PDA

View Full Version : US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands


Germ17
09-29-2007, 10:13 AM
US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands

by Charley Reese

Ernest Hemingway explained the problem many years ago. The first thing politicians do to hide their mismanagement, he said, is inflate the currency; the second thing they do is go to war.

Our currency has been inflated and we are at war. The demonization of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which you saw take place in New York City and on American television, is just the first step in preparing the country for a third war.

The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, disgraced himself. Instead of introducing his invited guest speaker, he launched a tirade of abuse and insults. Obviously, he was in hot water with some of Columbia's big donors for inviting Ahmadinejad and chose that petty, shabby way of trying to ingratiate himself to the school's angry sugar daddies. All Bollinger succeeded in doing was making Ahmadinejad look good in comparison with him.

Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.

The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.

How American politicians can call Iran a dangerous country and claim that it poses a threat to the U.S. is a mystery. On second thought, it is not a mystery. It just tells you that the politicians think you and I are so stupid that we will fall for the exact same parade of lies and exaggerations that was used to justify the war against Iraq.

Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.

Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapon; that he had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The only thing he really had was oil. That's why we went to war, and that's why the administration wants to go to war with Iran.

I've heard some politicians say that Ahmadinejad has "blood on his hands." Well, our $40 billion worth of intelligence cannot even determine if he was involved in the taking of the American embassy back in 1979. As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.

We truly have a corrupt and incompetent government in Washington.


http://www.bartcop.com/kissyface-black-flag.JPG

Cat slave
09-30-2007, 02:19 AM
Lets see now.....that would mean Hugo Chavez is not a dictator because he
was elected and proceeded to make his term limitless, take over every
facet of "his" country, squash free speech.....need I go on?

The intensely fundamentally religious little dictator/prez of Iran is not playing
with a full deck and has stated his and like minded extremists that he intends
to destroy "the Big Satan" (thats us) and the Little Satan (thats you know
who).

While these dictators practice their takeover of all things "west" the fact that
we also have an elected "dictator" should not serve to minimize the threat
from two other mad men!

Can we say " l u n a t i c s "?:p

Linkster
09-30-2007, 08:35 AM
cat slave - I would look into reading some background on irans political structure - this little president they have got elected 2 years ago - over a much more traditionalist who really does believe that Israel should not exist - this guy was the better of two choices - and Iran has had elections every 4 years forever - this guy that came to NY is just a figurehead - talking head - very similar to the queen of england. He does NOT have any control over the military in Iran and has very little public support there as well - and will be gone in a year and a half. His replacement then will be someone to watch closely - although the Iranian people are already fed up with the war-mongering speeches

disrupter
09-30-2007, 09:18 AM
I believe Iraq [our ally at the time] started the Iran-Iraq war.

Beyond support for Hezbollah & now supporting Shiites of Iraq, & a revolution to free themselves from the Sha's police state, what aggression have they committed?

Seems to me we have been aggressive, now revealed as needlessly aggressive AT OUR OWN EXPENSE I MIGHT ADD.

The American government has some kind of brain disease,
like a rabid, mad dog.

it isn't serving its own people & it is creating mass death in the rest of the world.

Time to put the dog 'down'.

radioguy
09-30-2007, 09:32 AM
I don't respond any articles posted by racist, anti-Semitic assholes who frequent white supremest websites.

But that is a moral stand on my part, and I wouldn't expect any of you on the left to possibly understand why taking a moral stand against a racist like this guy serves the greater good.

Bobs.Lil.Girl
09-30-2007, 09:37 AM
cat slave - I would look into reading some background on irans political structure - this little president they have got elected 2 years ago - over a much more traditionalist who really does believe that Israel should not exist - this guy was the better of two choices - and Iran has had elections every 4 years forever - this guy that came to NY is just a figurehead - talking head - very similar to the queen of england. He does NOT have any control over the military in Iran and has very little public support there as well - and will be gone in a year and a half. His replacement then will be someone to watch closely - although the Iranian people are already fed up with the war-mongering speeches


Reminds me of an election in the states a few years ago. Bush was the lesser of two evils we thought then too. Now, he's just a little dictator in the making.


Char

Bobs.Lil.Girl
09-30-2007, 09:38 AM
I don't respond any articles posted by racist, anti-Semitic assholes who frequent white supremest websites.

But that is a moral stand on my part, and I wouldn't expect any of you on the left to possibly understand why taking a moral stand against a racist like this guy serves the greater good.

Are you for real? :disbelief:


Shouldn't you be preaching in a Sunday school or something?

disrupter
09-30-2007, 09:44 AM
We really have to get all the corrupting money out of our political system.

