Ahmadinejad says he'd meet with McCain, Obama

[Oliver]

Story Highlights
Iranian president on "Larry King Live": I have no preference between McCain, Obama
Ahmadinejad: Attacking Iran would be "worst thing the U.S. government can do"
Hostility with the U.S. "has not been from our end," Ahmadinejad says

http://us.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/23/ahmadinejad.us/index.html




So Ahmadinejad will be on CNN:LKL tonight. I'm quite tensed to see how
the Candidates will react to the invitation to meet both of them ...

[dudalb]

God, Oliver, you seem to be a fan of that nutjob.
Edited for civility

[Undesired Walrus]

From what I gathered from his UN speech, the wackjob was making his distrust of Obama known. The rest of it was just a call for religion to solve the problems of the world.

[dudalb]

And you have not been hearing Obama talk much about meeting with Ahmadinejad recently. I think he knows making that statement last year was a mistake.
I predict silence from both Candidates. Ahmadinejad is persona non grata as far as both candidates are concerned. If there is a diplomatic opening to Iran to be made, it will be behind the scenes and with someone other the Wackjob.

[Oliver]

God, Oliver, you seem to be a fan of that nutjob.
Edited for civility


Could you imagine Bush or McCain on a similar Iranian TV show - or
in front of an Iranian panel? ... See? Rather being a Village Idiot than
a coward - or a strong supporter of a Coward.

So - by your estimation: How will the different Candidates react to
the invitation? ;)

[dudalb]

As I stated before; Both will ignore it as much as possible.
God, Oliver you really do admire Adhmijan, don't you?

[Undesired Walrus]

What I don't understand is why Oliver -a supporter of infamous Isolantionist loony Ron Paul- would support US Presidents getting involved in foreign situations.

[Oliver]

As I stated before; Both will ignore it as much as possible.
God, Oliver you really do admire Adhmijan, don't you?


You wouldn't even listen to Ahmadinejad if would talk about abolishing
the Iranian Reactor, would you? ... Gee, and those type of people did
run the White House in the recent 8 years... Childish Cowards.

No, I don't admire him. Yes, he has Balls to appear within the US,
while all US-Politicians are just whining about Iran - in their safe home. :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

What I don't understand is why Oliver -a supporter of infamous Isolantionist loony Ron Paul- would support US Presidents getting involved in foreign situations.


When did I oppose foreign policies - other than violent ones? :confused:
You're wrong - and probably off-topic.

[dudalb]

You don't actually expect anything like logic from Oliver, do you?
Anybody with any basic understanding of US politics would know that both canddiates will the invitation (which the wacko has made on several occasions) the same way they would a rattlesnake.

[Oliver]

You don't actually expect anything like logic from Oliver, do you?
Anybody with any basic understanding of US politics would know that both canddiates will the invitation (which the wacko has made on several occasions) the same way they would a rattlesnake.


Yes. Cowards. No intend to have rational discussions. I understand that.

On the other Hand, let's see what the candidates responses will be. Until
then, I wait for Larry King's interview with Ahmadinejad. Oh, did I mention
that LK hates America for even allowing A on his show? :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

The words "Rational Discussion" and "ahmedinjine" do not belong in the same sentence.
What part of "The President Of Iran Is A Kook" don't you understand?
Or do you approve of his Holocaust Denial and pledges to wipe Israel off the map?

[Oliver]

The words "Rational Discussion" and "ahmedinjine" do not belong in the same sentence.
What part of "The President Of Iran Is A Kook" don't you understand?
Or do you approve of his Holocaust Denial and pledges to wipe Israel off the map?


*lol* Bush and McCain are Kooks as well - depending on your
personal political stance. What's the point?

No, Holocaust Denial and [quoting it the right way] "getting rid of
Israels current aggressive Regime by wiping them [the regime, not
the Jews] off the pages of History", aren't wise or truthful words.

