http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/index.html

You should all charter a plane, take them some cookies, and sing Kumbayah together.

Anka was asking what a Jihadist looked like the other day,,,there is a bunch right there. That is what they look like.

Sooo... the peaceniks would want to get together and sing Kumbayah with a country that wants to eradicate another country? :rolleyes:

Fancy YOUR freedom of speech limited, or just his? :P

Here's another jihadist for you, just for all the hawks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4354858.stm

I've said, from the get go, that major reason I opposed the war in Iraq is because it used up valuable military and political resources that could have been used to go into Iran.

Iraq was mostly harmless. Iran is a major threat.

And Tinsi, freedom of speech isn't a right which need be extended to the 'president' of a tyrranical government which censors its people with regularity.

Why not? It's not like it's a right that's there to protect the opinions you LIKE to hear from the people you LIKE to hear it from. Quite the contrary.

Bah, we should have taken care of Iran during the Carter administration.

Why not? It's not like it's a right that's there to protect the opinions you LIKE to hear from the people you LIKE to hear it from. Quite the contrary.

Except its not a right in Iran ;)

And here I was thinking that was one of the principles you guys wanted implemented around the world. Tell me, if it's not, wtf are you fighting for in Iraq?

kumbaya my lord, kumbaya... :p

And here I was thinking that was one of the principles you guys wanted implemented around the world. Tell me, if it's not, wtf are you fighting for in Iraq?

We've been asking our Administration just that question: wtf are we fighting for in Iraq?

But, in the end, the freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the consequences of what you say.

Wars have begun for less than one side saying the other side needs to be destroyed.

But, in the end, the freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the consequences of what you say.

Wars have begun for less than one side saying the other side needs to be destroyed.

This is both true, I just don't think the statements are particularily relevant. Firstly, the consequences for stating an opinion shouldn't go beyond "Having to listen to the opposing view". Secondly, just because something has happened in the past doesn't make it a right or a just action.

The man is obviously .. uhm.. how do i put this gently.. politically and diplomatically challenged, as well as the holder of some thoroughly unpleasant opinions.

However, this:
freedom of speech isn't a right which need be extended to the 'president' of a tyrranical government which censors its people with regularity.
is still, and always will be, an opinion I'll vigorously oppose. Opinions do not go away simply because we don't allow them to be uttered. So seing how the basic principle is "Everything should be allowed unless you can argue a bloody good case in favor of forbidding it" (Hi Fyyr, I bet you like that one), there's absolutely no point in not extending the right of freedom of speech also to those who hold opinions we disagree with.

I listened to a Iran studies PhD talking about this on NPR. He said, this is a new and inexperienced president. He was quoting the old Kohmeni guy when he said it. The mullahs actually are not happy with him for saying it and they're trying to teach the politicians that you can't just say crap like this and not have the rest of the world think it is your policy rather than just rhetoric.

If you want to hear more, its archived here on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4980285

Very interesting analysis of how these sorts of statements were not uncommon in Iran, or at least in the past, but the response by other countries to it is what is different. The analyst calls it a "blunder" by the new president. Interesting stuff.

I think the president crossed the line between "We don't recognise Israel, it shouldn't be on the map" and "Israel should be wiped from the map".

This is both true, I just don't think the statements are particularily relevant. Firstly, the consequences for stating an opinion shouldn't go beyond "Having to listen to the opposing view". Secondly, just because something has happened in the past doesn't make it a right or a just action.

The world has lost its right to 'just state an opinion' which advocates the destruction of the Jewish nation. Its been less than a century since that was tried and almost succeeded...repeatedly.

The man is obviously .. uhm.. how do i put this gently.. politically and diplomatically challenged, as well as the holder of some thoroughly unpleasant opinions.

Not so obviously. Its a very popular opinon in that region of the world, one which was the stance of the major Arabic nations up until the past decade. Its a dangerous view. The world can take steps to extinguish it, or Israel will.

Obviously I'd never defend -acting- upon such views, like the horror you're referring to that's happened in the past. No opinion was ever extinguished by war or violence of other sorts, nor by prohibiting the right to state said opinions, so provided the "steps" you are advocating are steps that actually.. you know.. work, by all means, I'm with you all the way. I am however, not about to support actions that are both costly, freedom-limiting AND ineffective.

It'd be like if we had that guy... what's his name... TV evangelist who said that the CIA should just go kill the Venezulean president and who prayed for more "vacancies" in the supreme court. Anyway, if he got elected he'd be spouting off crap like that all the time. Would he act on it? I doubt it.

It'd be like if we had that guy... what's his name... TV evangelist who said that the CIA should just go kill the Venezulean president and who prayed for more "vacancies" in the supreme court. Anyway, if he got elected he'd be spouting off crap like that all the time. Would he act on it? I doubt it.

That TV evangelist only RAN for president, he was NOT president.


And personally, if yall decide you want to extradite Pat Robertson to Venezuela, I will drive the boat.

And personally, if yall decide you want to extradite Pat Robertson to Venezuela, I will drive the boat.Send him by jet... so much faster. I'll pay the fare!!

Obviously I'd never defend -acting- upon such views, like the horror you're referring to that's happened in the past. No opinion was ever extinguished by war or violence of other sorts, nor by prohibiting the right to state said opinions, so provided the "steps" you are advocating are steps that actually.. you know.. work, by all means, I'm with you all the way. I am however, not about to support actions that are both costly, freedom-limiting AND ineffective.

Who said anything about war? I thought we should have gone to war with Iran, instead of Iraq, for completely seperate issues than what this guy said.

Expulsion from the UN and an international boycott is sufficient.

I'd never support this administration in going to war again. I have a feeling that there is a majority of people that feel that way. Especially over some stupid rhetoric.

