first, he is the victim of a smear campaign. where is the evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes?
second, what did he lie about? he might be wrong about A LOT, but how did he contradict himself? the guy has outrageous opinions. and i bring bush into the equation because you need to put things in perspective. i mean, there are a ton of educated people out there who would think bush denying evolution is on par if not worse than Ahmadinejad saying "we don't have gays in Iran like in the US".
I heard that Bush is going to start executing everyone who doesn't believe in Creationism.
That way when he is asked about it, he can say..."We don't have any Evolutionists in the U.S."
Do you think that MAYBE stating that Iran doesn't have any gay people is a LIE???
Ahmadinejad isn't the one deciding that gays should be executed. He has no say, talk to the Ayatollah. Gays would be treated the same if some other shmo was in office. On the other hand, Bush has a lot to do with the unconstitutional laws that have been passed and the right wing, civil-right depriving judges that have been appointed.
You asked how the dude lied.
Is he so stupid he doesn't realize there are gay people in his country and that they are being executed???
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
How do you "confront" someone with Nuclear Energy???
"You better watch out, this light bulb is getting really really hot"
Is he so stupid he doesn't realize there are gay people in his country and that they are being executed???
Iranian Law does not recognize the concept of sexual orientation. From a legal point of view, gays cannot exist. BTW, capital punishment is a possible penalty for homosexuality in Iran, not the norm.
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
1. I could direct you to some such reports, but it's unlikely you'd be swayed. the only intelligence services that are really paying attention to these threats you would no doubt distrust on this issue anyway (US, Israeli, British, Saudi).
2. "already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them" is not really the point. once the Iranians have the organic, independent means to produce such weapons without outside assistance (even if that means 5-10 years before actually attaining them), then the threat can no longer be averted.
3. while you may not be threatened by Iranian nukes (I presume you are in the US like me), try to place yourselves in the shoes of those that are directly affected by such a threat. for millions of people this Iranian nuke thing is not just another hysterical Bush war-mongering talking point. it's rather a very real, increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood.
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
Or most people believe that is the GOAL. Which, anyone with a modicum of sense, would have to believe is true.
Is he so stupid he doesn't realize there are gay people in his country and that they are being executed???
Iranian Law does not recognize the concept of sexual orientation. From a legal point of view, gays cannot exist. BTW, capital punishment is a possible penalty for homosexuality in Iran, not the norm.
Do us a favor and please write down a list of people who shouldn't be invited to speak in public forums in America so that future institutions may avoid the controversy of inviting the "wrong" speaker or, god forbid, someone who doesn't deserve the "right" to speak when invited.
Oh, and please try to make your list free of ideological biases.
What you're advocating for is little different from McCarthyism.
(I don't actually believe this but my point is that one should avoid incongruous comparisons).
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
And you just compared Ahmadinejad to PW Botha (at the height of apartheid, no less).
You're not really in a position to pull cards.
Um Dub, you don't think Ahmadinejad is comparable to Botha? I mean just in terms of moral depravity. Yes Apartheid south africa is different than Islamic Republic of Iran, but listen to Iranian dissidents like Akbar Ganji. I would argue there is a gender apartheid in Iran, insofar as women are considered one half a man's testimony in court and that women can't really own property. And also both monstrous regimes practices similar tactics of repression. Kurds in 2005 after A-jad's ascendancy were crushed with 24 hour curfews, dissapearings, the whole lot. Also, the conditions of Evin prison and the other torture rooms in Iran are comparable to South Africa. I sometimes think that the left gives Ahmadienjad a pass because he too is against zionism, and now he too is against Bush. That's letting your adversaries do your thinking for you.
Something I find very interesting is the reaction of the Iranian voters after Bush included Iran in the "Axis of Evil". To hell with the reformist powers that were growing stronger and stronger at the time - to keep the fear going, he needed to paint the picture of a strong enemy. Only trouble is, he actually managed to create one too.
Saying that, while paraphrasing Robert Fisk, I really don't think Iran should be our main worry when it comes to nuclear weapons right now. Pakistan already has them. Sure, Musharraf is an ally of the US, but a man of the Pakistani people he is not. What will happen when he goes?
What are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's stance on homosexuality btw? I'm not in any way condoning or excusing Iran's stance, but please be fair and include those two dear American allies in the comparison.
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
1. I could direct you to some such reports, but it's unlikely you'd be swayed. the only intelligence services that are really paying attention to these threats you would no doubt distrust on this issue anyway (US, Israeli, British, Saudi).
