Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero
Talks Underway After Iranian Requests a Visit

By SARAH GARLAND
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 19, 2007 updated 9/20/07 1:21 am EDT

In a move that has stunned New York, the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.

The Iranian mission to the U.N. made the request to the New York City Police Department and the Secret Service, which will jointly oversee security during the leader's two-day visit. Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against his country for its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. Kelly said the NYPD and Secret Service were in discussions with the Iranian Mission about the logistics for the possible visit, and whether it will take place at all. He said that for safety reasons related to ongoing construction at ground zero Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be allowed to descend into the pit.

"There has been some interest expressed in his visiting the area," Mr. Kelly said. "It's something that we are prepared to handle if in fact it does happen."

Mr. Kelly said Mr. Ahmadinejad had not indicated why he wants to visit the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Several presidential candidates quickly condemned the proposed visit.
"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

A major American Jewish leader, Malcolm Hoenlein, said a visit by Mr. Ahmadinejad "would violate the sanctity of the sacred place and the memory of those who perished there."

Mr. Hoenlein, the vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is a leading figure in organizing a protest against the Iranian leader Monday in front of the U.N.

He told The New York Sun that the Iranian president should be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the U.N. and should not be permitted to travel the full extent of the 25-mile radius that is normally allowed for foreign dignitaries attending meetings at the world body.

Iran has been called the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. State Department.

*************************************************

Aren't we still at war with this a$$hole? WTH is our government doing to us? This feels like a cave-in.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Aren't we still at war with this a$$hole? WTH is our government doing to us? This feels like a cave-in.

Humm.

We know where he is gonna be and when he is gonna be there. Lot's of tall buildings with lots of dark windows.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Humm.

We know where he is gonna be and when he is gonna be there. Lot's of tall buildings with lots of dark windows.

And lots of Secret Service protecting his jihad a$$.

This is an absolute betrayal on the same level as the shamnesty bill.

Posted by: Calabrio

Secret Service protects all foreign heads of state.
It's in our best interest to NOT have foreign leaders assassinated while on our soil. That's not a betrayal.

The mere fact that the festering wound, the liberal failure,that haven for tyrants and socialist dictators called the UN is still located in NY- that's a betrayal.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Secret Service protects all foreign heads of state.
It's in our best interest to NOT have foreign leaders assassinated while on our soil. That's not a betrayal.

The mere fact that the festering wound, the liberal failure,that haven for tyrants and socialist dictators called the UN is still located in NY- that's a betrayal.

TO be accurate - the DSS, Diplomatic Security Service, protects foreign dignitaries. Its an arm of the State department.

And where would you like the UN to be located? We get home field advantage by having it here.

Posted by: Garbone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

That is one thing...to bad it come at such a cost...

Posted by: glanga

I read that they aren't letting him go. Ground Zero is under construction and they don't want to give him a Photo Op. Ahmadinejad or however you spell it wanted to visit so he could "see terror first hand" so he claims. But as far as I read they officially declined to let him visit.

He can laugh on our soil all he wants. We'll probably invade his turf soon anyway in some way or another. Then we'll see who is laughing.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

It's in our best interest to NOT have foreign leaders assassinated while on our soil. That's not a betrayal.

Party pooper. What? So somebody graciously makes Ahmadinejad a permanent member of the Twin Tower victim's memorial and we allow al-qaeda take the credit. Problem solved.

Posted by: fossten

Well, well, well...that wonderful edifice of higher learning, Columbia University, has invited I'maDinnerJacket to speak. Gee, I wonder if we can get "Don't tase me bro" boy to go stage a protest! Nah, he'll probably be applauding along with the rest of the brainwashed masses.

What a place of indoctrination that school must be.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Just one thought.

What if on some level (I highly doubt it) this is his attempt to break the ice a little with the USA?

Let me pose one more question.

What could his going to the 9/11 site hurt?

Dont jump on me, I didnt say I was in favor of "I'maDinnerJacket" (I love that) going to the site, but just spit balling, what could it hurt?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

No. The Secret Service is responsible for the protection of high profile dignitaries like that fidget terrorist. The DSS protects American embassies and diplomats.

And where would I like it located? This really falls into the "who gives a crap category." Can you explain what "advantage" we get by hosting that putrid den of vipers in New York?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Just one thought.
What if on some level (I highly doubt it) this is his attempt to break the ice a little with the USA?
Let me pose one more question.
What could his going to the 9/11 site hurt?
Dont jump on me, I didnt say I was in favor of "I'maDinnerJacket" (I love that) going to the site, but just spit balling, what could it hurt?

There's symbolizism. It's disrepectful of all those that died or have fallen in there. It's a photo op. It's a matter of principle.

I heard ex-Mayor Koch make an interesting suggestion. If he had insisted upon going there, a volunteer group of all Jewish NYPD officers should have provided the support.

Posted by: shagdrum

If he is trying to make a jesture of good will here, then considering his background (and Iran's in general) this is about the dumbest one he can make. He would have to be really dumb, to consider this a good will jesture, and he isn't. He didn't get to where he is by being dumb. Crazy, yes, but dumb, no. He is purposely lookin to put egg on the face of the US here, and score political points in his own country.

Posted by: psungee

I know my opinion (as a Canadian) may not be entirely welcome here but... we'll all survive if y' get mad at me over it.

It seems a bit odd to me if he, of all people, would be given such an opportunity to be ANY sort of tourist not to speak of visiting such sites when your government has made it so hard for your friends to the north to travel to visit - not to speak of the need for Americans to have paperwork (passports) to get back into their own country.

