I thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was little more than the puppet of Ali Khamenei. I have gravely underestimated him.
The guy is scary as hell, but you have to admit that he knows his "strategery". I think we're so used to having a leader that (at the least) looks and sounds like an idiot that we've kind of lost the idea that there are leaders like Ahmadinejad out there that can be really calculating, know how to choose their battles and know where their priorities lie. The article definitely made a lot of good points about how we (or supposedly our nation's greatest minds) embarassed ourselves while he remained pretty unflappable; he wasn't here to win the people of the US over.
A lot of heads were scratched when he requested to visit Ground Zero in lower Manhattan and lay a wreath. It was probably the smartest move he could have made from a PR standpoint for his re-election in Iran. He can take it as a provocation or a sign of a lack of hospitality that we wouldn't allow it. Regardless of how we see it, he's going to be able to really spin it once he gets back to Iran.
Allow me to throw out a gross over-generalization out here; Americans tend not to look below the surface.
I am proud that an American university offered him the opportunity to speak. Free speech applies to everyone, not just the ones who agree with us. I am disappointed Lee Bollinger felt he had to take a pot shot to regain face. If you are going to let him speak, let him speak. If you want a debate, then make it a debate. I thought it was immature.
I do not share Ahmadinejad's views but I also have nothing to fear from him standing before me and spouting lies.
I don't know if we'll fight him next year, five years from now or 10 years from now, but he's going to have to be put down. With Chamberlain's ghost running American/World public opinion again, I'm afraid it'll take a mushroom cloud somewhere before history's ultimate lesson is learned again.
|
I am proud that an American university offered him the opportunity to speak. Free speech applies to everyone, not just the ones who agree with us. I am disappointed Lee Bollinger felt he had to take a pot shot to regain face. If you are going to let him speak, let him speak. If you want a debate, then make it a debate. I thought it was immature.
When I saw it at the german tv, my impression was, that Ahmadinejad reached exactly what he had come for. This "debate" allows him to return at home as the hero who had the guts to enter the lion's den and to defend the irani values against the empty threads of the decadent west. So i didn't felt it to be immature rather than politically stupid.
As you said, a modern democracy should respect everyone's right to free speech and so you are right right to be proud of this to be possible in the U.S. . What I dont't get is why western politicians seem so poorly prepared to handle demagogues and populists if they are confronted by them, even if they invited them to come.
I don't know if we'll fight him next year, five years from now or 10 years from now, but he's going to have to be put down. With Chamberlain's ghost running American/World public opinion again, I'm afraid it'll take a mushroom cloud somewhere before history's ultimate lesson is learned again.
That's probably true, but after one badly mismanaged pre-emptive war stretched the U.S. military practically to the breaking point it's unlikely that military measures will be used anywhere in the near future. It's going to have to either be economic or diplomatic pressure until we can bounce back and come from a stronger position. Frustrating the people of Iran enough that they won't keep Ahmadinejad in office any longer might contribute to getting rid of their nuclear program, but it doesn't seem like this recent visit to New York has done anything toward that.
|
|
I don't know if we'll fight him next year, five years from now or 10 years from now, but he's going to have to be put down.
But I do truly hope that this time a strategy for the peace thereafter is developed before the war is started.
history's ultimate lesson is learned again.
In my opionion, history's ultimate lesson is what I said above: To win a war, you must win the peace thereafter. Europe (and the rest of the world) learned it the hard way, when they lost the peace after WW1, which is one of the main reasons Hitler became possible. So please let us first win the peace in the Iraq before we start another adventure of warfare.
I don't know if we'll fight him next year, five years from now or 10 years from now, but he's going to have to be put down. With Chamberlain's ghost running American/World public opinion again, I'm afraid it'll take a mushroom cloud somewhere before history's ultimate lesson is learned again.
Just because this administration calls someone a dictator, doesn't necessarily make it the truth. I think it would be real difficult to find much truth in anything that comes out of our gov't nowadays.