2. "already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them" is not really the point. once the Iranians have the organic, independent means to produce such weapons without outside assistance (even if that means 5-10 years before actually attaining them), then the threat can no longer be averted.
3. while you may not be threatened by Iranian nukes (I presume you are in the US like me), try to place yourselves in the shoes of those that are directly affected by such a threat. for millions of people this Iranian nuke thing is not just another hysterical Bush war-mongering talking point. it's rather a very real, increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood.
1. Intelligence, whether ours or another country's, has been notoriously bad over the last four decades. The Downing Street Memo, Israel's insistence that Iraq had WMD's, our roles in Chile and Guatemala, advisors in Vietnam: Western countries have a terrible track record getting to the bottom of things at the necessary pace in societies outside of ours.
2. I think it makes sense to use the IAEA to get a better handle on what they do/don't have before drawing real conclusions. If Iran becomes unwilling (or remains unwilling) to consent to inspections, then the issue will firm up a bit. But until then, speculation without evidence doesn't help in addressing the issue.
3. This isn't much more than scaremongering, a clear case of "I know something everyone else doesn't", when the evidence suggests the opposite. The fact that you acknowledge Bush's prior (and present) habits of beating the war drum detracts from the rest of your argument. Iraq was once "a very real [and] increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood", but one would be hard pressed to assert that today.
they were never thrilled with Saddam (who bombed their population centers in teh Gulf War), but the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
3. This isn't much more than scaremongering, a clear case of "I know something everyone else doesn't", when the evidence suggests the opposite. The fact that you acknowledge Bush's prior (and present) habits of beating the war drum detracts from the rest of your argument. Iraq was once "a very real [and] increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood", but one would be hard pressed to assert that today.
like I said the issue is very academic for us over here in the US. not so for the residents of the Middle East who actually have to deal with this threat. and I don't see how my acknowledgement of Bush's past exagerrations does ANYTHING to weaken my argument that Iran is threat to her neighbors. you're employing false logic.
2. If Iran becomes unwilling (or remains unwilling) to consent to inspections, then the issue will firm up a bit[/b] . But until then, speculation without evidence doesn't help in addressing the issue.
drum roll please....
IRAN PRESIDENT VOWS TO IGNORE U.N. MEASURES By WARREN HOGE September 26, 2007
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 ??? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, said Tuesday that he considered the dispute over his country???s nuclear program ???closed??? and that Iran would disregard the resolutions of the Security Council, which he said was dominated by ???arrogant powers.???[/b]
In a rambling and defiant 40-minute speech to the opening session of the General Assembly, he said Iran would henceforth consider the nuclear issue not a ???political??? one for the Security Council, but a ???technical??? one to be decided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations??? nuclear watchdog.
Mr. Ahmadinejad???s assertion that the matter belonged with the nuclear agency indicated his preference to work with Mohamed ElBaradei, its director.
Dr. ElBaradei has been at odds with Washington, and some European powers, who have accused him of meddling in the diplomacy by seeking separate accords with Iran, and in their eyes undercutting the Security Council resolutions.
???Today because of the resistance of the Iranian nation, the issue is back to the agency, and I officially announce that in our opinion, the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed and has turned into an ordinary agency matter,??? Mr. Ahmadinejad said.
A senior Bush administration official said after the address that the only person who thought that the issue is closed was Mr. Ahmadinejad.
As the Iranian president moved to speak, the United States delegation left, leaving only a note-taker to listen to the speech, which occurred just hours after President Bush had spoken from the same podium about the need for nations to live up to the rights guaranteed by the United Nations.
In a barely disguised barb, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted, ???Unfortunately human rights are being extensively violated by certain powers, especially by those who pretend to be their exclusive advocates.???
Mr. Ahmadinejad???s declaration that the nuclear issue is closed comes just as the Bush administration is seeking to turn up the pressure on the country, both through the United Nations Security Council and in concert with European powers.
???In the last two years,??? the Iranian president said, ???abusing the Security Council, the arrogant powers have repeatedly accused Iran and even made military threats and imposed illegal sanctions against it.???
In recent weeks, American and French officials have described an emerging strategy of broadening the number of banks, mostly in Europe, that have refused to lend new capital to Iran, making it difficult for the country to invest in new oil facilities or other infrastructure.
???We want more banks, and now suppliers, to assess the risk??? of dealing with Iran, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush???s national security adviser, said in a meeting on Tuesday with editors and reporters of The New York Times.