I can't help but continue to think that terrorism is taking a big win by making what was once a friendly border a tougher place to pass - so unlike what's happening on the other side of the pond.

While I, personally, don't have tons of respect for the UN, I still recognize its importance as an international institution ... and IMHO having it in the U.S. is a wonderful symbol of the potential for ongoing American greatness, justice and a sense of mercy (in spite of the obvious BS going on behind the so private walls of this internationally, publicly funded institution).

Posted by: Joeychgo

Your comments are very welcome here. Hell, we let fossten post, why not you?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

While I, personally, don't have tons of respect for the UN, I still recognize its importance as an international institution .

...must be more "enlightened" then me

What is so important about it?

I would say it is as worthless as the "League of Nations" before WW2.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Your comments are very welcome here. Hell, we let fossten post, why not you?

You have a heart as big as an armpit.

Posted by: psungee

Well, it's a venue for people who "hate" each other to "talk" rather than fight. There are many arenas for enemies to battle - on each other's lands, on strangers' lands ... but to talk - when you're sufficiently angry that you can't see anything but red....

It's just a venue to communicate with something other than a fist.

Personally, I couldn't imagine having to fight everyone I don't care for. Even, sometimes, we find ourselves working with people with whom we wouldn't, otherwise, get along. Some would refer to such a situation as "being an adult"

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

What if on some level (I highly doubt it) this is his attempt to break the ice a little with the USA?
........

What could his going to the 9/11 site hurt?

This is a perfect example of the long-term effects of suffering from BDS.

What could it hurt?

Why not just let the guy stand on the last fallen beam and let him do the Macarena?

I mean, why not let Pol-Pot host a benefit for the survivors he didn't kill.

Let Hitler take a picture at one of the concentration camps and then auction off the photo to a Jewish charity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe you really even asked the question, or that anybody in the United States actually even considered the 'proposal'.

Sure, let's give DinnerJacket one the greatest terrorist photo ops ever.

Let's let him sit there and smile smugly with his squinty little eyes.

Let's let him proclaim that you can cut the heart out of America and then go stand on it.

Let him proclaim to the muslim world to rise up against the great paper tiger.

Sure, let him parade around and make a joke of us.

The guy has no good intentions. He will wait until he gets the upper hand (nuclear) and then deal the blows to us and Israel.

The guy doesn't give a damn if he dies. He gets his virgins , and more importantly, infamy of being the hero to the muslim world.

This is why no Democrat can ever be trusted to command the Oval Office. The stakes are too great.

I can just see Hillary inviting the guy to stay in the Lincoln bedroom so we can work out our differences.

If you can't see the danger in a simple photo op, I can understand the BDS.

We're just living in different worlds.

I don't want the guy here. I don't want the U.N. here. 'F' the U.N. Move it to Somalia for all I care. At least there will be more parking spaces for New Yorkers. The guy needs to be stopped before he kills millions.

Ironically, he will be here and a Barret M107 .50 caliber round away from solving our problems. Instead, we'll spend a couple hundred billion a year or two from now to do the same thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a lighter note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-2D9...elated&search=

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

Well, it's a venue for people who "hate" each other to "talk" rather than fight.

You mean talk openly while secretly making plans behind each other's back, like North Korea did, and France and Russia did with Saddam in the 90's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

There are many arenas for enemies to battle - on each other's lands, on strangers' lands ... but to talk - when you're sufficiently angry that you can't see anything but red....

What in the world are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

It's just a venue to communicate with something other than a fist.

You mean a venue to channel oil-for-food money into bribes for Security Council nations like France and Russia, so they can veto any action against Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

Personally, I couldn't imagine having to fight everyone I don't care for. Even, sometimes, we find ourselves working with people with whom we wouldn't, otherwise, get along. Some would refer to such a situation as "being an adult"

If you were the most powerful dude on the block, and a bunch of anklebiting rabid dogs were hanging around with slavering jaws growling and snapping at your heels, you'd just let them bite you because you don't want to be seen as immature? What if they were eyeing your wife or kids? I can see it now: "Honey, let's just ignore them, or maybe we can kneel down and give them a doggie treat. When they see that we mean them no harm, their rabies won't cause them to bite us."

So was Ronald Reagan being an adult when he walked away from Reykjavik and spurned "talks" with the Soviets, and then later bankrupted them until they collapsed?

Was it mature for Madelyn Albright to TALK to the North Koreans while they laughed at her behind her back and continued to develop nukes?

Was it mature for Jimmuh Carter to TALK to the Israelis and convince them to give up even more land because that would GUARANTEE that they'd never get attacked by the Arabs again?

Would it have been mature for Bush 41 to have talked to Saddam back in 1991 after he invaded Kuwait? Yeah, Saddam might have had a chance to explain that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and all his tanks just had bad brakes.

Is it mature for Bush and Rice to continue to talk to DinnerJacket even though he's openly DEFIED the UN resolutions TO DATE, and made a mockery of the US while still developing nukes?

I guess you'd say that the mature thing to do while our big cities are going up in smoke would be to sit down at the UN and talk about it, right? After all, what's a few cities compared to making nicenice and kissyface so the media won't whine about warmongering? Let's all just get along, the world ISN'T dangerous, and the United States is an evil country!
</sarcasm>
</rant>

Posted by: MonsterMark

Did you play my link? I thought that was damn funny and very hick.