However: Why again is speaking to each other a bad thing? :confused:

[dudalb]

I am through with you, Oliver for now. You are just too blinded by your hate of the US.

[Pardalis]

I'm quite tensed

That's a little too much information, Ollie.

[Oliver]

That's a little too much information, Ollie.


No, it is not. If Iran is open to talks, everybody should be tensed to
see if the stupid, arrogant, selfish and whiny Iran-Haters will take
this chance to find a peaceful solution. Only cowards would refuse
such a chance - or claim that it's a waste of time without even
trying it. Wrong? :confused:

[Pardalis]

No, it is not. If Iran is open to talks, everybody should be tensed to
see if the stupid, arrogant, selfish and whiny Iran-Haters will take
this chance to find a peaceful solution. Only cowards would refuse
such a chance - or claim that it's a waste of time without even
trying it. Wrong? :confused:

A chance? Ahmadinejad is just trolling the presidential elections. They can always meet later.

[Oliver]

I am through with you, Oliver for now. You are just too blinded by your hate of the US.


*lol* :D You're funny in your ignorance - and your lack of arguments [other than what seems to be straight whining].

[Oliver]

A chance? Ahmadinejad is just trolling the presidential elections. They can always meet later.

Yes, Ahmadinejad visiting the UN is nothing but trolling the
US-Elections. You can't be serious on that if you think about
it, can you?

You're highly biased, Goury. You don't like Ahmadinejad, no matter
what. Am I wrong?

[Pardalis]

You're highly biased, Goury. You don't like Ahmadinejad, no matter what. Am I wrong?

The same could be said about you and the US.

[Oliver]

The same could be said about you and the US.


Untrue. I think Obama is different and I admire his openness. So regarding
the OP, I assume that he will be open for a debate with Iran - which he
already stated. What do you think the responses from McCain and Obama
will be?

[moon1969]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would also meet with Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports dictators and tyrants, George W. Bush does not. Or George W. Bush is friends with two dictators Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Vladimir Putin.

[moon1969]

Nobody should talk to a dictator like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oh yeah and Bush is also friends with Muammar al-Gaddafi. Libya and Iran both need democratic reforms.

[SDC]

Oliver, your posts are vile and bigoted. I really do not believe they are acceptable in Germany. They are not acceptable in the US.

[Pardalis]

Untrue. I think Obama is different and I admire his openness.

Not what you said here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116503

So regarding the OP, I assume that he will be open for a debate with Iran - which he already stated. What do you think the responses from McCain and Obama will be?

They have other priorities at the moment. I think if there's a meeting to take place, it should be between two presidents, not a president and two candidates.

[Oliver]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would also meet with Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports dictators and tyrants, George W. Bush does not. Or George W. Bush is friends with two dictators Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Vladimir Putin.


Really? [Saudi, for example]

Nobody should talk to a dictator like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oh yeah and Bush is also friends with Muammar al-Gaddafi. Libya and Iran both need democratic reforms.


Ahamdinejad isn't a dictator - nor is the Iranian Regime a Dictatorship.

Oliver, your posts are vile and bigoted. I really do not believe they are acceptable in Germany. They are not acceptable in the US.


It is. Germany actually has diplomatic relations to Iran. The OP question,
however, asks about the US-Candidates reaction to the invitation. What
is your estimation regarding McCain's and Obama's probable response?

[moon1969]

By the way what does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think about sunni muslims? Oh yeah right his master Ayatollah Khomeini told him that all sunni muslims are evil because Saddam Hussein started the Iran–Iraq War. Oh yeah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and an anti-semite. Why should anybody talk to Ahmadinejad?

[Oliver]

Not what you said here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116503

They have other priorities at the moment. I think if there's a meeting to take place, it should be between two presidents, not a president and two candidates.


Yes, Obama will favor Israel over Iran. However - I don't doubt that he
is open to have talks with Iran/Ahmadinejad. Should I have doubts regarding
his statement of diplomatic talks in general?