Campaigns are for voters & voters alone should contribute directly to them.

Others can advertise, exercise all the free speech they want, but they have NO RIGHT to directly access a candidate's campaign.

Non-voter contributions are inherently corrupting.
It is the people's government, the people's votes, & the people's decision & must be a people owned process.

If external advertisers were intended to affect campaigns they would have been given a vote, & they weren't.
They can make rational appeals to voters,
and it keeps the voter(s) as the central focus which is the whole intent of representative government.

Germ17
09-30-2007, 11:45 AM
Are you for real? :disbelief:


Shouldn't you be preaching in a Sunday school or something?


He would, but for lack of interest from the other mental patients on the ward.

Cat slave
09-30-2007, 12:47 PM
cat slave - I would look into reading some background on irans political structure - this little president they have got elected 2 years ago - over a much more traditionalist who really does believe that Israel should not exist - this guy was the better of two choices - and Iran has had elections every 4 years forever - this guy that came to NY is just a figurehead - talking head - very similar to the queen of england. He does NOT have any control over the military in Iran and has very little public support there as well - and will be gone in a year and a half. His replacement then will be someone to watch closely - although the Iranian people are already fed up with the war-mongering speeches

Maybe I got lost in my rant, but I was referring to the way Chavez has made
his position virtually a lifetime gig.

Perhaps you are right about the political machine....Ive never cared to keep
up with it until now. When Achmadinejad goes around stating the intent
of his country I dont think if he was a figure head and what he was spouting
was not how the government stands, that he would be doing it for long.
But he is....loudly.

Choosing the lesser of two evils lead us to believe Bush was the less of the
gruesome twosome and Im sure Im not along in wondering if that waa really
the right thing to do. We need a button that says "none of the above"!
Then start all over.

:banghead:

Cat slave
09-30-2007, 12:53 PM
We really have to get all the corrupting money out of our political system.

Campaigns are for voters & voters alone should contribute directly to them.

Others can advertise, exercise all the free speech they want, but they have NO RIGHT to directly access a candidate's campaign.

Non-voter contributions are inherently corrupting.
It is the people's government, the people's votes, & the people's decision & must be a people owned process.

If external advertisers were intended to affect campaigns they would have been given a vote, & they weren't.
They can make rational appeals to voters,
and it keeps the voter(s) as the central focus which is the whole intent of representative government.

The entire system has become so corrupt and foul that it completely needs
to be scrapped. Get rid of lobbys, caucauses, limit terms firmly and clean
up the tax system. Its not our government any more. Leaders are chosen
by those who can scream the loudest and be paid off the easiest. Then
we might actually some people to send to the pig pen in WA who want to
work for the people.......public servants!!! Surely they still exist. They
just are not in WA.

Cat slave
09-30-2007, 12:56 PM
"The US traveled halfway round the globe to invade & occupy Iraq.
Now we have a 'right' to be there & Iran their nextdoor neighbor doesnt'?"
(says the disrupter)

Just another consequence of globalism. Some think we are just one big
neighborhood and its all our business. NOT!:mad:

disrupter
09-30-2007, 01:06 PM
It's OUR the USA's business & no one elses,

which is just absurd.

As if 'globalism' is synonymous with 'Americanism'.

As if we are doing a global buyout of every other nation state on the planet.
watch out for shareholder revolts.

In Burma, Chevron & Unical are in bed with the military junta there, just as they are in corrupt Nigeria.

Americanadian
10-03-2007, 03:16 AM
I don't respond any articles posted by racist, anti-Semitic assholes who frequent white supremest websites.

But that is a moral stand on my part, and I wouldn't expect any of you on the left to possibly understand why taking a moral stand against a racist like this guy serves the greater good.

Hmm...posting the above article equals "anti-Semitic" eh? What glue have you been huffin' lately? Oh BTW...it's "supremacist".

Have a good evening. :taunt:

Cat slave
10-03-2007, 03:49 AM
ROTFL.....its the spell check police!!!! Run for cover.:p

Americanadian
10-03-2007, 04:34 AM
ROTFL.....its the spell check police!!!! Run for cover.:p

LOL...you bet'cha.

disrupter
10-03-2007, 09:17 AM
radioguy just can't handle anything that is not slavishly blindly following to all intents & purposes an imperial dictator.

I will guess he is not much of a constitutional history buff.

for him it is:
of the nation,
by the nation,
for the nation,
all at the expense of the people & the planet
& human extinction is not an obstacle

some of us know it is supposed to be

of the people,
by the people,
for the people,

& NOT by fooling the people either.