As much as I disagree with the Iranian leaders views on several historical issues, there is very little he has said in his characterizations of our administration that I don't agree with. There is no need for him to lie or distort about US foreign policy. We have made such jack-arses of ourselves in the wake of 9/11, that if we weren't so militarily formidible, there would have been a coalition of the more than willing to force regime change on us.
We are mostly responsible for Ahmadinejad's rise to power. Pre-Iraq, Iran was actually moving towards a more open, liberal-minded government. But when the world's biggest bully calls your country an axis of evil and invades your next door neighbor, it only follows that your populace will move to elect an ultra-conservative, strong-arm style leader. It is the instability we created by invading Iraq that brought this guy to power.
The other thing that gets me about the whole Iran issue is our incredible arrogance and hypocrisy when it comes to the nuclear issue. Now, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons anymore than the next guy, but doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical that we stand over here with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and proceed to tell everyone else not to develope nuclear weapons. 10 years ago, when we still had any sort of credibility on the world stage, I might have been able to accept this. But with all the lies and unprovoked violence we have subjected the rest of the world to over the last decade, I just find it a little hard to swallow. I wish there was a way for us to undo the nuclear djinni, so to speak, but there isn't. And while I agree with the message of nuclear non-proliferation, we certainly are not the messanger to be delivering it, at least not until we have more credibility.
If we really want to get rid of leaders like Ahmadinejad, we need to stop threatening every country we don't agree with. Regardless of what our state department says, he was elected. It wasn't the single party elections of the Soviet era, the Iranian people chose him, just like the Palestinian people chose Hamas. His election was at least as fair as Bush's two "victories".
What I dont't get is why western politicians seem so poorly prepared to handle demagogues and populists if they are confronted by them, even if they invited them to come.
Inexperience? Let's face it, America does not understand Iran. Hell, how many countries do we understand?
What I dont't get is why western politicians seem so poorly prepared to handle demagogues and populists if they are confronted by them, even if they invited them to come.
Are you implying western politicians aren't demagogues and populists?
In my opionion, history's ultimate lesson is what I said above: To win a war, you must win the peace thereafter. Europe (and the rest of the world) learned it the hard way, when they lost the peace after WW1, which is one of the main reasons Hitler became possible. So please let us first win the peace in the Iraq before we start another adventure of warfare.
No offense intended, but I think history's ultimate lesson is that people never learn, and never change. They never have, and they never will :/
Allow me to throw out a gross over-generalization out here; Americans tend not to look below the surface.
I am proud that an American university offered him the opportunity to speak. Free speech applies to everyone, not just the ones who agree with us. I am disappointed Lee Bollinger felt he had to take a pot shot to regain face. If you are going to let him speak, let him speak. If you want a debate, then make it a debate. I thought it was immature.
I do not share Ahmadinejad's views but I also have nothing to fear from him standing before me and spouting lies.
Free speech? You do realize this is the university that kicked the student ROTC program off campus? That refused to let Army recruiters on campus at all until they almost lost their federal funding? That took no actions when Jim Gilchrist of the Minute Men was chased off the stage by violent protesters?
Conservative speech is not allowed on that campus.
But the line for the Crazies to spout whatever nonsense they want starts right over there.
The other thing that gets me about the whole Iran issue is our incredible arrogance and hypocrisy when it comes to the nuclear issue. Now, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons anymore than the next guy, but doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical that we stand over here with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and proceed to tell everyone else not to develope nuclear weapons. 10 years ago, when we still had any sort of credibility on the world stage, I might have been able to accept this. But with all the lies and unprovoked violence we have subjected the rest of the world to over the last decade, I...
The reason we don't want countries like Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons is because they are likely to use them. Achmadinejad(sp?) practically daily promises the destruction of Israel.
But don't worry. Israeli intel is top notch, and the day before Iran gets the bomb, Israel (with or without US blessing) will turn Iran into a sea of glass. They have no choice. If they don't Iran will hit them first.
Personally, I believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is definitely a better leader than President Bush.
I'm staying out of this.
