Ted and Chrispy are right.
We should just listen to this guy. He's talking a lot of sense.
(Editor's Note: Since certain readers seem to have taken this post literally, I will spell it out for you: I was being sarcastic.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Man, am I glad you're back.
BTW, I was looking out for you, Theo, and Chris this weekend. The family and I ate at Waffle House more than once this long weekend and the staff were all wearing these "No Grits, No Glory" tee shirts with the logo and all. I inquired as to how I could purchase one for all of us, and they told me that they had been handed out at a corporate event and were hard to come by.
I am now on a quest to get my hands on them whatever it takes.
Oh my GOD.
I MUST HAVE ONE!!
except for the fact that he talks like a Russian.
realrepublican1854 -
I believe the term is "sarcasm."
Re-read the post with that in mind.
"...the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable."
no matter how kooky this guy may be, i find it really really hard to argue with that statement.
there's been a lot of anger, resentment, and bitterness in this country since 9/11. the key to solving the puzzle that is the middle east may hinge on our ability to understand that, in light of palestine, afghanistan, and iraq, that same sense of resentment exists over there. i'm tired of watching leaders posture over whose hurt hurts more.
so yeah, we probably should listen. even if we choose not to take what's said at face value, not listening to anybody doesn't seem to have done us a lot of good so far.
Perhaps if he made a good faith effort to join the community of rational nations, he would find his goals easier to achieve, Eric.
Is there really NO outrage that he can say such outrageous things? None? He can just sit there with a straight face and say that the whole world is controlled by Jews and we are supposed to take his arguments seriously?
I'm certainly outraged by this guys behavior and am unwilling to support talks with him or his nation until he/they show some sincerity about wanting to be a member of productive society.
Charles Krauthammer's oped last week was on the money. Agreeing to unilateral talks with him now is a trap plain and simply. We should stick to the plan of coalition based talks along side the EU community. As Charles states, Ahmadinejad knows that his country is facing sanctions from the WORLD community (not just the US) that could create some uncomfortable situations in his country and the mullahs could begin to lose more of their already weak grip.
Iran is amongst the top two relatively modern societies of ME countries of equal size. They've come a long way in the last 20 years. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs really don't want to have the clock turned back on them.
i didn't mean to imply that i think of this guy as a rational, sensible leader. but, on some level, we need to recognize his ability to speak to the frustrations of a lot of middle easterners, just as people around the world have to assume, to some extent, that W speaks for us. i mean, we did elect him twice, after all.
insane people can sometimes say things that are correct, even if it's by accident.
Eric -
He's also speaking to the same Middle Eastern audience when he promotes the idea that Holocaust scholarship is banned in the West and that people are sent to prison for investigating the cover-up. People in the Middle East may be lapping it up, but they are lapping up lies. I think that's dangerous, no?
I am aware of America's sins against Iran in the past, but I don't think taking Ahmadinejad at all seriously is going to promote real dialogue about that. There's plenty of Western scholarship that highlights the evils in America's past.
well, to stretch the analogy a bit further, i don't necessarily fear that bush is pulling the american people more to the right. i think he was popular because he spoke to a part of people that was already there. i think his sinking approval ratings demonstrate that, no matter how fervently people may love or respect a leader, they can change their minds if they feel that person is heading off the rails. likewise, let's be catious about making too many assumptions about what middle easterners are lapping up.
one could make the argument that the iranian people, not having our tradition of democracy, may be more susceptible to the wayward ramblings of their leader than we are to ours. nonetheless, i think iraq has shown that there are costs to be weighed when dealing with even the most dangerous leaders. sometimes it's better to give 'em enough rope.
iuscpmdn
Eric -
I'm not sure what Bush's approval ratings have to do with the rantings of a Sophist of the worst kind.
I think the more appropriate analogy would be something like, "Sure, David Duke says some questionable things, but we should listen to his views on states' rights; he's talking some sense here." Can you imagine anybody making such an argument? Of course not. The totality of what the speaker says does factor into our decision as to whether to listen further. It's human nature.
I'm not making assumptions about what people in the Middle East are lapping up. Do I really need to go over the litany of anti-semitic propaganda that is pervasive in the Arab world (yes, I know Iranians are Persians, not Arabs)? The popular television mini-series of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? The endless editorials blaming Israel/Jews for everything? The endless editorial cartoons that look like they were plucked from 1930s Nazi Germany, with hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of children while stealing money?