Well, you know what kind of lying scumbag the current President
was regarding Iraq and Iran. If you were Ahmadinejad, you certainly
wouldn't talk to Bush about your country, you seriously would? :eek::p

[Oliver]

By the way what does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think about sunni muslims? Oh yeah right his master Ayatollah Khomeini told him that all sunni muslims are evil because Saddam Hussein started the Iran–Iraq War. Oh yeah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and an anti-semite. Why should anybody talk to Ahmadinejad?


Mhmm, maybe because Obama is an anti-semite and holocaust denier as well? :confused::eek::D:D:D

[Oliver]

LKL is running right now...

[BenBurch]

My opinion is that while either man as President could and possibly should meet with Ahmadinejad, it is improper for either to do so as candidates.

[Oliver]

My opinion is that while either man as President could and possibly should meet with Ahmadinejad, it is improper for either to do so as candidates.


Why??? - Because it would point out someones future policies? :confused::confused::confused:
Is this a bad thing - and if so, why???

[BenBurch]

Why??? - Because it would point out someones future policies? :confused::confused::confused:
Is this a bad thing - and if so, why???

Because it undermines the current President in case he should become temporarily sane and try for diplomacy.

[dudalb]

Burch, you really think that the President of Iran is the kind of guy you can do business with??????

[BenBurch]

Burch, you really think that the President of Iran is the kind of guy you can do business with??????

You can do business with anybody if they understand that it will serve their interests to do so.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why should anybody talk to Ahmadinejad?

"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass

[gtc]

If I was the President of Iran and I wanted to develop nukes, I would be offering to talk with every man, woman and cat (not dogs obviously) in order to buy as much time as possible in which to build my nukes.

Wanting to talk with the US isn't necessarily a sign of bravery and not wanting to talk with Iran isn't a sign of cowardice.

[Dragoonster]

Nobody should talk to a dictator like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oh yeah and Bush is also friends with Muammar al-Gaddafi. Libya and Iran both need democratic reforms.

Ahmadinejad was elected with 60% in the final runoff for President. He's unpopular with many of his coalition, as well as part of his populist/blue-collar base who think he didn't live up to his campaign talk. He's also in the first term of a maximum of a two-term presidency, and faces serious opposition for reelection.

In short, he's not a dictator. :rolleyes:

So anyway, I saw the interview. Pretty much what I thought of him, a moderate-hardline conservative Iranian president. Not nearly as evil/bad/dangerous as US propaganda and the more credulous recipients of same make him out to be. Nor is Iran.

I don't know if the interview is online, if so I'd suggest watching it (he doesn't speak English though, used a translator). If not, here's his response to a few of the main controversial statements that we tend to hear (my paraphrasing of what I remember, possibly biased):

Homosexuals: He didn't deny they existed Iran, said they weren't as much of a problem as in the US. Said it's been illegal for 70 years there, supports it being illegal, calls it unnatural. But said the government didn't care what people do in their own homes.

Destroying Israel: He repeatedly called Israel the "Zionist regime", but at one point clarified that Zionists are not Jews, or anything else. He said he had no problem with Jews and as some slim evidence noted that the Iranian council or reps had a Jewish independent, and there were Jews in Iran. He compared his vision of the collapse of Israel to the USSR and South Africa's apartheid. He refused to answer whether he'd meet with Israeli diplomats. His solution seemed to be to allow Palestinians in the OT and maybe even refugees in Jordan to vote for Israeli government. He referred to Israel as an "undesired guest" and offered as analogy how the US should respond to a state whose creation was a result of an invasion of the US.

The Holocaust: He didn't flat deny it happened. He did imply it either didn't or wasn't severe, and wanted to see "independent" investigation of it. He argued that if it happened it shouldn't be seen as any more severe than a non-genocidal casualty count (or something). Said that if it did happen, it still wasn't a reason to punish Palestinians by giving Israel a state, and that Europe (or Alaska, not sure if that was a dig or memory product of a recent Palin question) should have given them a state. He didn't advocate violence at any point.

