Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did anyone catch his speaking there?  I've only seen parts 1 and 2 of the Q&A with the representative and students. After his comparison of the evidence of the holocaust to the fields of science I couldn't watch anymore, maybe later, but he seems to be the typical politician.

Hopefully this thread doesn't become too political, I would rather see a rational and objective analysis of this event rather than emotional regurgitation.

I must admit that it's very impressive that Columbia got him to speak, even if he is a loudmouth figurehead.

What a sham. The Chancellor starts off haranguing him, giving him the sympathy vote.

The question we may have to ask ourselves, in five years time is this. Would a rifle shot now have stopped the war?

I'm honestly very surprised something like that didn't happen, although I was also expecting some improvised weapons.  But no, I don't think it would have stopped the war; it would have made him a martyr.  Better to ridicule him and get people laughing at him.

Ah but that would just make him angry. The Western World wouldn't like it when he's angry...

Well, we don't like him now...

exactly. And the rifle shot now forestalls a nuke going off in Tel Aviv, Bagdad, Paris, or New York.

I have to admit, there was a time just after he took office when I thought he was saying some good things. Boy is my face red!

The speech/Q&A was interesting because it revealed precisely how little he knows about either his own nation or those he demonizes. In many ways, Ahmadenejad is the Dubya of Iran. His beliefs, of course, are much creepier and more repugnant than W's, but some important paralells:

1) Both are presidential in a non-authoritarian state. W has to deal with the congress, reluctant state legislators, and the free press. AJ has to deal with powerful religious councils (who don't like him much, by the way), local discontentment and economic slowdown, and his own lack of power.

2) Both have pissed off allies and enemies alike with their rhetoric, and are highly controversial in their own constituencies. Just as few Iranians believe AJ when he talks about the Holocaust as believe W when he talks about weapons of mass destruction.

Heh. Just thought I'd point that out.

-Adso

But he doesn't need to know anything. He's 99% figurehead. Anyone who believes I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket's talk about wiping Israel off the map is giving the guy way more street cred than he deserves: precisely, none.

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/27/2007 11:44 AM

1) Both are presidential in a non-authoritarian state. W has to deal with the congress, reluctant state legislators, and the free press. AJ has to deal with powerful religious councils (who don't like him much, by the way), local discontentment and economic slowdown, and his own lack of power

And I almost feel like calling him president isn't fair to the term "president."

A couple of his viewpoints were quite disturbing to me.  Most notably is that he stated the events and evidence of the Holocaust should be interpreted with the same amount objectivity as the sciences.  His answers to the Dean's questions, or rather his lack of direct answers to the questions reminded me of Rumsfeld's Known Unknowns pseudo-poem.  I'm still trying to make some sense out of the things he has said.

Posted By jfrazell on 09/26/2007 1:38 PM
What a sham. The Chancellor starts off haranguing him, giving him the sympathy vote.

The question we may have to ask ourselves, in five years time is this. Would a rifle shot now have stopped the war?

Shooting him is irrelevent.  It would be like killing the puppet instead of the puppeteer, he has an Ayatollah's  hand up his rear controlling what he says.  Never forget who controls Iran, it is not the "elected" government.

By the way guys, thanks for being so civil. Even "real" political boards and debates between educated intellectuals degenerate faster than this.

Both recent comments were right on. The "president of Iran" has very little real power, he is checked by the religious and civil council systems and the Premiere/Prime Minister. He's allowed to shoot off his mouth all he wants, because it means little in terms of hard consequences, and can even be a distraction for a regime that wants the pressure off of its real leadership.

However, that doesn't mean it is a positive development in world culture and dialouge when a creepy nutjob with a prediliction for denying reality in offensive ways, threatening his neighborhood, and going out of his way to inconvience other countries diplomatically is allowed an important place on the world stage.

But no matter what, an offensive sham of a president doesn't deserve, or need, a bullet in the brainpan. That wouldn't do a thing for all the problems he represents -- in fact, it would just give the next Iranian figurehead a huge diplomatic card to play.