Doesn't anybody realize that DinnerJacket was involved in the Iran Hostage Crisis? Does anybody care?

8 good men died during Operation Eagle Claw trying to rescue those people.

Carter was (is) a wuss. Negotiations didn't bring about their release, the election of Ronald Reagan and his iron fist did.

Peace thru strength. Get It.

It is the only thing that is going to save this world. The U.N. will only serve to hasten this country's and the world's demise.

Posted by: psungee

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

The guy doesn't give a damn if he dies. He gets his virgins , and more importantly, infamy of being the hero to the muslim world.

I tend (big surprise) to disagree. I believe he cares VERY much for his life, however, like most others of his ilk, he cares little if at all for the lives of those he would send to "explode themselves". It's never the terrorist leaders that go out and commit suicide - it's always the weak-minded followers who are manipulated into pursuing that unlimited number of virgins.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Did you play my link? I thought that was damn funny and very hick.

Doesn't anybody realize that DinnerJacket was involved in the Iran Hostage Crisis? Does anybody care?

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

- Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

This is a perfect example of the long-term effects of suffering from BDS.

Not at all. I said before, im not in favor of it, just exploring the issue. I think we should whack him while he's here.

Posted by: psungee

Well, I expected to be mostly alone in my opinions

We don't actually know each other but let's say we were neighbours and we argued about absolutely everything from who has the nicer grass and car and home to who's daddy is bigger. It gets so bad that we come to blows and just CAN'T stand each other. Then we come to LVC and someone says, "look, both nice grass, cars and homes - just different ... and helps us to find a way to get along. Your argument might, reasonably, be “Yeah - but we’re capable of being reasonable people.” Well, you talk to people like that because you hope for a breakthrough - not because you expect one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You mean talk openly while secretly making plans behind each other's back, like North Korea did, and France and Russia did with Saddam in the 90's? You mean a venue to channel oil-for-food money into bribes for Security Council nations like France and Russia, so they can veto any action against Iraq?

Let’s face it, in every government organization from Canada the United States and Israel to India, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. there is massive corruption. I’m not certain I understand why you would set a higher standard for the UN. As I clearly stated, I’m not a supporter per se but I still think it’s a necessary evil. Personally, before disbanding the UN I would want to disband the world court in The Hague ... or those “We need to judge the world (which is safe for us ‘cause we’re flippin’ perfect)” d1ckheads in Brussels.

France, Russia, England ... Iran (in “Persia” days) - virtually all countries have had, in the past, or currently have some degree of “imperial” aspirations. To me, France is one of the great nations for showing their frustration at their failed imperial past. In my opinion, this is manifested through routine acts of international treachery and self-service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

To think I am suggesting acquiescing to terrorists or abusers is as silly as suggesting acquiescence to bullies. To close the door to “discussion” is, in my opinion, just as silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Was it mature for Madelyn Albright to TALK to the North Koreans while they laughed at her behind her back and continued to develop nukes?

Outside of my ability to comment - a) I know too little about her other than I never understood how/why she got the job and b) in my relatively limited knowledge of ongoing and historical American politics I was never actually aware of any accomplishments, on her part, in that position (other than getting the job).

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Was it mature for Jimmuh Carter to TALK to the Israelis and convince them to give up even more land because that would GUARANTEE that they'd never get attacked by the Arabs again?

Would it have been mature for Bush 41 to have talked to Saddam back in 1991 after he invaded Kuwait? Yeah, Saddam might have had a chance to explain that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and all his tanks just had bad brakes.

Mature - yes. Responsible - probably not. (BTW... WMD)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Is it mature for Bush and Rice to continue to talk to DinnerJacket even though he's openly DEFIED the UN resolutions TO DATE, and made a mockery of the US while still developing nukes?

I guess you'd say that the mature thing to do while our big cities are going up in smoke would be to sit down at the UN and talk about it, right? After all, what's a few cities compared to making nicenice and kissyface so the media won't whine about warmongering? Let's all just get along, the world ISN'T dangerous, and the United States is an evil country!
</sarcasm>
</rant>

If I ever suggested the US should roll over under attack or let it's guard down with an outspoken enemy - my mistake - I didn’t meant to. I’m more inclined, however, to think you’re interpolating.

Look, just because you “talk” to someone it doesn’t mean you “surrender” to them or let your guard down. Let me come back to and adjust, a little, my (rather lame) example of us as neighbours at odds. While fists fly, it would be useful to have the guy across the street trying to help us live together. It doesn’t mean that you won’t vandalize my car for having parked on your ugly brown grass - claiming that little patch as mine. We still fight and the guy across the street, who gets along with us but doesn’t particularly like either one of us, tries to find a way for us to live together (because “he” wants peace on his block).

Posted by: fossten

psungee,

Your analogy doesn't represent reality. Our present day enemies don't resemble a neighbor who thinks he has a better landscaping service. It's more like this:

Your neighbor has been commanded by his religious teachings to either convert you or kill you, so he's doing his religious duty. In return for this, he's promised paradise. So he tries to convert you and fails. Finally he starts sneaking over to your house under the guise of borrowing a cup of sugar. While he's there he asks to use the bathroom, and then he starts planting little pipe bombs in your toilet and under beds.

You put up with this for a long time because your previous houseman, Bill Clinton, convinced you he wasn't that big of a threat. You manage to escape injury because the bombs go off when nobody's home, but finally one of the bombs kills your children.