Personally, I don't care what you think about Ahmadinejad or Bush, but if your going to make such a judgement please don't expect on "staying out of this".
Could you give us some insight on why you would prefer one over the other?
|
Is it just me or was he really short?
And for the record: some folks were surprised by his intelligence and capability to "stratergize". Not me. I had read when he was first elected that he had been one of the more prominent military commanders of Iran's elite units, and that he was also one of the masterminds behind the hostage taking by Iran back in the late 70s.
Still, as much as I support free speecjh, I think it was a mistake to give any kind of seeming legitimacy to such a little psychopath.
|
|
The reason we don't want countries like Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons is because they are likely to use them. Achmadinejad(sp?) practically daily promises the destruction of Israel.
Not to mention the fact that there would be nothing to stop them from providing a terrorist group (like Hamas, or Hezbollah) with a bomb, or the material to make one.
You do realize this is the university that kicked the student ROTC program off campus?
I did not know that. Thanks for killing Santa Claus. It seems rather hypocritical now.
|
Just because this administration calls someone a dictator, doesn't necessarily make it the truth. I think it would be real difficult to find much truth in anything that comes out of our gov't nowadays.
That does not necessarily make it not the truth either.
Indeed it seems rather absurd that you would look to dismiss the flaws of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran simply because the government of the US dislikes them and you dislike the government of the US, as that seems to be the basis for your complaint.We are mostly responsible for Ahmadinejad's rise to power. Pre-Iraq, Iran was actually moving towards a more open, liberal-minded government. But when the world's biggest bully calls your country an axis of evil and invades your next door neighbor, it only follows that your populace will move to elect an ultra-conservative, strong-arm style leader. It is the instability we created by invading Iraq that brought this guy to power.
Not in the least. Iran was a repressive theocratic state before Bush said they were part of the Axis of Evil, and they will remain a repressive theocratic state even if they replace Ahmadinejad with a "reformer." In fact, it was the movement to reform that caused the country to swing back to someone like him. The mullahs will not allow anyone who intends to reform the government
The other thing that gets me about the whole Iran issue is our incredible arrogance and hypocrisy when it comes to the nuclear issue. Now, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons anymore than the next guy, but doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical that we stand over here with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and proceed to tell everyone else not to develope nuclear weapons. 10 years ago, when we still had any sort of credibility on the world stage,
No. It does not.
The US spent 40 years on the front line of MAD with the Soviet Union. We have been there, done that, have the scars to the nation to prove it. The US very much understands how bad it is to trap yourself in a nuclear arms race, and so has a very high standing to tell others not to start another one.You also seem to be completely ignoring the existence of the UN and the IAEA, as well as the views of other countries in not supporting Iran developing nuclear weapons. Even if you want to dismiss the views of the US on the topic because of our "arrogance," you are still left with the views of the UN and other "humble" nations opposing Iran nuclear aspirations.
If we really want to get rid of leaders like Ahmadinejad, we need to stop threatening every country we don't agree with. Regardless of what our state department says, he was elected. It wasn't the single party elections of the Soviet era, the Iranian people chose him, just like the Palestinian people chose Hamas. His election was at least as fair as Bush's two "victories".
Multi-party or not, the mullahs still disqualify candidates regularly for not being conservative enough. That hardly creates free and open elections.
Nor do fully open elections justify a government's existence on an international level.Perhaps you are forgetting that Ahmadinejad has directly called another government completely illegitimate, and called for its total destruction. Apparently such threats are acceptable for him to make.
|
|
Inexperience? Let's face it, America does not understand Iran. Hell, how many countries do we understand?
Being german,I'm trying hard not to walk into the same trap as so many of my compatriots (the trap of Anti-Americanism). We owe you too much, so you won't hear any possibly offending phrases from me. Especially if I'm not quite sure how much truth lies in them.
This said, I didn't speak specifically about America. It's just the same here in Germany. And as far as I can see it's the same in the other european countries.
Are you implying western politicians aren't demagogues and populists?