The issue now, he said, is ???at what point the regime, or elements of the regime, say ???this policy is taking us into a ditch.??????
Only last month, Iran???s leaders reached an agreement with Dr. ElBaradei to answer questions that nuclear inspectors have been raising for years about possible connections between Iran???s nuclear program and military projects. Inspectors are in Iran this week, seeking further answers to questions that Iran has so far refused to discuss.
But even if Iran answers all the outstanding questions it could still be in violation of the Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions call on the country to cease enriching uranium.
The enrichment has continued, though not yet on a scale large enough to produce a bomb???s worth of material in the near future. Mr. Hadley refused to speculate on how much time the United States and its allies had to stop the program before Iran had enough material to manufacture a weapon.
As he has in the past, Mr. Ahmadinejad argued that Iran???s nuclear program was solely for civilian purposes and fell within the legal requirements of the atomic energy agency.
The Security Council powers believe that Iran???s real purpose is to build nuclear weapons, and it has backed up that conviction with two resolutions and economic sanctions against the Tehran government.
Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, the permanent members of the Security Council, have been holding meetings in various capitals this fall to see if sterner measures are needed to gain compliance.
France???s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, told the General Assembly in a speech earlier Tuesday that allowing Iran to build a bomb would be an ???unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.???
He said the Security Council should not relax its guard while it continued to negotiate with Tehran. ???Firmness and dialogue go hand in hand,??? he said. ???And I weigh my words carefully.???
To that, Mr. Ahmadinejad had his own reply. ???The decisions by the United States and France are not important,??? he said during his address. ???What is important is that our nuclear program is within the rules of the I.A.E.A. and our program as such will continue.???
Without mentioning the United States by name, Mr. Ahmadinejad used his speech to carry out a full-scale assault on the country as power-mad and godless. He said its leaders ???openly abandon morality??? and act with ???lewdness, selfishness, enmity and imposition in place of justice, love, affection and honesty.???
???Certain powers,??? he said in a thinly veiled reference to Washington, were ???setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process, extensive tapping of telephone conversations, intercepting private mail.???
In answer to questions at a news conference about having proposed the extinction of Israel, he said he was instead proposing a referendum of all people living in the Palestinian territories and Israel, which he referred to as the ???illegal Zionist regime??? to see what their choice of country would be.
He said countries had been eliminated peaceably before, and he cited the case of the Soviet Union.
???What befell the Soviet Union???? he said. ???It disappeared, but was it done through war? No. It was through the voice of the people.???
Asked by an Israeli journalist about the possibility that Iran was helping Syria acquire nuclear knowledge, he said, ???Next question.???
Mr. Ahmadinejad was not alone in attacking the United States. So did Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, using slashing arm gestures and terms more appropriate to the time 18 years ago when he last spoke to the General Assembly as president of his country.
Saying that Washington???s actions against Iran were like those of ???God telling people what is good and bad,??? he proposed that the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America join him in a march against the forces of ???global capitalist imperialism.???
Late Tuesday, Hugo Ch??vez, the outspoken Venezuelan president who called Mr. Bush a devil last year from the General Assembly podium, announced in Caracas that he was no longer planning to come to New York to deliver his country???s speech on Wednesday.
He said instead that he planned to travel shortly to Saudi Arabia to defend the price of oil. ???To $100,??? said Mr. Ch??vez. ???That is where we???re headed.???
3. This isn't much more than scaremongering, a clear case of "I know something everyone else doesn't", when the evidence suggests the opposite. The fact that you acknowledge Bush's prior (and present) habits of beating the war drum detracts from the rest of your argument. Iraq was once "a very real [and] increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood", but one would be hard pressed to assert that today.
like I said the issue is very academic for us over here in the US. not so for the residents of the Middle East who actually have to deal with this threat. and I don't see how my acknowledgement of Bush's past exagerrations does ANYTHING to weaken my argument that Iran is threat to her neighbors. you're employing false logic.
After the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has become the dominant power in the Gulf. Their influence is felt throughout the region from Lebanon to Afghanistan. They're scaring the hell out of the Sunni regimes in the Middle East, and Israel. Hell, many Gulf states are giving money and weapons to Sunnis in Iraq because they think the Shiite government is in bed with Iran. I don't think it's comparable at all to the situation of Iraq right befor the U.S. invasion in 2003. Then you had plenty of people and countries that did not feel that Iraq was a threat and opposed U.S. claims. You won't really find that with Iran right now.