-Adso

An assassination attempt of Iran's President on U.S. soil would be nothing but bad.  If anything, I think it would start a war, not prevent one.


Also, why the issue with examining the Holocaust evidence objectively?  How else should we examine it?  Non-objectively?  Emotionally?  To any person with any sense who examines the Holocaust objectively, the truth should be quite clear.

I guess the problem with sense is, at least in terms of examining the Holocaust, Iran's President doesn't have any.

Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

And no, there's nothing wrong with objectively examining the Holocaust. But...that phrase has been co-opted by a denial camp, and so in the public forum, when you say "objectively examine," it is often taken as code for "question the reality of".

-Adso

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/30/2007 4:03 PM
Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

Where?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 09/30/2007 7:12 PM

Posted By BrotherAdso on 09/30/2007 4:03 PM
Well, not to mention we have this little clause in our constitution about assasinating foreign leaders...heh.

Where?

I was just about to ask that.

It's right next to the Articles of Entitlement.  Shame they left out the ERA.

Exactly. When he says “objectively examine the facts”, he means “give respectful hearing to nutjob deniers”.

It’s like creationists using the phrase “teach the controversy” in their efforts to get creation or intelligent design time in classrooms. There IS no controversy among anyone with any real understanding of biology. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory.

 

The evidence for the holocaust is mountains of dead bodies and ovens full of people.  One whackjob’s chemical analysis of the shower walls at Auschwitz and his contention that the evidence doesn’t support there having been poison gas merits the objective conclusion that said whackjob is reaching really hard for evidence to deny the worst genocide in the history of man.

Oh, and by the way. You all are right, it's not a direct constitutional ban, since such barbarity was not terribly close to the minds of our colonial era forebearers.

But, since 1976, the earlier precedent that politically motivated or political-objective assasinations were both illegal and illegitimate acts for US agencies to support or undertake has been clear.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/

Only recently (and regrettably) have these moral lines been fudged with.

-Adso

I'll give you an executive order!

Posted By Hordini on 09/30/2007 3:38 PM
An assassination attempt of Iran's President on U.S. soil would be nothing but bad.  If anything, I think it would start a war, not prevent one.


Also, why the issue with examining the Holocaust evidence objectively?  How else should we examine it?  Non-objectively?  Emotionally?  To any person with any sense who examines the Holocaust objectively, the truth should be quite clear.

I guess the problem with sense is, at least in terms of examining the Holocaust, Iran's President doesn't have any.

You're assuming it would be here. Planes crash, and its a long journey from Iran to New York.

Its not just the Holocaust 60 years ago. Iranian weapons are killing US soldiers now.

...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM

Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

Dear God, how I wish I had an answer to that $64,000 *gak*show of a question.

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM
...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

Utter nonsense. Iran is actively fueling that carnage.  it is in Iran's interest to have an unstable Iraq-eventually they will annex  the shiite regions and it keeps the US off balance from targetting Iran' s leaders as the real bad guys of the region. Thoase aren't just weapon sales, but revolutionary guard in Iraq.

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM
...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

International law recognizes illegal arms trafficking as a crime. This is a good thing. It does not recognize it as a causis belli, nor those who favor or stand behind it as worthy of extrajudicial execution.

Iran's involvement in Iraq is sticky, dangerous, and painful. But it is ultimately impractical and even downright insane to try to proceed with direct political or military action against them...period. Iran will stop its disruption when we can stop their next door neighbor from melting down on their doorstep, or we can give them a better way to guard their interests in that meltdown.

-Adso

1.  It was american Intellegence that led to the breaking of the Iran-Iraq war.   namely we supplied the Iraqis with satalite data so they could cordinate against the dug in Iranians. It forced the Iranians to the table. 

2.  So bascially you are saying that it is OK for the Soviets to back leftist dictators and supply them with arms to kill civilians because you happen to agree with the goals?   Have you ever heard of the Monroe docterine? You know it has been the policy of the US since 1823.

3.  Why should I have any regard for the Palestinians, they have been screwed and screwed over everyone includeing the two countries that took them in.

