Ok, there is one guy I hate more than any Republican and his name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - President of Iran.
Today at his speech at Columbia University he not only questioned the truth of the holocaust, which is one of the most documented and researched events in history, he also denied that homosexuals exist in Iran. Of course, the audience burst into laughter at such an idiotic statement...to which he said: "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."
Honey, there are plenty of queers in Iran, they're just married to women and sucking dick on the side. Hmmm...I think that still makes them homosexual.
He also questioned if Muslims were involved in 9/11, and he hemmed and hawed about his previous statements about wanting Israel wiped off the map.
Yes, we are dealing with a madman. I worry about a nuclear Iran and I fully support whatever methods it takes to disarm them.
Am I a war monger? In this case yes. I mean, you only have to watch the wonderful PBS series airing right now called "The War" to see what happens when madmen are left unchecked.
4 comments:
I agree with MOST of what you said, mm.
Ahmadinejad's comments were indeed ridiculous, and his statement concerning a lack of homosexuals in Iran only exemplifies the difference between our two countries: In America, you're free to be yourself (in theory), but in Iran you're likely to get your head lopped off in a state-sactioned execution.
But let's hold off on the war mongering. For starters, this putz is purely a figurehead, and anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand middle eastern politics. The Supreme Council and the Ayatollah are running the show, as they have been for decades, and they've shown no signs of being anywhere near capable of building nuclear weaponry.
Also, both the United States and Iran have similiar interests, and both have reasons to be supicious of the other. That's extactly why we need to sit down and put it all on both sides of the table.
I don't believe that Iran wants an all-out war with America because there's no doubt we'd be hurt badly in that war, but they'd be smashed and ruined.
But both our countries have common interests. Neither of us wants the taliban back. Neither of us wants the Sunni Ba'atist dictatorship back. Neither of us wants an all-out war.
Anyone (or country) that spews such hate and ignorance indeed needs to be watched. Let's show the world we mean business and work on economic sactions and diplomatic measures to isolate these nuts and bring opportunities to their (mostly) pro-Western civilians. If we invade, we're falling directly into Ahmadinejad's plans, as we did Bin Laden's when we invaded the middle east.
If Iran was indeed ready to point a nuke our way, then for certain we'd need to take them out. But for once, can we learn a lesson from our past and delay the use of our military until ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN PROVEN EXHAUSTIBLE???
How many more dead Americans are needed before we're able to finally prove this obvious point?
Well, you forgot one important aspect of this argument - religion...Iran is ruled by Islamic extremists who believe that dying for religion is a worthy and desired thing - and no diplomatic reasoning is ever going to change their mind. With that in mind, I would never want to chance an Islamic state such as Iran getting their hands on nuclear weapons. That sir, is a frightening thought.
As for learning from out past mistakes, all one needs to do is is to tune into PBS's amazing "The War" series - if America would have stopped Hitler at the start of his quest for world domination many millions of lives would have been spared.
Honey, I have slept with many an iranian (they are in general much hotter than other arabs) and trust me, lots and lots of gays there. He should be shot....remember that Iran was very progressive before he came into power......sharon
The majority of Persians have continually criticized Ahmadinejad for his oppositional and antagonistic behavior towards the west. Iran's economy is frought was countless problems, including a lack of economic growth that can't sustain its labor force, strong dependence on fuel imports, and substantial budget deficits.
I agree with you on the potency of religion, but you can't discount the country's high percentage of scholars and pro-West civilians. Plus, Iran is dependant on American allies like Germany, South Korea, France, Russia, Italy, and Japan for the bulk of their economic ties. With the right care, we could encourage other countries to engage in sactions and basically cripple Iran's already fragile ecomony. (similiar to what was happening in Iraq before we foolishly decided to crush it ourselves and sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in the process)
Yes, Iran harbors terrorists, but so does Pakinstan, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia. Yet, all the outrage is directed towards Iran. Makes you wonder, huh?
The only way the religious extremists would ever prosper in that country was if we were to destroy it, as we did Iraq, and let them run wild. And if we did indeed invade/bomb and kill countless civilians, Ahmadinejad would gain an incredible amount of support from the country, if not the entire region, in a sort of "I told you so" maneuver.
I don't want Iran to have nuclear capabilities anymore than you do, mm. But I think you are underestimating the practicality of the Supreme Council and overestimating the significance of Ahmadinejad.
However, despite my resolution to limit any sort of comparisons between what's happening now in the Middle East and what happened throughout WWII, there's a part of me that agrees with you in your vague comparison between Ahmadinejad and Hitler. Both have a sort of "baffoonish" quality we've seen before in meglomaniacs. Prior to WWII, a considerable number of Americans thought Hitler was a clown, likely due to his outrageous behavior and funny facial hair. Dare I say that we thought he was simply funny and unthreatening? Turned out he wasn't so funny afterall.
I'll shut up now.
Post a Comment