And must we continue to believe that Iran is seriously trying to engage us? We make an offer for talks and, hey surprise!, they reject it as "propaganda." Yeah, they seem really serious about engagement.
I just cannot understand all of the apologias for the pathologies of the Islamic world.
Maybe because people like you created them.
In essence, what you and Tony are saying is that you won't listen to what anybody has to say until they do what you say - rediculous - almost as rediculous as the guy you are ranting over, and that's rediculouis.
People "like me" created what? This is such a broad generalization that I am not sure what you are trying to say.
I don't understand why you find it "rediculous" (sic) in diplomacy to lay down conditions for discussion. It happens all the time. Also, isn't he doing the exact same thing to us?
I also don't understand this fascination with defending a representative of a truly repressive regime. Where is the outrage over the squashing of dissent in Iran that is happening right now? It's a complete mystery to me and it is this odd recurring trend, like the adulation that often Castro gets from some on the left.
i think the problem here is that i'm not addressing the central issue you raised, which is that this guys is, at best, airing some questionable views, and, at worst, a real threat to an already unstable international situation (my apologies if i misrepresented your point). for the record, i agree, and i was never trying to apologize for anybody.
all i was saying is that you can't level those kinds of charges at a leader without in some sense implicating the people behind him. how we deal with this guy will send a message to the people of iran about how we intend to deal with them. and, in the wake of afghanistan and iraq, i think middle easterners can probably be forgiven for looking at us with a jaundiced eye. i mean, the most rabid liberals i know would be less than pleased if iran came over here bombing us in order to effect a little regime change.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm simply saying that dictating an outcome isn't going to get us anywhere with them.
They will develop nuclear wepons, telling them they can't isn't going to stop them.
I think it's time to start thinking about how we deal with an other nuke on the block.
They are willing to talk about anything but abandoning their nuclear ambitions.
We aren't willing to talk about anything else.
When I say 'people like you' I mean people who are locked into a mindset that says 'Do what America says, or else', and that attitude has caused much of the problems we face - intollerance.
But we've been down this road before Dave. We both see each others attitude as dangerous.
Time will tell.
..and I don't think I ever said we should 'just' listen. My point was where's the harm in listening FOR A CHANGE - the alternative hasn't worked out so well.
Eric -
I think what makes this situation interesting is that there is clearly a group in Iran that is not behind the leader and wants to effect change. I am sure that they are disheartened by the hollow talk they get from Washington. If Bush wants to get them revved up to overthrow the mullahs and establish a democracy, he has to do more than just talk about it. He needs to give them a signal that they have real support. He also should not be seen to be dealing with an Iranian leadership that seems more interested in puffing its chest than achieving any real goals for the country.
I am fully aware of the U.S. (and, particularly, the British) history of meddling in Iran and I recognize that Iranians have a reason to be skeptical of the U.S.
Jackson -
I don't see how we are not listening here. He's said his piece; we aren't going to accept it. Haven't you ever negotiated something? This is all just posturing.
I don't think everybody should just do what America thinks it should do. For one thing, the EU is on the same page here too: they don't want a nuclear Iran either.
That being said, the end of American foreign policy is to advance American interests, so of course the goal of that policy is going to be to get other countries to do what we want. That's how EVERY country runs their foreign policy. The only difference is how much leverage you have.
Jackson -
One final thing: I suggest that one of the worst pathologies afflicting the Islamic world is the idea that America, not anybody within the Muslim world, is, as you say, the cause of all their ills.
Said ut before I could...
Of course we have to listen to this guy. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
This is a country on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. If we don't engage in rational discussions we are idiots.
You may call it a "pathology", but the way the non-Western world looks at the US isn't irrational to them. To simply dismiss it as a sickness is dangerous and ignorant. Until we start to understand why they may feel this way we'll be no better off.
Neither Ted nor I ever argued that this guy is rational or not crazy. We aren't defending him. That's not the point (I realize it is for you). The point is whether we're prepared to try to understand.
The cause of all their ills is that they live in the fucking desert man.
Were that it was so easy to just say "oh that problem is this. let's fix that".
All I am saying, all I've ever tried to say, is that nobody seems to care about why.
There has to be a reason.
Post a Comment