4.  Iran will stop when it is made abundently clear that the US is willing to go to war.  Not the "Go to war to make friends" the Bush administration came up with or the "Wag the Dog" war the Clinton administration backed.  In other words we will have to wait for someone like Harry Trieman who is more worried about winning than approval polls amongst the people we are fighting.

Posted By Dice Monkey on 10/02/2007 11:27 AM

Iran will stop when it is made abundently clear that the US is willing to go to war.  Not the "Go to war to make friends" the Bush administration came up with or the "Wag the Dog" war the Clinton administration backed.  In other words we will have to wait for someone like Harry Trieman who is more worried about winning than approval polls amongst the people we are fighting.

Do you know what a war with Iran would entail?  It would be a strategic nightmare.  Not only are we up to our clavicles in *gak* in Iraq, but the Iranians are well-armed, have lots of bodies, and live in mountainous territory that would be a nightmare to navigate.  Furthermore, the Iranians are messing about in Iraq because we're messing around with their internal affairs on a daily basis, albeit in a more covert fashion.  And did I mention that we just don't have the manpower?

I'm not quite sure how to get the Iranians out of Iraq, but they know we won't actually go to war (for strategic and political reasons), so they're going to keep poking us in the side.

I say we let Iran have the bomb.  Israel has one.  They have one.  No one's actually going to use them anytime soon, for obvious reasons.  That or we let Israel send a squadron on a suicide mission armed with bunker busters that we know will kill untold civillians and piss off everyone else.  I have to say, building their centrifuges in populated areas was a good move on their part. 

Posted By jfrazell on 10/02/2007 4:34 AM

Utter nonsense. Iran is actively fueling that carnage.  it is in Iran's interest to have an unstable Iraq-eventually they will annex  the shiite regions and it keeps the US off balance from targetting Iran' s leaders as the real bad guys of the region. Thoase aren't just weapon sales, but revolutionary guard in Iraq.

Iran's interest is instability? It might be a secondary or tertiary interest, but their primary interest has to be regional stability, including a stable Iraq.

Iran's preferences, in order:

1 - stable Iraq friendly to them and not the US

2 - stable Iraq friendly to both them and the US

3 - stable Iraq friendly to no one

4 - probably an unstable Iraq from which they can grab territory, either directly or by setting up a satellite state

Why is an unstable Iraq so far down on that list?  Why isn't it up higher?  Because stability is paramount to security.  Regional stability is the primary objective of state actors.  You cannot have anything else until you have stability.  Instability is too expensive.  The costs are too high.  Once you get stability, then you can influence governments.  Then you can count on a rational state actor next door.  Then artificially inflated prices fall.  Until you achieve stability, there are too many variables and too many risks. 

One could even make the case that instead of the #4 I listed, Iran would rather see a stable Iraq friendly to the US and not to them.  Stability is that important.  Having said that, I still think that an unstable Iraq that they could try to annex is higher than a stable US-friendly Iraq.

One final thought: at the end of the day, Iraqis and Iranians don't like each other that much.  They fought a hell of a war 20 years ago, and one side is Persian while the other is Arab.  It's not as if their religious similarities outweigh everything else.

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/01/2007 2:32 PM

...and American weapons, in the hands of Iraqis, killed many many more Iranians less that 25 years ago. American weapons, in the hands of dictatorial South American governments kill civilians. American weapons, in the hands of Israel, kill dozens of Palestinians every month. American weapons, in the hands of Saudis, buttress one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.

If that's what it takes to make the trains run on time and get us in with their dictators, I'll take it in a heartbeat.  Serve our interests, no matter how mild, in exchange for guns, ammo, explosives and sometimes protection?  Yes, please.

The Saudis are certainly one of the most repressive religious regimes on earth.  They also control approximately 25% of the world's known oil reserves.  If we have to be their guardian angel against foreign threats and their arms suppliers so they can put down some troublemakers from time to time, that sounds good to me.  They've been nothing but good to us.  They sell us oil, they let us put bases there during the Gulf War, they bought Polish pork (that's right--pork) to help their struggling industry when no one else would.  What's not to love?