On Iran's nuclear program, the IAEA has found that it isn't nearly half as advanced as many people, notably the U.S. thought. That being said, they have underground facilities and have spread it around the country making it harder to destroy, which raises questions. They also claim that they're building it because they have a growing population and their oil will eventually run out, but they have the third largest oil reserves in the world. They also have the second largest natural gas reserve in the world, so the nuclear argument gets thinner there as well. I think it's pretty obvious that the point of the nuclear program is to eventually get a weapon.
the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
I read an interesting notion not too long ago that while Iran certainly is a worry, the biggest threat right now is Pakistan because they already have nukes, they aren't exactly Al Qaida's enemy, and the government there is a somewhat precarious dictatorship--all it takes is good ol' fashioned coup, and those nukes are in the hands of some not-fucking-around extremists.
the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
I read an interesting notion not too long ago that while Iran certainly is a worry, the biggest threat right now is Pakistan because they already have nukes, they aren't exactly Al Qaida's enemy, and the government there is a somewhat precarious dictatorship--all it takes is good ol' fashioned coup, and those nukes are in the hands of some not-fucking-around extremists.
It was food for thought, at any rate.
While that's a potential, it seems a bit unlikely. The Pakistani military is and has been the dominant factor in the country almost since independence. While there are some of elements of the military and especially the intelligence services that are close to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they're not going to turn the country over to them if they took power. The reason they're supported is because they fear the U.S. will walk away from them like they did after the Soviets left Afghanistan and then Pakistan would have to face its main rival India alone. India-Pakistan relations are improving, but they still want to have a guarantee that there are Islamic radicals that could carry out terrorism in Kashmir anytime they want to put the pressure on. I don't think the military would allow one of the more radical Islamist political parties to take power either.
I wonder what the people of Iran think of what their president said at Columbia.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
I'm saying. people in here talmbout denying this foreign leader a platform at a prestigious private Anerican university is somehow a violation of his rights or something. GTFOHWTBS.
I don't think that's really what people are talking about here. Surely it's more to do with extending him the kind of privileges and platforms that he himself doesn't extend to many of his own citizens, such as homosexuals, for example, and highlighting the differences between societies that way. There are ways and means of grabbing the moral high ground that don't involve "moralising".
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
all I was saying is this: folls in here seemed to be suggesting this was a free speech issue. free speech is a specific right guaranteed to specific people by a specific document.
Such a rigid definition of "free speech" as the one above is kind of a contradiction in terms, though. What happens if you're not one of those "specific people", or if you live in a country that doesn't have a "specific document" such as the one you allude to? Both the concept and the reality of free speech can, and do, exist outside of the United States.
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution, and there's also a separate argument about providing a platform for him on a "free speech" ticket (very broadly speaking) when he'd arguably seek to deny the right to such a platform to others. But surely one of the key principles of freedom of speech wherever it exists is the right to be able to say things that people might not want to hear.
the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
I read an interesting notion not too long ago that while Iran certainly is a worry, the biggest threat right now is Pakistan because they already have nukes, they aren't exactly Al Qaida's enemy, and the government there is a somewhat precarious dictatorship--all it takes is good ol' fashioned coup, and those nukes are in the hands of some not-fucking-around extremists.
It was food for thought, at any rate.
While that's a potential, it seems a bit unlikely. The Pakistani military is and has been the dominant factor in the country almost since independence. While there are some of elements of the military and especially the intelligence services that are close to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they're not going to turn the country over to them if they took power. The reason they're supported is because they fear the U.S. will walk away from them like they did after the Soviets left Afghanistan and then Pakistan would have to face its main rival India alone. India-Pakistan relations are improving, but they still want to have a guarantee that there are Islamic radicals that could carry out terrorism in Kashmir anytime they want to put the pressure on. I don't think the military would allow one of the more radical Islamist political parties to take power either.
The US-Pakistan relationship is rather weak these days. The perception in Pakistan is that it is onesided. In the so called war on terror Pakistani forces have to fight against their own people in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
However, radical Islamism is highly unpopular among the people and there is certainly very little risk that Islamists take over he Government. The MMA (coalition of the most important Islamic parties) had 11% in the 2002 elections.