So now you are being vigilant and have decided to defend yourself, but your other neighbors and even some of your family members are accusing you of trying to steal that neighbor's gasoline from his garage. They say you're bloodthirsty and you should be ignoring him and focusing on going to work and giving to the poor.

Meanwhile, the neighbor's still trying to sneak over to your house and plant bombs.

Would you talk to him? Let bygones be bygones? Is there an equitable solution to work out? Would you take his word for anything?

Posted by: psungee

fossten,

Here's what I can give yah, "the analogy is weak." I accept that (but it's not as weak as you suggest - but I don't consider that terribly important - it was just a device to try to illustrate a point).

Fact is, we do, to some degree, live in a society of revenge. I do understand that kind of emotion. I can't imagine I'd be happy to sit by as my friends and family were attacked. We do, however, use police and the legal system when we are under personal attack by others within our communities. We do not, typically, take to the street armed with the intent of shooting anyone we think may be responsible for attacking us (well... not usually).

In favour of your own stance, I can be a disproportionate supporter of Israel but it doesn't mean I think they shouldn't seek a peace (while standing for themselves) rather than constant fighting - in spite of (what is to me) obvious Palestinian stupidity and poor and inappropriate behaviours and their own less than constructive actions within their proposed territories. I'm quite convinced that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

At the same time, I don't think everything the State of Israel does vis-a-vis the Palestinians is appropriate or moral. It doesn't detract from my general support of the state. It also merits recognizing that the government of the State of Israel, too, seeks peace - not at ANY expense but they recognize their lives will be better if they aren't in a constant state of war with their neighbours.

Fact is, I feel the same way about the U.S. It is my personal belief that it is incumbent upon states such as ours (the U.S., Canada, etc) to stay on the moral high ground. That doesn't mean you (or we) should accept being victimized.

All this does not detract from the reality that when the U.S. is under attack, so are we so there is a measure of selfishness in Canadian desire for American security.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi, Mahatma

"That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." King Jr. Martin Luther

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

fossten,

Here's what I can give yah, "the analogy is weak." I accept that (but it's not as weak as you suggest - but I don't consider that terribly important - it was just a device to try to illustrate a point).

Fact is, we do, to some degree, live in a society of revenge. I do understand that kind of emotion. I can't imagine I'd be happy to sit by as my friends and family were attacked. We do, however, use police and the legal system when we are under personal attack by others within our communities. We do not, typically, take to the street armed with the intent of shooting anyone we think may be responsible for attacking us (well... not usually).

In favour of your own stance, I can be a disproportionate supporter of Israel but it doesn't mean I think they shouldn't seek a peace (while standing for themselves) rather than constant fighting - in spite of (what is to me) obvious Palestinian stupidity and poor and inappropriate behaviours and their own less than constructive actions within their proposed territories. I'm quite convinced that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

At the same time, I don't think everything the State of Israel does vis-a-vis the Palestinians is appropriate or moral. It doesn't detract from my general support of the state. It also merits recognizing that the government of the State of Israel, too, seeks peace - not at ANY expense but they recognize their lives will be better if they aren't in a constant state of war with their neighbours.

Fact is, I feel the same way about the U.S. It is my personal belief that it is incumbent upon states such as ours (the U.S., Canada, etc) to stay on the moral high ground. That doesn't mean you (or we) should accept being victimized.

All this does not detract from the reality that when the U.S. is under attack, so are we so there is a measure of selfishness in Canadian desire for American security.

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Gandhi, Mahatma

"That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." King Jr. Martin Luther

Look at all the waffle indicators in your spiel. At what point do you take a stand and say "no more"? Israel, for example, has been attacked by her neighbors from all sides since 1948. At this juncture I don't blame them for ANYTHING they do. Theirs isn't an issue of getting along, it's an issue of survival. Period. Waffling on this issue will get them destroyed. Every time some US President has convinced them to give ground, they've acquiesced, to their own detriment. And has it stopped the attacks on their civilian population? NO. So why should they capitulate ever again? Isn't SIXTY YEARS of attacks enough for them to justify defending themselves in your eyes? If not, how long should they put up with that crap?

How long should we?

"He that attempts to ski around both sides of the tree ends up with a smashed face."

"He that attempts to stand on both sides of the fence ends up with a fencepole up his ass."
- Me

Posted by: fossten

Couldn't help but repost this from newsbusters.org:

Differences
September 21, 2007 - 17:38 ET by ThisnThat
President Bush: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Media's reaction: "We hate you, BuShie, you stole the election".

General Petraeus: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq"

Dim Congress reaction: "You're a liar; your progress report requires a willing suspension of disbelief".

Ahmadinejad: "The Holocost is a myth; we will wipe Israel off the map".

Media's reaction: Media and academic elites are falling over themselves to fete this genocidal madman. "Please come speak to us. May we interview you?"

The Dims and the media are our enemies within. This charade proves it beyond a doubt.

Posted by: psungee

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your personal quotes are very cute but... having a balanced view of life isn't "waffling" (well, not necessarily). I know you won't care for this analogy either but ...

"I saw a car I liked. I had a budget of $20,000 but the car costs $22,000. It consumes more fuel and that will affect my budget in other ways. Should I? Shouldn't I? If I buy it I will have to give up steak for a year and park my bike for the summer. I'll take the time I need to consider both sides."

Fred calls it "waffling" while George calls it "considering different aspects of the issue."

