule them every chance we get.
In a way it could be a good thing. It could be signs that the world isn’t as bloodthirsty as it used to be. It could be that the world is tired of strong armies an wars. Unfortunately, anyone who has a clue about history would have to be deliberately obtuse to think that. If someone can’t realise that the capabilities of the US military and her allies hasn’t stopped myriads of untold wars and conflicts than it has ever started,then they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Iran wouldn’t be the walkover Iraq was. It’s bigger, and isn’t crippled by years of sanctions and inspections. Also, what experts are you talking about ? Given how weak Iraq was, winning was hardly that impressive. Are you impressed when a pit bull defeats a starved three legged kitten ?
It’s one of the more common forms of warfare; conquerers do usually want to extract value from what they conquer.
So what’s you’re recommendation ? More torture, napalm, cluster bombs, child rape and general slaughter ? That will make everything better; all we need to do is act even more like barbarians ?
That’s highly debatable.
No. America needs to learn from its experiences in Iraq and Vietnam and the British experience in Malaysia that it cannot successfully occupy a country without taking extreme measures. With Iraq, we should have left after bagging Saddam. With Iran openly on the road to WMD…
Such outrage would be much deserved. The United States is, after all, supposed to be a beacon for democracy and human rights. I know I would (and do) have a problem with my country supporting any nation with a poor human rights record.
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that most posters here are from the United States or nations with similar rights values. Human rights violations with the support of the United States would, I think, tend to be of greater interest around this corner of the 'net. Your knee-jerk reaction to defend the United States from any criticism, real or imaginary, is unnecessary.
Your blinders are on and it’s showing.
I have not known the “liberal concern” for human rights to be on a country-by-country basis. In fact, liberals are generally the ones leading the charge when it comes to the advocating of human rights on the international stage. Most conservatives I know seem generally unconcerned by such matters.
The fact is, it’s simply a matter of how a given nation can be expected to act. Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc violating human rights is not a surprise in any sense of the word. It’s too bad those things happen, but it’s honestly not news. Such violations occuring in the United States, Britain, Canada, etc… well, that would be a surprise. These countries aren’t known for such things – at least they aren’t supposed to be. If it happens in my back yard, it’s a bigger deal to me, and hopefully the rest of my fellow citizens. It has the potential to impact me that much more. This does not – I repeat not – make it “OK” for such violations to occur in foreign nations. It’s bad all the same, but I live in the United States, and not Iran.
Ever hear of Amnesty International? I’m sure you have. I’m also sure you’d describe them as a “liberal” organization. Their criticism of human rights violations is not bound by any borders. They, and other such organizations, criticize the United States just the same as they would Iran or North Korea. I’d even be willing to concede they critize the United States more harshly than the latter nations. Why? The United States is supposed to be setting the standard, after all.
By the way, human rights should not be a merely “liberal concern.” It’s a human concern. A general disinterest in reactionary statements from an ultra-conservative fundamentalist leader in Iran is not to be construed as passive support for such sentiments by the posters on this board. You and duffer trying to glean some sort of liberal, anti-US reaction out of hypotheticals is disingenuous. You playing politics with this concept is rather disgusting.
This leftist is outraged at the comments coming from Tehran. I like Israel as much as anyone, it is and will very likely be the only true democracy in the region. Should Israel need assistance in their next defensive war, I have no problem giving it to them. That being said, we need to weigh the Iranian statements vs the fact that at present, Iran does not have the capability to make good on their bluster. Should the Iranians start getting closer to having nukes, I have no problem with air strikes to eliminate this capability.
So we can get all hot and bothered and start rattling sabers, or we can look at the situation relative to its significance. We need to recognize that callng for the destruction of Israel is a popular political tool in this part of the world and that making empty threats isn’t a call to war. If an Iranian finds himself in need of a popularity boost, Israel is a convenient whipping boy for the purpose. Similarly, when Bush finds himself in need of a boost, he mentions 9/11. Politicians say what they say because they know it works.
The argument that I have the most problem with is this:
I must indulge in my pet spelling nitpick: the apostrophe in the last sentence is incorrect, as was its incorrect use in “it’s” elsewhere.
Beyond the grammar, we’re back at the curious reverence for a piece of cloth. Burning an American flag is a political statement, whether done in the US or in other nations. Rather than go into hysterics about a piece of cloth, the right wing demagogues would be better served to debate the issues that led to the flag burning. Spare me the platitudes about the wonderful things the flag represents- at present it stands for a nation that invaded another nation without provocation and that officially condones the use of torture. Burning a flag in protest of this fact is not indefensible.
Actually, I do think Amnesty International went off the deep end a few years back, although I do not consider it a good thing. For quite some time there, they spent a an awful long time decrying various abuses which the US hadn’t done but could have done, or might be thinking about doing, or just plain wouldn’t want to do. And sometimes they randomly pulled new human rights from out of their arses to wave around. (IIRC, at one point they were saying it would be a humanitarian catastrophe to blow up television transmitters. I still don’t get that one.)
And they did not, generally, waste any breath on Saddam’s regime. Of course, Saddam would not have cared, but bringing to light the abuses suffered and continued up till his overthrow would have meant a lot. I’ll contrast them with the ACLU. I disagree with some (not all) of the ACLU’s stances, but I give them this: they stuck to their principles about the Neo-Nazi/Free Speech case.
Such is life. Even considering the occaisional scandal, however, the conduct of our soldiers was exemplary. Perhaps the AI will still be useful.
“Sir! It’s done! Iran is bombed!”
“How are things down there?”
“It’s awful, sir! Turkey and Bacon all over the place, mustard flying everywhere! And Southern iran is blanketed by a mass lettuce field now.”