Radical Islamism has been nurtured by the military for a long time now, beginning with Zia-ul Haq's policies and especially in the context of the Afghanistan conflict. The military-Islamism axis has experienced a lot of trouble in the past. While the Islamists were more or less puppets of the Military throughout the Afghanistan war in the 80s and during the proxy war in Kaschmir in the 90s, they also started to operate independendly, especially after 2001. They are not that dependent on the funding by the ISI anymore. Saudi Arabia for example pays very good for them as well.
I would also argue that the option of proxy war in Kashmir is gone these days. neither the Kashmiri people nor India or any external power supports that anymore and there is high pressure on Pakistan to stop that. Pakistan is already alone in the conflict with India as the US does not support Pakistani claims. The India-Pakistan relationship has improved a lot in the past. Afghanistan is lost for Pakistan as well. Actually, many of the Mujaheddin leaders feel betrayed by the Pakistan military, because of the change in policy making. It's another topic, but I would argue that Pakistan has very limited options to enforce interests in the conflict with India these days. Nuclear weapons alone don't help.
A major problem is that there is little room for improvement. Democracy has a very long way to go and the upcoming elections will show if there is another step forward or back. The influence of the military in domestic and foreign policy remains dominant though.
What are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's stance on homosexuality btw?
The situation in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is comparable to Iran from a legal point of view. Capital punishment is possible in both countries. Implementation, however, is another topic. Reality is different.
Transvestite dancers, for example, are a major attraction at marriages in Pakistan.
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
no you can't.
Cosign. That same logic says that we can torture suspected enemy combatants - without having to follow the basic rules of laws - because 1) they're not U.S. citizens and 2) the torturing isn't being done on U.S. soil.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be eligible for Social Security though.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
no you can't.
Cosign. That same logic says that we can torture suspected enemy combatants - without having to follow the basic rules of laws - because 1) they're not U.S. citizens and 2) the torturing isn't being done on U.S. soil.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be eligible for Social Security though.
OK, ignorance of the finer points of the Constitution notwithstanding, I wasn't being very clear here. Maybe I should have said something like;
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
no you can't.
Cosign. That same logic says that we can torture suspected enemy combatants - without having to follow the basic rules of laws - because 1) they're not U.S. citizens and 2) the torturing isn't being done on U.S. soil.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be eligible for Social Security though.
OK, ignorance of the finer points of the Constitution notwithstanding, I wasn't being very clear here. Maybe I should have said something like;
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
Uh sure, but that's just splitting hairs.
I think the key question really is: should Columbia have invited him to speak to begin with.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
no you can't.
Cosign. That same logic says that we can torture suspected enemy combatants - without having to follow the basic rules of laws - because 1) they're not U.S. citizens and 2) the torturing isn't being done on U.S. soil.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be eligible for Social Security though.
OK, ignorance of the finer points of the Constitution notwithstanding, I wasn't being very clear here. Maybe I should have said something like;
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
Uh sure, but that's just splitting hairs.
I think the key question really is: should Columbia have invited him to speak to begin with.
Well, it's not as if there's no history of democracies extending similar courtesies to despots with piss-poor human rights records.
And with that, I'll back away and leave American politics to the Americans.
Comments
You asked how the dude lied.
Is he so stupid he doesn't realize there are gay people in his country and that they are being executed???
ok, so nuclear energy is the same thing as nuclear weapons??? show me a report that says iran is even close to getting/making nukes.
the smear campaign is in bush's rhettoric which would have americans believe the opposite is true - that either iran already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them. not true, but i guarantee most people believe that to be the case.
How do you "confront" someone with Nuclear Energy???
"You better watch out, this light bulb is getting really really hot"
Iranian Law does not recognize the concept of sexual orientation. From a legal point of view, gays cannot exist.
BTW, capital punishment is a possible penalty for homosexuality in Iran, not the norm.
1. I could direct you to some such reports, but it's unlikely you'd be swayed. the only intelligence services that are really paying attention to these threats you would no doubt distrust on this issue anyway (US, Israeli, British, Saudi).
2. "already has nuclear capabilities or they are close to attaining them" is not really the point. once the Iranians have the organic, independent means to produce such weapons without outside assistance (even if that means 5-10 years before actually attaining them), then the threat can no longer be averted.
3. while you may not be threatened by Iranian nukes (I presume you are in the US like me), try to place yourselves in the shoes of those that are directly affected by such a threat. for millions of people this Iranian nuke thing is not just another hysterical Bush war-mongering talking point. it's rather a very real, increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood.
Or most people believe that is the GOAL. Which, anyone with a modicum of sense, would have to believe is true.