I find your reference to Israel interesting particularly in light of the fact that just that day I watched Carter promoting his book and his ideas and said to Mrs. Psungee, "Every time they gave up they got kicked in the rooster (not quite the word I used but 'a rose by any other name, right?)." Carter just doesn't get it! So, I can kinda appreciate your point (it's not waffling - it's "having a balanced view". Giving consideration to different aspects of a matter. Israel was in error to cede lands without anything in exchange EXCEPT things went quite well with the succession of the Sainai to Egypt. They made a deal and, for the most part, the deal worked. The two states are, essentially, at peace. At least according to most Israelis I know.

The deal on Sainai worked with the Egyptian state. If Israel succeeds lands on its own terms (peace and diplomacy) they will have no problems. It is, at best, specious to suggest that war and annihilation of enemies is the only way. If you point to Lebanon, I will remind you that Lebanon and Israel had friendly relations prior to Syrian, fundamentalist Islam and Palestinian incursion into Lebanon. Jordan has had friendly relations as a result of discussions between King Hussein and Golda Meir - years of good relations. More interesting and a better example continues to be Egypt since there was always more animosity between the two states.

You will argue that peace worked because the Egyptians were beaten (or you should argue this

). Well, without some diplomacy they would still be at war. It wasn't winning a war that gave them peace. Winning was only the precursor. It was talking.

IMO, you have to keep fighting but you also have to be ready to talk. Don't confuse this with treating a terrorist like a welcome guest. That's silly - and I'm not inclined to think myself that weak-minded ... but you have to do more than fight.

If you want to make it personal, I would choose to express it this way. While you and I disagree and may argue, vociferously, on this issue (and others) if we met I assume we would still be able to be civil (I can even be friendly 'cause I have no use for taking this discussion personally but...) If we're going to be personal, "I wouldn't just let someone hit me. You can hate me but not hit me." I am, personally, capable of walking past people with whom I've got a shaky past. I'm not friends with everyone I know. I have no use for some of my neighbours but they still live there - and I live here and we don't fight.

Even "agreeing to disagree" doesn't mean you have to raise your fist. It just means you put an issue behind you. You cannot resolve something so you stay out of each other's way - period.

BTW, I also find it interesting how little we hear about this renewed bout of incursions, by Russia, into foreign air space. Right now, nations aren't shooting down Russian planes - they're ... "Talking".

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

You're correct, it's a bad analogy. You're attempting to conflate indecision and weighing the cost with trying to accomplish something by adopting two strategies, both of which are diametrically opposed. Actually, in another way, your analogy supports my position, because you can't have your steak and your bike and the new car all together. You have to choose one or the other. What you're calling a balanced view is really just an unwillingness to take a stand.

Diplomacy is what you use AFTER you have achieved military victory. Otherwise, as you stated yourself, talking is seen as weakness by your enemies.

We ought to be intercepting Russian planes like we did in the 70s and 80s.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Not at all. I said before, im not in favor of it, just exploring the issue. I think we should whack him while he's here.

I wouldn't have believed you said that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

Posted by: psungee

Guy ... with respect, I did NOT say it was a bad analogy - I said "I know you won't care for this analogy either but ..." (even though I don't think it's a great one).

With this said, "I give up." Here are my final thoughts on this:

"We disagree. It is a subject upon which we will likely always disagree. I can't argue a point if I am misquoted to support an opposing argument and I can accept that we don't agree without making accusations of 'incorrect fusing of ideas' and weakness or inflexibility. I would contend that the historical example of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt and Jordan bears out my hypothesis that there must be discussion as you war.

Still, I believe in being open-minded. Thinking about things that are said to me, particularly when I disagree, makes me stronger - not weaker. As such, I will carry into my future our discussion and will consider it (because I do think about such things sometimes). I don't even mind having had this discussion. I have argued with close friends in the past and have always held that one must be able to disagree. If you never listen to and think about dissenting opinions and other views you will never learn anything.

I, personally, encourage any final thoughts but our next discussion will be on something else

Thanks - it's been interesting.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

More to the original point of this thread.
If we let Ahmadinejad visit ground zero with his entourage
in a disingenuine paying of respects it will be seen as a triumph.
Hell we may as well invite Bin Laden to come and visit and stand there like a hunter over his trophy kill.
Ahmadinejad stands for everything Al Queda stands for and the implied meaning of him standing there will not be lost in the Islamic world. It will lift his stature and give the enemy a propaganda victory
that we must not allow.

Posted by: psungee

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

More to the original point of this thread.
If we let Ahmadinejad visit ground zero with his entourage
in a disingenuine paying of respects it will be seen as a triumph.
Hell we may as well invite Bin Laden to come and visit and stand there like a hunter over his trophy kill.
Ahmadinejad stands for everything Al Queda stands for and the implied meaning of him standing there will not be lost in the Islamic world. It will lift his stature and give the enemy a propaganda victory
that we must not allow.

Fossten, I bet you agree with this statement (as do I)

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

Fossten, I bet you agree with this statement (as do I)

Yes sir. It was a very good point.

Wouldn't it be great if one of the reporters at the usual press conference said, "Mr. President, I understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coming to New York and will be speaking at Columbia University next week. Do you approve of this visit, and if so, would you also approve if Osama bin Laden were coming to speak at Columbia University?"

BUSH:

Update:

Columbia University Dean says of course he would have invited Hitler to speak. But he bans the ROTC and the Minutemen, eh? What a guy.

