The United Nations: Pro-Arab, Pro-Iranian, Anti-Israel

[Ardeshir]

I just ate some pork

As you wish. I like it too. I´m zoroastrian.
It don´t change the results

 

[DaisyDay]

Its amazing they are letting the iranian hitler speak at the U.N.

First, Godwin.

Second, in what way is he the "iranian hitler"? I don't get the comparison - both hilter and Ahmadinejad were elected, but after that? Are there concentration camps in Iran? Millions of people being gassed? Neighboring countries invaded? War being declared on multiple fronts?

Or is it hilter is bad; Ahmadinejad is bad; therefore Ahmadinejad = hilter?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

First, Godwin.

Second, in what way is he the "iranian hitler"? I don't get the comparison - both hilter and Ahmadinejad were elected, but after that? Are there concentration camps in Iran? Millions of people being gassed? Neighboring countries invaded? War being declared on multiple fronts?

Or is it hilter is bad; Ahmadinejad is bad; therefore Ahmadinejad = hilter?

Well, the Iranian leader has made several statements that could be construed as anti-Semitic, such as a stated desire to "wipe Israel off the map." There is some controversy amongst linguists as to whether he meant regime change or toppling the government of Israel, versus killing all the Jews there. The former, while bellicose, would not be genocidal. The latter would be.

In any event, I think it is disingenuous to compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Such comparisons are at best inaccurate, and at worst serve to obfuscate and polarize rather than clarify.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I just ate some pork

And I just had pizza with pepperoni, olives and sausage, sprinkled with garlic.

Your point?

 

[Staccato]

I would disagree. Obama would take the position of dictating this to Israel, in my opinion. His placating language to the muslim world indicates this.

I don't believe that a world leader, any world leader, stating the position of their administration, constitutes dictating. Dictating requires an '...or else' clause after it and, given that we're talking about Israeli-US relations here, that's not very likely to emerge.

Yet. This comment is not directed at you but anyone who seriously believes Iran is not attempting to gain nuclear weapons is, well......at least two things, neither of which are commendable.

I think saying "yet" is fair comment on this issue. I'm not naive, and I believe Iran is indeed working towards nuclear weapons. I also don't think they should be allowed to gain them.

But our words about non-proliferation ring slightly hollow when you consider that Israel was 'allowed' to gain and possess nukes without anyone really batting an eyelid.

I posted a link to an article which makes a point I agree with. For one thing, as nations we are two of a kind. Plus there is the ideal of standing up for those who would be oppressed, or in this case annihilated. Namely the Jewish and Christian population of Israel.

But America is typically slow to respond to cases where people actually are being annihilated. Genocides happen and the US, as well as the rest of the world, is asleep at the switch. Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur. Israel is, at the moment at least, capable of defending itself. The people in these cases weren't (or aren't, in case of Darfur). I'm not sure painting America as stalwart hero of the downtrodden actually has any factual basis in this instance.

Or does the Judeo-Christian factor swing it? After all, in none of the three examples I mentioned were Christians or Jews the main target. I'd hate to think that the reason many are so keen to defend Israel but not others is a simple religious identity issue.

There is also the issue of, in the eyes of those who would destroy Israel, as long as the Palestinians are where they are, they are a massive thorn in the side of Israel and an easy, never-ending source as a catalyst for inciting conflict.

All the more reason why Israel should want this conflict resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, yes? Admittedly the PNA/PLO have been obstinate and in many cases unrealistic in what they want out of any settlement (the Bill Clinton Camp David summit comes to mind...) but Israel is not blameless. At the moment Palestine has no recognised borders and their government is dubious at best. They have no national identity save for opposing, or being considered a "parasite" of, Israel. If Mexicans, or Canadians just walked over our borders and started building settlements I think we would be rightly annoyed, but at the moment Palestinians have no real recourse. It isn't an invasion issue because, well, Palestine doesn't really exist.

Sorting this issue out, as coming to a settlement and defining borders and relations, I think it would do much more good than you think. But, alas, such a goal is unlikely to happen any time soon. There's simply too much blood passed under the bridge.