No worries then.
Do us a favor and please write down a list of people who shouldn't be invited to speak in public forums in America so that future institutions may avoid the controversy of inviting the "wrong" speaker or, god forbid, someone who doesn't deserve the "right" to speak when invited.
Oh, and please try to make your list free of ideological biases.
What you're advocating for is little different from McCarthyism.
(I don't actually believe this but my point is that one should avoid incongruous comparisons).
Saying that, while paraphrasing Robert Fisk, I really don't think Iran should be our main worry when it comes to nuclear weapons right now. Pakistan already has them. Sure, Musharraf is an ally of the US, but a man of the Pakistani people he is not. What will happen when he goes?
What are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's stance on homosexuality btw? I'm not in any way condoning or excusing Iran's stance, but please be fair and include those two dear American allies in the comparison.
1. Intelligence, whether ours or another country's, has been notoriously bad over the last four decades. The Downing Street Memo, Israel's insistence that Iraq had WMD's, our roles in Chile and Guatemala, advisors in Vietnam: Western countries have a terrible track record getting to the bottom of things at the necessary pace in societies outside of ours.
2. I think it makes sense to use the IAEA to get a better handle on what they do/don't have before drawing real conclusions. If Iran becomes unwilling (or remains unwilling) to consent to inspections, then the issue will firm up a bit. But until then, speculation without evidence doesn't help in addressing the issue.
3. This isn't much more than scaremongering, a clear case of "I know something everyone else doesn't", when the evidence suggests the opposite. The fact that you acknowledge Bush's prior (and present) habits of beating the war drum detracts from the rest of your argument. Iraq was once "a very real [and] increasingly imminent threat to their lives and livelihood", but one would be hard pressed to assert that today.
When can we get a THE MACK-esque graemlin to respond to ...
THE ROCKADELIC.
Man. shit is great back there on pages 1 and 2. That's good Rock.
cite your source.
they were never thrilled with Saddam (who bombed their population centers in teh Gulf War), but the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
like I said the issue is very academic for us over here in the US. not so for the residents of the Middle East who actually have to deal with this threat. and I don't see how my acknowledgement of Bush's past exagerrations does ANYTHING to weaken my argument that Iran is threat to her neighbors. you're employing false logic.
drum roll please....
IRAN PRESIDENT VOWS TO IGNORE U.N. MEASURES
By WARREN HOGE
September 26, 2007
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 ??? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, said Tuesday that he considered the dispute over his country???s nuclear program ???closed??? and that Iran would disregard the resolutions of the Security Council, which he said was dominated by ???arrogant powers.???[/b]
In a rambling and defiant 40-minute speech to the opening session of the General Assembly, he said Iran would henceforth consider the nuclear issue not a ???political??? one for the Security Council, but a ???technical??? one to be decided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations??? nuclear watchdog.
Mr. Ahmadinejad???s assertion that the matter belonged with the nuclear agency indicated his preference to work with Mohamed ElBaradei, its director.
Dr. ElBaradei has been at odds with Washington, and some European powers, who have accused him of meddling in the diplomacy by seeking separate accords with Iran, and in their eyes undercutting the Security Council resolutions.
???Today because of the resistance of the Iranian nation, the issue is back to the agency, and I officially announce that in our opinion, the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed and has turned into an ordinary agency matter,??? Mr. Ahmadinejad said.
A senior Bush administration official said after the address that the only person who thought that the issue is closed was Mr. Ahmadinejad.
As the Iranian president moved to speak, the United States delegation left, leaving only a note-taker to listen to the speech, which occurred just hours after President Bush had spoken from the same podium about the need for nations to live up to the rights guaranteed by the United Nations.
In a barely disguised barb, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted, ???Unfortunately human rights are being extensively violated by certain powers, especially by those who pretend to be their exclusive advocates.???
Mr. Ahmadinejad???s declaration that the nuclear issue is closed comes just as the Bush administration is seeking to turn up the pressure on the country, both through the United Nations Security Council and in concert with European powers.
???In the last two years,??? the Iranian president said, ???abusing the Security Council, the arrogant powers have repeatedly accused Iran and even made military threats and imposed illegal sanctions against it.???
In recent weeks, American and French officials have described an emerging strategy of broadening the number of banks, mostly in Europe, that have refused to lend new capital to Iran, making it difficult for the country to invest in new oil facilities or other infrastructure.