I'd agree that most of them are (and quite probably have to be)populists. But most of them I wouldn't call demagogues.
but I think history's ultimate lesson is that people never learn, and never change. They never have, and they never will
I shared this view for a long time, but actually I'm no pessimist. It's just so that it takes them sometimes much to long.
I am proud that an American university offered him the opportunity to speak. Free speech applies to everyone, not just the ones who agree with us. I am disappointed Lee Bollinger felt he had to take a pot shot to regain face. If you are going to let him speak, let him speak. If you want a debate, then make it a debate. I thought it was immature.When I saw it at the german tv, my impression was, that Ahmadinejad reached exactly what he had come for. This "debate" allows him to return at home as the hero who had the guts to enter the lion's den and to defend the Iran values against the empty threads of the decadent west. So i didn't felt it to be immature rather than politically stupid.
As you said, a modern democracy should respect everyone's right to free speech and so you are right right to be proud of this to be possible in the U.S. . What I dont't get is why western politicians seem so poorly prepared to handle demagogues and populists if they are confronted by them, even if they invited them to come.
I think that is why American's were scared of him. They don't know how to handle him. I think American politicians work to master the art of the 30 second sound bite, they can't handle a real debate. SO you get a guy like the Iranian president who can debate, they get scared. I also think he portrays some truths about America, Americans do not want to see.
but I think history's ultimate lesson is that people never learn, and never change. They never have, and they never willI shared this view for a long time, but actually I'm no pessimist. It's just so that it takes them sometimes much to long.
Slavery used to me an AMerican economic institution. That changed. Women could not vote, that changed. When I was a child adults smoked in the house, while cooking, changing diapers and feeding thier babies. Now no one I knows smokes inside. I know smokers who step outside of thier own homes to smoke. So I think your wrong, people do change.
I think it is a spectacularly bad idea to give a man who among other things denies the holocaust any public platform (besides the UN, where the world has to bear with all state leaders, from the democratically elected to the most iron-fisted dictator). He would be a criminal offender for that alone in germany. (Yes, it is a sensitive point to me, as I said several times here). And calling for the destruction of Israel does not need to be commented further.
And indeed, the Mullahs of Iran won´t have a president not in line with their views. But the Saudi-Arabian regime is not that much better than the Iranian, yet the US have tight connections to the ruling families. The US gov´t view on other countries is skewed by political and financial interests, not by any kind of ethics, so it is legitimate to question the motifs behind the gov´t declaring other states enemies.
Granted, I don´t want to have the Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons, as they might use it. The best for all would be if there were none, but that´s wishful thinking. Several states view atomic weapons as a relatively easy way to more political power in the world, an example learned from the known atomic powers. And you cannot reasonably deny any state the peaceful use of atomic energy - of course, you can make weapons from it, but with that logic, you could deny nearly everything needed to build a modern society. So, you can only control them tightly.
Stefan
I think it is a spectacularly bad idea to give a man who among other things denies the holocaust any public platform (besides the UN, where the world has to bear with all state leaders, from the democratically elected to the most iron-fisted dictator). He would be a criminal offender for that alone in germany. (Yes, it is a sensitive point to me, as I said several times here). And calling for the destruction of Israel does not need to be commented further.
Stefan
I disagree, I think someone who is the head of state, with such views should be heard. In a society that professess to value freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, should never fear the ideas of a madman no matter how imflamatory. Until an individual in free society can hear for themself the ideas, no matter how bad, then they will not be free to form thier own opinions. There are few free thinking people who are going to change there minds regarding the Holocaust or the destruction of Isreal because of Ahmedinejad's inflamatory words. (What is sad is the number of people in AMerica who do share his belief regarding the Holocaust).
I just think the best way to expose a madman is to let him talk.
P.S. I just watch this guy address the U.N. SCARY!!! He seems looking forward to Armegeddon. What really scary is that he sounds like a many born again American preachers, who also are looking forward to Armegeddon. SCARRY!!!!
So please let us first win the peace in the Iraq before we start another adventure of warfare.