On the surface I would agree. However, at some point it becomes useless to keep cycling through a pattern of giving land away for peace, being constantly attacked from that land, invading that land to take out the attackers, giving the land back for peace, being constantly attacked from that land, invading that land to take out the attackers, giving the land back for peace...........

Completely true. The entire world needs closure on this issue. This isn't just about a strip of arid land in the middle of the world anymore, it's the flashpoint and basis for the 'west vs east' type of rhetoric that you see radicalising terrorists from all over the world. It simply needs to be sorted out for the sake of every country on earth. The cycle has to be broken but I'll be darned if I can think of any way in which you're going to get the two parties to compromise their positions of absolutes.

 

[TheCatholic]

First, Godwin.

Second, in what way is he the "iranian hitler"? I don't get the comparison - both hilter and Ahmadinejad were elected, but after that? Are there concentration camps in Iran? Millions of people being gassed? Neighboring countries invaded? War being declared on multiple fronts?

Or is it hilter is bad; Ahmadinejad is bad; therefore Ahmadinejad = hilter?

Snort!
Why do you think they are building that nuke? So they can light it off and invite the whole country to a big weenie roast?

And your partner Obama is gonna let'em do it too. Thank God the Israelis still have the cajones to try and stop them

 

[kiwimac]

There is no indication that Iran will do any such thing. The Iranians have not been expansionist since Sassanid times. Merely having the capability to build a nuke does not equate with the desire to use one. As for the insinuation that President Ahmadinejad is intending to attack Israel that really is simply your opinion.

 

[TheCatholic]

Ahh, shades of Neville Chamberlain.

Europeans sure love to think they can just wish away threats

 

[Ardeshir]

Snort!
Why do you think they are building that nuke? So they can light it off and invite the whole country to a big weenie roast?

And your partner Obama is gonna let'em do it too. Thank God the Israelis still have the cajones to try and stop them

i can only laugh about such nonsense.

 

[TheCatholic]

i can only laugh about such nonsense.

Well, thats what happens when you live under an evil regime: They never tell you what they're really up to.

By the way, if you believe in voting so much, why did your police murder hundreds of people who we protesting after your election? You want to laugh at that too?

 

[Ardeshir]

Well, thats what happens when you live under an evil regime: They never tell you what they're really up to.

By the way, if you believe in voting so much, why did your police murder hundreds of people who we protesting after your election? You want to laugh at that too?

1.st i´m Pasdaran, thats some kind of police

2nd hundreds killed? Not even 30. Evry day your police kill more people in your nation, than in mine in that demonstrations

3rd i don´t care about democracy and elections.


p.s.: "evil regime" You talk like a little girl.

 

[Pommer]

First, Godwin.

Second, in what way is he the "iranian hitler"? I don't get the comparison - both hilter and Ahmadinejad were elected...

Hitler was elected?

 

[TheCatholic]

YouTube - Police brutality Shiraz university June 20 2009 Iranians protest against election results

 

[TheCatholic]

YouTube - Basiji beats 7 year old boy - Tehran, Iran (June 20th 2009)

 

[TheCatholic]

YouTube - Young Women beaten in streets of Tehran while protesting

 

[Ardeshir]

YouTube - Police brutality Shiraz university June 20 2009 Iranians protest against election results

Hey i was there. Was alot of fun. Shiraz is my hometown. Wonderful city.

 

[Ardeshir]

Post more of that videos. They are funny. :

 

[TheCatholic]

Hitler was elected?

Actually, he was elected Chancellor, with Hindenburg as President. But Hindenburg died, Hitler gained power, and then Hitler used all sorts of emergency laws to seize ultimate power, laws he was able to pass because the Nazis held the majority of seats on the Reichstag.

Let that be a lesson: A democracy can legally legislate itself right into a dictatorship if people are not vigilant.

 

[TheCatholic]

Post more of that videos. They are funny. :

Yah, beating up weak women is a real knee-slapper ain't it.

I hope you lefties are soaking this conversation up

 

[Ardeshir]

Yah, beating up weak women is a real knee-slapper ain't it.

I hope you lefties are soaking this conversation up

at last she isn´t black. In usa black people get shot in the hundreds evry year from your racist police

Why is USA so racist? Why are most people in your prisons black?