???We want more banks, and now suppliers, to assess the risk??? of dealing with Iran, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush???s national security adviser, said in a meeting on Tuesday with editors and reporters of The New York Times.
The issue now, he said, is ???at what point the regime, or elements of the regime, say ???this policy is taking us into a ditch.??????
Only last month, Iran???s leaders reached an agreement with Dr. ElBaradei to answer questions that nuclear inspectors have been raising for years about possible connections between Iran???s nuclear program and military projects. Inspectors are in Iran this week, seeking further answers to questions that Iran has so far refused to discuss.
But even if Iran answers all the outstanding questions it could still be in violation of the Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions call on the country to cease enriching uranium.
The enrichment has continued, though not yet on a scale large enough to produce a bomb???s worth of material in the near future. Mr. Hadley refused to speculate on how much time the United States and its allies had to stop the program before Iran had enough material to manufacture a weapon.
As he has in the past, Mr. Ahmadinejad argued that Iran???s nuclear program was solely for civilian purposes and fell within the legal requirements of the atomic energy agency.
The Security Council powers believe that Iran???s real purpose is to build nuclear weapons, and it has backed up that conviction with two resolutions and economic sanctions against the Tehran government.
Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, the permanent members of the Security Council, have been holding meetings in various capitals this fall to see if sterner measures are needed to gain compliance.
France???s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, told the General Assembly in a speech earlier Tuesday that allowing Iran to build a bomb would be an ???unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.???
He said the Security Council should not relax its guard while it continued to negotiate with Tehran. ???Firmness and dialogue go hand in hand,??? he said. ???And I weigh my words carefully.???
To that, Mr. Ahmadinejad had his own reply. ???The decisions by the United States and France are not important,??? he said during his address. ???What is important is that our nuclear program is within the rules of the I.A.E.A. and our program as such will continue.???
Without mentioning the United States by name, Mr. Ahmadinejad used his speech to carry out a full-scale assault on the country as power-mad and godless. He said its leaders ???openly abandon morality??? and act with ???lewdness, selfishness, enmity and imposition in place of justice, love, affection and honesty.???
???Certain powers,??? he said in a thinly veiled reference to Washington, were ???setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process, extensive tapping of telephone conversations, intercepting private mail.???
In answer to questions at a news conference about having proposed the extinction of Israel, he said he was instead proposing a referendum of all people living in the Palestinian territories and Israel, which he referred to as the ???illegal Zionist regime??? to see what their choice of country would be.
He said countries had been eliminated peaceably before, and he cited the case of the Soviet Union.
???What befell the Soviet Union???? he said. ???It disappeared, but was it done through war? No. It was through the voice of the people.???
Asked by an Israeli journalist about the possibility that Iran was helping Syria acquire nuclear knowledge, he said, ???Next question.???
Mr. Ahmadinejad was not alone in attacking the United States. So did Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, using slashing arm gestures and terms more appropriate to the time 18 years ago when he last spoke to the General Assembly as president of his country.
Saying that Washington???s actions against Iran were like those of ???God telling people what is good and bad,??? he proposed that the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America join him in a march against the forces of ???global capitalist imperialism.???
Late Tuesday, Hugo Ch??vez, the outspoken Venezuelan president who called Mr. Bush a devil last year from the General Assembly podium, announced in Caracas that he was no longer planning to come to New York to deliver his country???s speech on Wednesday.
He said instead that he planned to travel shortly to Saudi Arabia to defend the price of oil. ???To $100,??? said Mr. Ch??vez. ???That is where we???re headed.???
David Sanger contributed reporting.
After the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has become the dominant power in the Gulf. Their influence is felt throughout the region from Lebanon to Afghanistan. They're scaring the hell out of the Sunni regimes in the Middle East, and Israel. Hell, many Gulf states are giving money and weapons to Sunnis in Iraq because they think the Shiite government is in bed with Iran. I don't think it's comparable at all to the situation of Iraq right befor the U.S. invasion in 2003. Then you had plenty of people and countries that did not feel that Iraq was a threat and opposed U.S. claims. You won't really find that with Iran right now.
On Iran's nuclear program, the IAEA has found that it isn't nearly half as advanced as many people, notably the U.S. thought. That being said, they have underground facilities and have spread it around the country making it harder to destroy, which raises questions. They also claim that they're building it because they have a growing population and their oil will eventually run out, but they have the third largest oil reserves in the world. They also have the second largest natural gas reserve in the world, so the nuclear argument gets thinner there as well. I think it's pretty obvious that the point of the nuclear program is to eventually get a weapon.