Of course, the creation of Israel was at most only hastened or more accepted by the Holocaust, it's formation in the Middle East was in the making decades before. I disagree strongly with his stance on Israel, and homosexuals, and the Holocaust. On the other hand he often spoke of Iran as peaceful, desiring peace, decried the notion that Iran is seen as dangerous by the world (he asked back "is the world the US"? "is the world the US and its allies").

He's not a "wacko" or a dictator, nor do his real positions match the sound-bite quotes that have been posted as proof of a more radical position 1,000,000,000,000 times to date. Jesus, skeptics. Pretend it was Obama or McCain (or a politician you like), and try to dig a bit more to get his actual, more nuanced (or at least more ambiguous) position as compared to your favorite sound-bite quotes.

EDIT: I don't think it's a good idea for candidates two months out from an election to talk with him. Or any world leader.

[DC]

Burch, you really think that the President of Iran is the kind of guy you can do business with??????

yes, there are several countrys doing exactly this, you seem to watch to much FOX News.

after all, there are still countrys doing bussines with Bush , and not only Saudi Arabia.

Switzerland resently did bussines with Iran.

[WildCat]

"getting rid of
Israels current aggressive Regime by wiping them [the regime, not
the Jews] off the pages of History", aren't wise or truthful words.
Why do you continue to lie about this Oliver? Who translated this, Bush? Fox News? :rolleyes:

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg

However: Why again is speaking to each other a bad thing? :confused:
No one, which is why we have been talking to Iran since 1979.

The issue was the POTUS talking directly to Ahmedinejad, which isn't going to happen until Iran grows up a bit.

[boloboffin]

Wow, Wildcat. I hadn't seen that before. I still think it's a bad translation from what I know, but obviously some groups think it's not so far off the mark.

[DC]

Iran was already grown up even before some European slaughtered the Native Americans :)

[Dragoonster]

Why do you continue to lie about this Oliver? Who translated this, Bush? Fox News? :rolleyes:

Who did translate that? Who are those people and what's their agenda?

And is it telling that they attribute the quote as the original by Khomeini and not Ahmedinejad's requote?

Why did Ahmedinejad avoid using that phrase during his Larry King interview when directly asked about it?

[WildCat]

Who did translate that? Who are those people and what's their agenda?
They look Iranian to me...

And is it telling that they attribute the quote as the original by Khomeini and not Ahmedinejad's requote?
So Ahmedinejad can't quote Khomeini? Do you think he comes up with this by himself, or do you acknowledge he gets his strings pulled by the mullahs who actually run Iran? If someone here can read Farsi feel free to see if that's the same phrase Ahmedinejad uttered.

Why did Ahmedinejad avoid using that phrase during his Larry King interview when directly asked about it?
The say one thing at home, another for the useful idiots suckers foreigners. Quite a tradition of that in the region.

[WildCat]

No translation needed here, particularly the sequence at 5:00 - 5:20.

VZIp0BIRUJs

[Undesired Walrus]

They look Iranian to me...



Who? Members of the Iranian Department of Defense or an unsupported anti-semetic organisation?

[Undesired Walrus]

No translation needed here, particularly the sequence at 5:00 - 5:20.

VZIp0BIRUJs

It also has a swastika. Either this means an attack on the Hindus or they intend their missiles to travel back in time.

There is plenty of reasons to prevent the Iranian regime from gaining a nuclear weapon (The Holocaust conference for one), but is the above presentation really reason to believe an attack on Israel will occur, promting the obliteration of the current regime?

[BenBurch]

Wildcat, I was blowing holes in Ayatollah Khomeini targets back in 1980, is that so different? At some point we either kill each other or make peace.

[boloboffin]

Sarah Palin is actually meeting with Ahmadinejad today (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0908/556128.html).

I had the impression that Republicans thought this was wrong.

[dudalb]

Sarah Palin is actually meeting with Ahmadinejad today (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0908/556128.html).