Also, 60 Minutes will broadcast Ahmadinejad speaking directly to the American people.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/2...columbia-dean/

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I wouldn't have believed you said that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

A few years ago, you gave me sh!t for saying we should have [secretly] just shot a missile up Saddam's ass, instead of attacking Iraq, if he was "the cause of terror".

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

A few years ago, you gave me sh!t for saying we should have [secretly] just shot a missile up Saddam's ass, instead of attacking Iraq, if he was "the cause of terror".

Link please!

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

A few years ago, you gave me sh!t for saying we should have [secretly] just shot a missile up Saddam's ass, instead of attacking Iraq, if he was "the cause of terror".

We tried to do that.

Unfortunately, the intelligence on the ground in Iraq was terrible. The information was wrong, Hussein identified the informants and killed them, and we lost the element of surprise when launching the military operations in Iraq.

Posted by: Calabrio

Ahmadinejad is in, ROTC is out
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, September 24, 2007

President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is a very open-minded guy, in his own opinion. In inviting the Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, he issued this statement. "Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas...Necessarily on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs that many, most of even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialog and reason."

So why won't Bollinger allow the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) to recruit on the Columbia campus? ROTC was expelled from Columbia in the late sixties. In 2003 a majority of students said they wanted ROTC back, to give students the choice to serve their country in this way. The Columbia faculty opposed the measure, however, and Bollinger sided with them against the students.

What is the problem with ROTC as far as Columbia University is concerned? Apparently Bollinger and other left-wingers on the faculty can't stand the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning homosexuals. Yet this policy, devised and introduced by the Clinton administration, respects the privacy of homosexual soldiers on the condition that they aren't open or flagrant about being gay. The objective of the policy is to maintain morale in the barracks.

Even if you disagree with the military, Bollinger himself says that Columbia is open to allowing ideas that are "offensive and even odious." This is the whole point of tolerance. Tolerance means, “I disagree strongly, but I will put up with you.” If I agreed with what you have to say then there is no question of tolerance. Whatever Bollinger’s ideological disagreement with ROTC, surely students are capable of hearing his concerns and then making up their own minds about whether to enroll.

Meanwhile, Iran's policies toward homosexuals are--shall we say--somewhat more stringent than those of the U.S. military. I visited the website of Human Rights Watch where the country's sorry record is pretty well laid out. A few months ago, to take a random example, the Iranian police raided a home where men were allegedly dressed up as women. The men were accused of homosexuality, detained without a lawyer, and beaten. Perhaps they should consider themselves lucky: in the past Iran has not hesitated to execute homosexuals. Last November two men were strung up in northern Iran for engaging in homosexual acts. (Lesbianism is apparently punished not by death but by public whipping.)

It's interesting to see that Columbia has such wide parameters when it comes to giving Islamic radicals like Ahmadinejad a forum on campus. Actually I don't agree with conservatives who say that the man should be prevented from speaking. Let him come and let him talk. If Ahmadinejad blames America and Israel for terrorism and calls for both to be wiped off the map, he would be doing no more than echoing what many leftists at Columbia have been saying for years. If he takes the more interesting approach of defending Muslim holy law regarding women and gays, he will show the left what it’s in for if Islamic radicalism triumphs in the Middle East.

But if Columbia can make room for Ahmadinejad, Columbia can make room for ROTC on campus. This absurd double standard of kowtowing even to the enemies of America, while blocking the military and other politically incorrect institutions, has got to stop and stop now. Columbia and other universities should be just as open to ideas from the right as they are to ideas from the left and from the Islamic radicals. Isn't it time Bollinger and his thick-headed colleagues realized that free speech and diversity should be valued across the political spectrum? Send me your thoughts at dineshjdsouza@aol.com.

Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: fossten

Seventy years before this week’s invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Columbia rolled out the red carpet for a senior official of Adolf Hitler’s regime. The invitation to Iran’s leader may seem less surprising, but no less disturbing, when one recalls that in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him. Luther represented “the government of a friendly people,” Butler insisted. He was “entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect.” Ambassador Luther’s speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler’s peaceful intentions. [sound familiar?] Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as “ill-mannered children” by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences.

Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities. While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise. Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as “political soldiers of the Reich.”

In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg. This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors. Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was “very enjoyable.”

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42946.html

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Link please!

It's buried in the sands of LVC antiquity... I know, that you know, that I know, that you know, you said it.

But here's a funny parody; it's funny, because it's true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qKD-Ph7ds

Posted by: TheDude

.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by psungee

I have argued with close friends in the past and have always held that one must be able to disagree. If you never listen to and think about dissenting opinions and other views you will never learn anything.

EXACTLY

Keep posting - dont let them scare you off

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Some more food for thought along the lines of knowing your enemy and keeping your friends close but your enemies closer.

We cannot just bomb Iran into submission especially when the military is talking about occupying Iraq for at least another 10 years. We 180,000 troops and another 180,000 paid mercenaries there and look at how hard that slog has turned out to be.

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: September 24, 2007
TEHRAN — When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was first elected president, he said Iran had more important issues to worry about than how women dress. He even called for allowing women into soccer games, a revolutionary idea for revolutionary Iran.

Today, Iran is experiencing the most severe crackdown on social behavior and dress in years, and women are often barred from smoking in public, let alone attending a stadium event.

Since his inauguration two years ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world, and in Iran, for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of being put into practice than his plan for women to attend soccer games. He has generated controversy in New York in recent days by asking to visit ground zero — a request that was denied — and his scheduled appearance at Columbia University has drawn protests.