There will never be peace in Iraq...at least not the way we define it. I'm afraid the timetable of the Iranian war is beyond our control now.
Winning the 'peace' is not a job for the U.S. military. The military is designed to kill people. They do that very well. Iraqis need to figure out their own peace. Iraq was mismanaged and U.S. leaders need to learn that U.S. troops are not cops. Most U.S. troops die when they try to be something they're not. Cops die when they try to be soldiers (like assaulting an armed subject inside a house..that's why SWAT teams were invented) and soldier die when they try to be cops.
The U.S. will never leave Iraq. Is there any country the U.S. has ever invaded that does not still have a U.S. military presence? Cuba (check)....Phillipines (check), Okinawa (check), Germany (check), Panama (okay, we left Panama, right?) Oh, we might downgrade our presence to the point where the U.S. public opinion quiets down, but we'll never leave.
As far as U.S. hypocrisy about nuclear proliferation--it's a good point on the surface of it, but the U.S. hasn't threatened another nation with annihilation or vowed to kill off an entire religion. I think the Iranian government won't use nukes in a first strike, but I am concerned about terrorists getting a hold of the technology. 2nd tier nations getting nuclear weapons is way more dangerous than a superpower having them, because the mutual annihilation theory worked as a deterrant, while a little fish might say "well, we'll just nuke them a little" and think they can get away with it.
|
|
The U.S. will never leave Iraq. Is there any country the U.S. has ever invaded that does not still have a U.S. military presence? Cuba (check)....Phillipines (check), Okinawa (check), Germany (check), Panama (okay, we left Panama, right?) Oh, we might downgrade our presence to the point where the U.S. public opinion quiets down, but we'll never leave.
Mexico
NicaraguaHaiti
Dominican Republic
Austria
Vietnam
If you want to include shorter duration events, or ones where there was no actual war, the list of countries the US has sent troops into but has withdrawn from gets significantly longer.
It should also be noted that the US military presence in the Phillipines, Okinawa (and Japan), and Germany are as allies, not as occupiers. Otherwise you need to add France as a country the US has "invaded" but no longer has a military presence in.
It should also be noted that the US military presence in the Phillipines, Okinawa (and Japan), and Germany are as allies, not as occupiers. Otherwise you need to add France as a country the US has "invaded" but no longer has a military presence in.
Well, our troops in Iraq are allies too now aren't they? When we invaded Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Cuba, etc. we were in a declared war with Germany, Japan and Spain, respectively I forgot about the Mexican-American war and didn't include every little campaign either, so thanks for the reminder, Samuel.
Vietnam wasn't an invasion since the status of the nation's sovereignty was being discussed by the locals when we came in to clear up their confusion. Austria was part of the greater German empire when we went in so I don't count that as a seperate country.....I'm spinnin' like mad here, LOL.
I still think we'll never leave Iraq....downsize, yes...leave, never....hopefully I'll be wrong, but I doubt it. Too strategically important, plus the dems only want us to leave because saying that can score points politically. Once in power, they'll only solidify their position and defeat their critics by keeping a strong military position, so the troops are stayin' even if a Democrat wins the White House.
Feel free to remind me of this prediction if I'm wrong....I've been wrong before and will be again.
Free speech? You do realize this is the university that kicked the student ROTC program off campus? That refused to let Army recruiters on campus at all until they almost lost their federal funding? That took no actions when Jim Gilchrist of the Minute Men was chased off the stage by violent protesters?Conservative speech is not allowed on that campus.
But the line for the Crazies to spout whatever nonsense they want starts right over there.
First- the ROTC isn't practicing free speech on campus- it's recruiting.
There's a basic difference between expressing an opinion (no matter how offensive) and drumming up business.As for the Minute Men, while I don't think chasing this loon off stage was a good idea, I do recognise him as a flim flam man who's particular snake oil is racism with a veneer of patriotic jingoism- pity no one got to ask him about the $400,000 donated for anti Brown People fences that went walkabout.