I had the impression that Republicans thought this was wrong.

If the Democrats have the brains that God Gave Geese, they will publicise that meeting to Kingdom Come, since the GOP attacked Obama...quite rightly,IMHO...for saying he would meet without preconditions with The Nutcase.

[WildCat]

It also has a swastika. Either this means an attack on the Hindus or they intend their missiles to travel back in time.
Uh, no. It means they're comparing the US and Israel to nazis.

There is plenty of reasons to prevent the Iranian regime from gaining a nuclear weapon (The Holocaust conference for one), but is the above presentation really reason to believe an attack on Israel will occur, promting the obliteration of the current regime?
I'm sure if Israel had such a parade except it was a crescent instead of a Star of David you'd be just as flippant.

Israel has never attacked Iran directly or by proxy, as Iran has attacked Israel through its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. And yet, here we have Iran clearly identifying Israel as an enemy.

[WildCat]

Sarah Palin is actually meeting with Ahmadinejad today (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0908/556128.html).
No such thing in that link, maybe you misread "Iraq" as "Iran"?

[boloboffin]

no such thing in that link, maybe you misread "iraq" as "iran"?

Oh, CUSS.

[WildCat]

Oh, CUSS.
Why did all upper case letters get changed to lower case in your quote?

Conspiracy!

[boloboffin]

JREF has an awesome text filter that automatically changes a message with all uppercase in the main message to all lowercase letters. My original message was just CUSS.

I had to go back and add a word with a lowercase letter to avoid tripping it. I didn't think about the filter going into the quote and changing all of those caps to lower. Weird little bug.

[Pardalis]

Palin was pepper-sprayed?

[boloboffin]

Palin was pepper-sprayed?

You certainly do hold a grudge.

[Dragoonster]

They look Iranian to me...

So you don't know.

So Ahmedinejad can't quote Khomeini? Do you think he comes up with this by himself, or do you acknowledge he gets his strings pulled by the mullahs who actually run Iran? If someone here can read Farsi feel free to see if that's the same phrase Ahmedinejad uttered.

I've never not acknowledged that the theocracy is the real power in Iran. This thread (I thought) wasn't about them or about Khomeini, it was about Ahmedinejad and what he meant by his words, what type of person he was, why some people thinks he's crazy or even a dictator, etc.

You know, details rather than repeating a single, possibly mistranslated quote ad nauseum.

ETA: oops, I thought this was a different thread in another forum that I'd been arguing on. My bad about its purpose.

The say one thing at home, another for the useful idiots suckers foreigners. Quite a tradition of that in the region.

Propaganda and rhetorical rousing of the masses have quite a tradition in many regions. Did you see the interview or do you base all your reaction to the man based on the few quotes that are standard neo-con regurgitative fare?

[gtc]

Why did Ahmedinejad avoid using that phrase during his Larry King interview when directly asked about it?

Because he knows what plays well in the Middle East doesn't play so well on Larry King.

You seem determined to paint the man in the best possible light. Why? The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

We know he is a holocaust denier (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html). We know he calls the events of 9/11 a 'suspect event' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7350830.stm) and publically questions whether the US was involved.

We know he said "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." "In Iran we don't have this phenomenon.". Even if he denies it later (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA05294620071010) through a spokesman. Strictly speaking they probably do have fewer homosexuals as they kill the ones they find.

We know he said to wipe Israel off the map, we know that was the official translation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)

[Dragoonster]

You seem determined to paint the man in the best possible light. Why?

Truth lies somewhere inbetween partisan propaganda, and currently Ahmadinejad is under a lot more pressure from the right's. I don't like his policies but they're hardly demonic, unusual, or all that extreme. He's not a dictator, not a madman. He's a clever rhetorician who plays to his audience in order to score political points. Pretty typical populist, conniving politician. Has some awful views on Israel and human rights, but nothing above-and-beyond a lot of other leaders or countries.