I'd never support this administration in going to war again. I have a feeling that there is a majority of people that feel that way. Especially over some stupid rhetoric.*grin* Never say "never" Panamah.

I don't have a problem with an administration going to war. I have a problem with the political machine getting us mired in "undeclared wars". Either we're at war or we aren't. No war... no troops. This Viet Nam-type garbage has to stop.

Doh! Stop having a longer memory than I have.

Seriously, would you believe this administration if they came out with "evidence" that Iran was up to something?

Doh! Stop having a longer memory than I have.

Seriously, would you believe this administration if they came out with "evidence" that Iran was up to something?No. But then, the process of declaring war is quite different from the Commander in Chief deciding to send troops wherever he wants. Declarations of war require a bit more scrutiny and a lot more concensus.

I don't think military intervention should be considered again purely on intelligence. It was something new for the Iraq conflict and with hindsight was a clear mistake, especially since so much of the evidence was of poor quality and widely disputed.

No. But then, the process of declaring war is quite different from the Commander in Chief deciding to send troops wherever he wants. Declarations of war require a bit more scrutiny and a lot more concensus.

The problem is is that our congress was WAY too gullible and went along with everything and totally ignored the warnings that the intelligence is bad. I'm not sure that even if Iraqi had been declared a war that we still wouldn't have ended up doing the doofy thing we did.

Tell me the difference between a Resolution for War, and a Declaration of War.

Who said anything about war?

You did.

But, in the end, the freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the consequences of what you say.

Wars have begun for less than one side saying the other side needs to be destroyed.

I read that as meaning "if someone decides to go to war over this, it's no more than he should've expected". And I expressed my disagreement with that interpretation.

Expulsion from the UN and an international boycott is sufficient.

Aight, let's look at that. What is the goal, and how will this help reach said goal?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9807803/

Its ok for Tehran to call for the elimination of the nation of Isreal and its allies but they get upset when a video game simulates an attack on their country....

No Sympathy.

You did.



I read that as meaning "if someone decides to go to war over this, it's no more than he should've expected". And I expressed my disagreement with that interpretation.



Aight, let's look at that. What is the goal, and how will this help reach said goal?

The goal is the expulsion Iran from the global community, driving them into the dark ages their social views reflect through a strangulation of their economy via a mass cessation of their oil exports through boycott.

They are dangerous and should be kept on a short leash, or kept so poor as to constitute a danger to noone because the only weapons they can afford involve a blacksmith and a horse.

The goal is the expulsion Iran from the global community, driving them into the dark ages their social views reflect through a strangulation of their economy via a mass cessation of their oil exports through boycott.

Surely that isn't a goal, but whatever means you've come to conclude is a good way to reach said goals seing as I don't see you as an evil person that'd call for this simply cause it souds like a fun thing to do. So I ask again, what is the goal?

A slight tangent: I think China's communist government will fall soonish because their population has gotten a good taste of free enterprise. Excluding them from the global community would have backfired.

I bet the same will be true for Iran. Get them addicted to the same drug we all are, money, and they'll come around.

I bet the same will be true for Iran. Get them addicted to the same drug we all are, money, and they'll come around.
I completely agree. It would work on Cuba, too.

Surely that isn't a goal, but whatever means you've come to conclude is a good way to reach said goals seing as I don't see you as an evil person that'd call for this simply cause it souds like a fun thing to do. So I ask again, what is the goal?

The goal is to ensure that Iran cannot be a danger to Israel.

A slight tangent: I think China's communist government will fall soonish because their population has gotten a good taste of free enterprise. Excluding them from the global community would have backfired.

I bet the same will be true for Iran. Get them addicted to the same drug we all are, money, and they'll come around.

Foolish thinking. Money will not make Islamists come around. It will give them the means to realize their dreams of destroying the infidels (ie anyone who isn't them).

Besides, as far as standard of living, Iran isn't too bad. They have plenty of money from oil and are a relatively modern and educated nation.

I view them as our own lil version of Krikket, without the badass ships =P

Money will not make Islamists come around.
Money will give people within the society a reason to encourage a climate where they can make more money. It will also provide them with the means and the influence to be effective.

It already IS having an effect on Iran. Unfortunately I think your utter hatred of everything Islamic doesn't allow you to see anything but what confirms your hatred. They're no different than any other people. You breed their intolerance and hatred in war, opression and poverty and give them nothing to live for and their lives have no value, might as well become human bombs. Give them education, free time, a bit of luxury and life takes on value.

I think where Iran might be different from Saudi Arabia is that there is an growing Middle Class and it actually benefits from the oil. I'm not sure if that is true in SA, my gut feeling is that the wealth is in the hands of a few.

What war, oppression, and poverty is there in Iran? The only oppression is by their own government.

You are awefully cavalier about handing over money to people who openly declare they want to see Israel (and the Jews) destroyed. They snicker at folks like you...laughing as they take your money and use it to buy weapons or to pay the families of suicide bombers.

Promoting wealth there simply funds evil men doing evil deeds. Choke them. Strangle them. Let them wither and die. If they don't...and still persist with their vile ways, then it is time to use force.

Iran is a mixed bag. It has a partial but restricted democracy. Nike do sell trainers there. For every step forward in terms of personal freedoms though they often take another step back. Over time they could well develop their own Muslim version of a free market democracy in the same way that China is developing a new style of capitalism. It's difficult to give them that time though when they are taking advantage of the Iraq situation to pursue nuclear ambitions.

It is worth remembering that the new hard line comes from a democratically elected president. He has a fresh mandate from his electorate. He isn't a dictator in the style of Saddam Hussein. If the Iranian people want regime change then they will have opportunities to make it happen themselves, even if the opportunies are limited.