Oh, and conservative speech has pretty much reached saturation point, one has only to see just how far to the Right the political spectrum has been shoved in this country that a poisonous bufoon like O'Reilly gets air time. It seems the campus is one of the few place where questioning the status quo is still permitted. Real Free Speech Zones, as it were.
In anycase, there are plenty of conservative places of "learning"- one can always go to Red Oak, Iowa.
|
|
I think it is a spectacularly bad idea to give a man who among other things denies the holocaust any public platform
With respect, Germany (and Austria) can be perceived as having a free speech problem with respect to the Holocaust and things Nazi. There are obvious reasons, and denial of the Holocaust is plain wrong (in the historical sense) but the laws which you have in respect of discussing the Nazi past (banning Mein Kampf (sp), for example) could be considered to restrict free speech (if not good taste).
|
|
Slavery used to me an AMerican economic institution. That changed. Women could not vote, that changed. When I was a child adults smoked in the house, while cooking, changing diapers and feeding thier babies. Now no one I knows smokes inside. I know smokers who step outside of thier own homes to smoke. So I think your wrong, people do change.
I think those are minor cultural changes. Fundamental human nature, resulting in stupidity like wars and stuff, won't change much.
With respect, Germany (and Austria) can be perceived as having a free speech problem with respect to the Holocaust and things Nazi. There are obvious reasons, and denial of the Holocaust is plain wrong (in the historical sense) but the laws which you have in respect of discussing the Nazi past (banning Mein Kampf (sp), for example) could be considered to restrict free speech (if not good taste).
There was a lot of discussion about the Nazis and the Holocaust in recent years, so I don´t think that there is a free speech problem related to that. It is only forbidden to deny the Holocaust or glorify the Nazi regime, and with good reason. Regarding Mein Kampf, it is accessible for scientific purposes, might be sold as used book and be owned privately, but is banned from general republication, as it would be used for symbolic purposes by Neonazis. (What´s more, the copyright is disputed) And AFAIK, Mein Kampf would not add anything to a serious discussion - the contents are said to be utter crap. It is viewed as a symbol for a Nazi mindset, that´s why it is banned, I think.
And if anybody uses his public office to perpetrate crimes or appeal for crimes (or even genocide, as in this case), then he oversteps his right to freedom of speech - freedom has to end where it limits others freedom or is used for crimes.
Ahmadinechad can rant all he wants to his people at home, and can have a speech at the UN, but should IMO not be given a platform beyond that.
Stefan
But don't worry. Israeli intel is top notch, and the day before Iran gets the bomb, Israel (with or without US blessing) will turn Iran into a sea of glass. They have no choice. If they don't Iran will hit them first.
Wow, you sure know your politics.
|
|
There was a lot of discussion about the Nazis and the Holocaust in recent years, so I don´t think that there is a free speech problem related to that. It is only forbidden to deny the Holocaust or glorify the Nazi regime, and with good reason. Regarding Mein Kampf, it is accessible for scientific purposes, might be sold as used book and be owned privately, but is banned from general republication, as it would be used for symbolic purposes by Neonazis. (What´s more, the copyright is disputed) And AFAIK, Mein Kampf would not add anything to a serious discussion - the contents are said to be utter crap. It is viewed as a symbol for a Nazi mindset, that´s why it is banned, I think.
I don't disagree with most of that. And Mein Kampf is supposed to be an extemely poor read. However, the bans would seem to be more an artifact of the immediate post-war years, rather than the modern state of Germany. But it isn't a big deal - banning someone from perpetrating a falsehood isn't the crime of the century.
On the Iranian bloke (no idea how to spell his name) - <shrugs> the politics in Iran is very tricky for an outsider to understand. Ironically, Iran is one of the more democratic states in the Middle East, bar the dead hand of the mullahs, so he is more of a populist demagogue than a dictator. His rise to prominence is more a sign of the grotesque economic mismanagement of what should be a wealthy state. But he was elected, and if we don't talk to him, we don't know what he has to say. As a fellow countryman of yours once said, that is real politik (sp again). (OK, he as a Prussian, but you get what I mean.)