All in all, I don't see he or Iran being so radical as to maintain a 30-year old diplomatic blackout. During that time the US has been allies with Saddam Hussein, Nicaraguan death squads, the most undemocratic regime in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia), and now Musharref. Probably others I've missed too. So...either our diplomatic approach is hypocritical, or people actually believe this Iranian or Iran are so much worse than these others that they deserve the blackout. If all the latter relies on are a series of quotes, yet very little if any action based on them, it seems biased.

Some of the right does seem consistent and wants to add Chavez, NK, and others to a diplomatic freeze. But I don't see much serious rationale behind any policy of embargo or freeze. Hasn't worked for Iran, hasn't worked for NK or Cuba etc. Just seems to exacerbate any problems that exist, as well as force a long-term propaganda campaign to keep the freeze justified.

Oh, and I was also slanting my immediate opinion to reflect the Larry King interview, which I bothered to watch.

Do you think the next president should open up diplomatic relations with Iran?

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm sure if Israel had such a parade except it was a crescent instead of a Star of David you'd be just as flippant.


How do you know this exactly WildCat?

You found out who were in those pictures yet?

[gtc]

Do you think the next president should open up diplomatic relations with Iran?

Not my president, but in theory diplomatic relationships and talks are a good idea. In practice, reducing diplomatic relationships can be sensible (as I think our approach to Fiji and Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth shows). Also, if I was wanting to buy time for my nuclear program, I would offer to talk to everyone, all the time, about any topic at all - so not talking can be sensible.

[OneShotKi11]

What I don't understand is why Oliver -a supporter of infamous Isolantionist loony Ron Paul- would support US Presidents getting involved in foreign situations.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist misinformed sir!

[Oliver]

Senator Obama's statement on President Ahmadinejad's Remarks... (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGg9vp)
I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad's outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views. The threat from Iran's nuclear program is grave. Now is the time for Americans to unite on behalf of the strong sanctions that are needed to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

Once again, I call upon Senator McCain to join me in supporting a bipartisan bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran. The security of our ally Israel is too important to play partisan politics, and it is deeply disappointing that Senator McCain and a few of his allies in Congress feel otherwise.

[WildCat]

How do you know this exactly WildCat?

You found out who were in those pictures yet?
Yes, I know when and where the pictures were taken: March 9, 2008 In Tehran "during a pro-Palestinian meeting at a cultural centre (http://www.shieldofachilles.net/2008/03/israel-must-be-wiped-off-map-and-other.html)".

See this page for more: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/03/11/wont-somebody-tell-juan-cole/

Note the billboard in Tehran, with another translation to English.

Need any more UW? Let's go back to this BBC article from 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm#) where Ahmedinejad defends his remarks without claiming it was a mistranslation.

Now who does the best translation, the Iranians themselves or their apologists in academia?

[OneShotKi11]

Why exactly would we not want to meet and talk with President Ahmadinejad?
Do we just want to blow people up?

[WildCat]

Why exactly would we not want to meet and talk with President Ahmadinejad?
Do we just want to blow people up?
We talk to Iran, that's never been the issue. What isn't going to happen is Ahmedinejad getting a face-to-face meeting with the POTUS. Number 1, Iran would have to make major progress and number 2 Ahmedinejad isn't the #1 guy in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is. If Iran makes nicey-nice and makes major concessions maybe Ahmedinejad gets to meet with the Secretary of State.

You don't understand any of this, do you?

[OneShotKi11]

We talk to Iran, that's never been the issue. What isn't going to happen is Ahmedinejad getting a face-to-face meeting with the POTUS. Number 1, Iran would have to make major progress and number 2 Ahmedinejad isn't the #1 guy in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is. If Iran makes nicey-nice and makes major concessions maybe Ahmedinejad gets to meet with the Secretary of State.

You don't understand any of this, do you?

Nope i wouldnt say i know much at all about this particular situation with Iran. Thats why for the most part i ask questions.

I think i understand your point now with that post.