I read an interesting notion not too long ago that while Iran certainly is a worry, the biggest threat right now is Pakistan because they already have nukes, they aren't exactly Al Qaida's enemy, and the government there is a somewhat precarious dictatorship--all it takes is good ol' fashioned coup, and those nukes are in the hands of some not-fucking-around extremists.
It was food for thought, at any rate.
While that's a potential, it seems a bit unlikely. The Pakistani military is and has been the dominant factor in the country almost since independence. While there are some of elements of the military and especially the intelligence services that are close to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they're not going to turn the country over to them if they took power. The reason they're supported is because they fear the U.S. will walk away from them like they did after the Soviets left Afghanistan and then Pakistan would have to face its main rival India alone. India-Pakistan relations are improving, but they still want to have a guarantee that there are Islamic radicals that could carry out terrorism in Kashmir anytime they want to put the pressure on. I don't think the military would allow one of the more radical Islamist political parties to take power either.
I don't think that's really what people are talking about here. Surely it's more to do with extending him the kind of privileges and platforms that he himself doesn't extend to many of his own citizens, such as homosexuals, for example, and highlighting the differences between societies that way. There are ways and means of grabbing the moral high ground that don't involve "moralising".
Such a rigid definition of "free speech" as the one above is kind of a contradiction in terms, though. What happens if you're not one of those "specific people", or if you live in a country that doesn't have a "specific document" such as the one you allude to? Both the concept and the reality of free speech can, and do, exist outside of the United States.
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution, and there's also a separate argument about providing a platform for him on a "free speech" ticket (very broadly speaking) when he'd arguably seek to deny the right to such a platform to others. But surely one of the key principles of freedom of speech wherever it exists is the right to be able to say things that people might not want to hear.
The US-Pakistan relationship is rather weak these days. The perception in Pakistan is that it is onesided. In the so called war on terror Pakistani forces have to fight against their own people in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
However, radical Islamism is highly unpopular among the people and there is certainly very little risk that Islamists take over he Government. The MMA (coalition of the most important Islamic parties) had 11% in the 2002 elections.
Radical Islamism has been nurtured by the military for a long time now, beginning with Zia-ul Haq's policies and especially in the context of the Afghanistan conflict. The military-Islamism axis has experienced a lot of trouble in the past. While the Islamists were more or less puppets of the Military throughout the Afghanistan war in the 80s and during the proxy war in Kaschmir in the 90s, they also started to operate independendly, especially after 2001. They are not that dependent on the funding by the ISI anymore. Saudi Arabia for example pays very good for them as well.
I would also argue that the option of proxy war in Kashmir is gone these days. neither the Kashmiri people nor India or any external power supports that anymore and there is high pressure on Pakistan to stop that. Pakistan is already alone in the conflict with India as the US does not support Pakistani claims. The India-Pakistan relationship has improved a lot in the past. Afghanistan is lost for Pakistan as well.
Actually, many of the Mujaheddin leaders feel betrayed by the Pakistan military, because of the change in policy making. It's another topic, but I would argue that Pakistan has very limited options to enforce interests in the conflict with India these days. Nuclear weapons alone don't help.
A major problem is that there is little room for improvement. Democracy has a very long way to go and the upcoming elections will show if there is another step forward or back. The influence of the military in domestic and foreign policy remains dominant though.
don't tase me bro
The situation in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is comparable to Iran from a legal point of view. Capital punishment is possible in both countries. Implementation, however, is another topic. Reality is different.
Transvestite dancers, for example, are a major attraction at marriages in Pakistan.
check these pictures (with german descriptions) to get an idea
If marriage season is over, they work as beggars or prostitutes.
no you can't.
Cosign. That same logic says that we can torture suspected enemy combatants - without having to follow the basic rules of laws - because 1) they're not U.S. citizens and 2) the torturing isn't being done on U.S. soil.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be eligible for Social Security though.
OK, ignorance of the finer points of the Constitution notwithstanding, I wasn't being very clear here. Maybe I should have said something like;
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to
the same provision ofdemand the right to free speech asdefined by the US Constitutionhis constitutional right".Hopefully that makes more sense?
Uh sure, but that's just splitting hairs.
I think the key question really is: should Columbia have invited him to speak to begin with.
Well, it's not as if there's no history of democracies extending similar courtesies to despots with piss-poor human rights records.
And with that, I'll back away and leave American politics to the Americans.