But it is because of his provocative remarks, like denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, that the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him. In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts.

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.”

That is not to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad is insignificant. He controls the mechanics of civil government, much the way a prime minister does in a state like Egypt, where the real power rests with the president. He manages the budget and has put like-minded people in positions around the country, from provincial governors to prosecutors. His base of support is the Basiji militia and elements of the Revolutionary Guards.

But Mr. Ahmadinejad has not shown the same political acumen at home as he has in riling the West. Two of his ministers have quit, criticizing his stewardship of the state. The head of the central bank resigned. The chief judge criticized him for his management of the government. His promise to root out corruption and redistribute oil wealth has run up against entrenched interests.

Even a small bloc of members of Parliament that once aligned with Mr. Ahmadinejad has largely given up, officials said. “Maybe it comes as a surprise to you that I voted for him,” said Emad Afrough, a conservative member of Parliament. “I liked the slogans demanding justice.”

But he added: “You cannot govern the country on a personal basis. You have to use public knowledge and consultation.”

Rather than focusing so much attention on the president, the West needs to learn that in Iran, what matters is ideology — Islamic revolutionary ideology, according to politicians and political analysts here. Nearly 30 years after the shah fell in a popular revolt, Iran’s supreme leader also holds title of guardian of the revolution.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power stems not from his office per se, but from the refusal of his patron, Ayatollah Khamenei, and some hard-line leaders, to move beyond Iran’s revolutionary identity, which makes full relations with the West impossible. There are plenty of conservatives and hard-liners who take a more pragmatic view, wanting to retain “revolutionary values” while integrating Iran with the world, at least economically. But they are not driving the agenda these days, and while that could change, it will not be the president who makes that call.

“Iran has never been interested in reaching an accommodation with the United States,” the Iranian political scientist said. “It cannot reach an accommodation as long as it retains the current structure.”

Another important factor restricts Mr. Ahmadinejad’s hand: while ideology defines the state, the revolution has allowed a particular class to grow wealthy and powerful.

When Mr. Ahmadinejad was first elected, it appeared that Iran’s hard-liners had a monopoly on all the levers of power. But today it is clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not a hard-liner in the traditional sense. His talk of economic justice and a redistribution of wealth, for example, ran into a wall of existing vested interests, including powerful clergy members and military leaders.

“Ahmadinejad is a phenomenon,” said Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president under the more moderate administration of Mohammad Khatami. “On a religious level he is much more of a hard-liner than the traditional hard-liners. But on a political level, he does not have the support of the hard-liners.”

In the long run, political analysts here say, a desire to preserve those vested interests will drive Iran’s agenda. That means that the allegiance of the political elite is to the system, not a particular president. If this president were ever perceived as outlasting his usefulness, he would probably take his place in history beside other presidents who failed to change the orientation of the system.

Iranians will go to the polls in less than two years to select a president. There are so many pressures on the electoral system here, few people expect an honest race. The Guardian Council, for example, controlled by hard-liners, must approve all candidates.

But whether Mr. Ahmadinejad wins or loses, there is no sense here in Iran that the outcome will have any impact on the fundamentals of Iran’s relations with the world or the government’s relation to its own society.

“The situation will get worse and worse,” said Saeed Leylaz, an economist and former government official. “We are moving to a point where no internal force can change things.”

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Some more food for thought along the lines of knowing your enemy and keeping your friends close but your enemies closer.

We cannot just bomb Iran into submission especially when the military is talking about occupying Iraq for at least another 10 years. We 180,000 troops and another 180,000 paid mercenaries there and look at how hard that slog has turned out to be.

We can take out their nukes. And we should. We don't have to invade them, all we really have to do is destroy their one oil plant and they will be begging for help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: September 24, 2007
[...]

Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world

He has generated controversy

the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him.

elevating his status at home and in the region

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president,

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad”

That is not to say that Mr. Ahmadinejad is insignificant.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power

But today it is clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not a hard-liner in the traditional sense.

“Ahmadinejad is a phenomenon,”

He's a ROCK STAR!!!

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Isreal will beat us to taking out their nukes like they did the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and their recent attack on Syria which is still shrouded in silence and secrecy.
In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.
When the radical arabs blithly talk of a nuclear exchange with Isreal they say sure we'll lose millions of people but there's a billion of us and it will be worth it to annialate the Jews especially since there's so many of them all in one place.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.

Because it does.

We might have a problem though, we cant just claim ignorance if Isreal were to attack, because we control the airspace inbetween them and iran. We would have to knowingly let them through.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

How is this a problem? Iran is a threat, Israel is our ally, we help them take their asses out. What, should we be worried that our enemies might get mad at us? Sheesh. We seem to have lost our balls.

Posted by: psungee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

EXACTLY

Keep posting - dont let them scare you off

Ummm... Thanks Joeyc.. I think, perhaps, I'm just too stupid to be scared

but I've opined, sufficiently, on this issue of Ahmadinejad and his visit. More from me would, essentially, be the same and somewhat off topic as duly pointed out by 04SCTLS but "thanks again - I appreciate the welcome!" I assure you there will be other occasions on which I will be able to antagonize and/or be antagonized over my (uncomfortably to some) liberal views. It's still interesting to read the ongoing discussion.