And it is noticable in countries where the media are state controlled that ignorance and unpleasant nationalism are much more common.
And Mein Kampf is supposed to be an extemely poor read. However, the bans would seem to be more an artifact of the immediate post-war years, rather than the modern state of Germany.Well, the level of threat posed by Neonazis in Germany is hotly debated. Physical attacks on either foreigners or visibly "different" folks by violent Neonazis have never gone away and seem to be on the rise, especially in eastern germany. The ghost of the Nazi regime and its crimes has never left Germany, and it is an extremely touchy topic. Lifting the ban on books and stuff like this would be considered a wrong sign at present, and is a taboo topic. In fact, there are voices considering another attempt at having the NPD (national democratic party - extreme right wing, and counting known Neonazis among them) forbidden by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the highest court in Germany) on grounds of the NPD being posed against the values of our Grundgesetz. So, the Nazi topic is not a thing of the past.
On the Iranian bloke (no idea how to spell his name) - <shrugs> the politics in Iran is very tricky for an outsider to understand. Ironically, Iran is one of the more democratic states in the Middle East, bar the dead hand of the mullahs, so he is more of a populist demagogue than a dictator. His rise to prominence is more a sign of the grotesque economic mismanagement of what should be a wealthy state. But he was elected, and if we don't talk to him, we don't know what he has to say. As a fellow countryman of yours once said, that is real politik (sp again). (OK, he as a Prussian, but you get what I mean.)
And it is noticable in countries where the media are state controlled that ignorance and unpleasant nationalism are much more common.
Of course you have to talk to the likes of Ahmadinedchad or Kim Yong Il (or whatever his name is), even if you disagree with their positions. That is indeed realpolitik, and anything else would be stupid. But talking to them on statesman level or giving them a public forum is a huge difference.
About state controlled media, I agree fully.
Stefan
|
|
Well, our troops in Iraq are allies too now aren't they? When we invaded Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Cuba, etc. we were in a declared war with Germany, Japan and Spain, respectively I forgot about the Mexican-American war and didn't include every little campaign either, so thanks for the reminder, Samuel.
Yes we are, and yes we were.
However, it should be clearly noted that the US presence in Germany is desired by that country to protect against external threats, was established by treaty in the second and third because of external threats even if less than fully desired now, and was leased from the fourth when the country was an ally.Vietnam wasn't an invasion since the status of the nation's sovereignty was being discussed by the locals when we came in to clear up their confusion. Austria was part of the greater German empire when we went in so I don't count that as a seperate country.....I'm spinnin' like mad here, LOL.
Depending on how you look at it, Vietnam was an invasion. The troops first went there when the locals were fighting for independence from France, and remained when it became a civil war.
Austria, while it was part of the German state, was occupied separately, said occupation having been ended quite some time ago, as they did not request troops remain in alliance as in Germany.And yes, you are. ;)
My whole point was to note that despite statements about the US showing up as occupiers and never leaving, that is not the historical record. The US has invaded, occupied, and then left quite a few places. The US has also defended a lot of places, at the request of the people there.
I still think we'll never leave Iraq....downsize, yes...leave, never....hopefully I'll be wrong, but I doubt it. Too strategically important, plus the dems only want us to leave because saying that can score points politically. Once in power, they'll only solidify their position and defeat their critics by keeping a strong military position, so the troops are stayin' even if a Democrat wins the White House.
Feel free to remind me of this prediction if I'm wrong....I've been wrong before and will be again.
That is different. As it happens, I agree with that analysis and prediction as well. The US has ended too many occupations too soon, and too many people have suffered because of it.
Anyone interested in learning a few things about life in Iran during the last few decades should check out the two volumes of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis comic. It's an autobio story about growing up in Iran during the '80s?, then moving to Europe during the time when radical Muslim fundamentalism really took over, and then returning during her 20s to attend school and see her family. The drawing is really simple, but once you really look at it, you can see she has a great deal of skill. And it's about a real person's real life experiences, rather than a dry historical analysis, which is what makes them more resonant to me.