Considering, however, 04SCTLS' (off-topic

) comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Isreal will beat us to taking out their nukes like they did the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and their recent attack on Syria which is still shrouded in silence and secrecy.
In ways described as "intellectually refreshing" Isreal acts carefully surgically and decisively as their very exhistence is at stake.
When the radical arabs blithly talk of a nuclear exchange with Isreal they say sure we'll lose millions of people but there's a billion of us and it will be worth it to annialate the Jews especially since there's so many of them all in one place.

it is noteworthy that "if" Iran were to attempt such an action one would think their Arab brethren would recognize how many Palestinians would die. I wonder how the Arab world would, this time, blame Israel, the United States, and the world Jewry for such decimation of their own numbers.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Passion is a greater force than intellect.
Hatred is more easily nourished than friendship.
It is part of the human psyche.
The Palastinians weren't even considered a "people"
until about 1961.
To the countries of the middle east the "Palastinians"
are just the arabs who happenned to be there at the time of the creation of the state of Isreal in 1947.
Isreal had to fight it's first war without the help of western powers and as such did not have the strength to run these people off the territory into the neighboring countries.
Historically this is how things are done....run the enemy off and assimilate or kill those who won't go.
Ask the indians.
The Palastinians are a convenient prop who will easily
be discarded by radical islamists for the better good of their cause if that is what it takes to win.
Isreal is historically keenly aware of the fragility of the friendship of nations to them and even though we are their ally for now they don't take it for granted and will do what's in their best interest regardless of us.
Pollard passed state secrets to Isreal and is still sitting in jail for it.
The Jews are better at using our own military equipment than we are and will evade our surveillance of them if nessesary and/or at least provide a layer of plausible deniability to their actions.
To them this is everything.

Posted by: psungee

If contemporary Israeli history is of interest to you may I recommend to EXCELLENT pieces of reading (in no particular order):
"My Life" an autobiography by Golda Meir
and "Cast a Giant Shadow" a biography by Ted Berkman

Personally, I didn't see the movie (starred Kirk Douglas as Mickey Marcus).

Naturally, "Exodus" by Leon Uris, while a historical novel, also spells out some of the challenges that faced Israel in its founding.

These first two books are wonderful pieces which serve to educate on the foundation of the state as well as how and from where help did come. In the early days it was mostly clandestine, Jewish help but the U.S. did step in (after establishment of the state) with loans for arms etc (thank goodness 'cause no other country cared enough to do the right thing).

I think "Exodus" helps to fill holes in the fascinating information delivered in the other two books and covers several areas untouched by the other two books (and, no, I don't think they are all that's been written on the subject).

A careful read will explain why Israel simply can NOT return all pre-'67 lands. It is, at best, obtuse to think otherwise. (Pardon me but I just can't understand Carter's inability to see the danger in his own words!)

Posted by: fossten

Good posts, both of you. (Yeah, I said it.

)

Posted by: Marcus

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/

Iran leader condemned by university host
Ahmadinejad calls remarks at Columbia 'an insult,' addresses Holocaust

NEW YORK - As hundreds protested outside, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University on Monday after a blistering introduction from the school's president, who said the hard-line leader was a dictator with preposterous beliefs.

Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, as well as Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant. "When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

“You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader’s Holocaust denial. “Will you cease this outrage?”

Bollinger, who had been criticized for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, also described him as having a "fanatical mindset" for making statements like wanting Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

"Do you plan on wiping us off the map too?" Bollinger asked.

Bollinger also raised questions of academic freedom in Iran and asked, "Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq?"

Stating his "revulsion at all you stand for" as Ahmadinejad sat nearby, Bollinger concluded by saying that "I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions — but your avoidance will be meaningful to us."

Bollinger ended his remarks to strong applause from the audience.

(More at link)

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Yes
The Great Game continues....
After the collapse of the Soviet Union many pundits were opining about the end of history with the ascention on US hegemony as the only remaining superpower in the world.
However as recent history has shown military might has it's limits.
Ideas are stronger than things and are much harder to destroy.
I don't think the Bush Administration has played a particularly good hand since 9/11 but they have been successful in keeping another terrorist attack from succeeding on american soil.
And pulling out now would certainly be worse than staying the course because of what's been created there.
Some ruthless types might even say the war is a bargain compared to US casualties in Vietnam and the stakes are much higher.
9/11 was an incredibally lucky and spectacular strike by our enemies which has perhaps given them a stature greater than they deserve.
Most people can't remember what happened last monday but no one will forget the towers coming down.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Madonna used to say "I don't care what you say about me, as long as you're talking about me" and Amadinejed probably agrees.
As the old Chinese curse goes.
May you live in interesting times...

Posted by: psungee

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Good posts, both of you. (Yeah, I said it.

)

we must be facing armageddon!

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Darwin said the company of clever men is more satisfying than that of good woman.

Posted by: Calabrio

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/lin...2616013529.htm

IRI President addresses students at Colombia University

New York, Sept 25, IRNA
Ahmadinejad-Colombia Varsity-Address

Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.

On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.

Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians' resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.

2329/1771

Posted by: fossten

Wow what a bunch of propagandist pap. Of course the article omitted the scathing introduction, and especially the derisive laughter when Imadinnerjacket claimed there are no gays in Iran. He was rather nonplussed when they laughed scornfully at him, not once, but twice.

Posted by: Calabrio

That article is from the Islamic Republic News Agency in Iran.

And in case anyone was wondering what the FIRST sentence he spoke was:
"Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness." That's what he opened with... horrifying.

Posted by: Calabrio

http://www.columbiasupportsterror.com/

Posted by: 04SCTLS

can you say nuts