Ahmadinejad to visit GZ?

[Kryptos]

Saw some buzz about this on LCF. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is coming to NYC for the UN General Assembly, has asked and been denied a request to visit GZ. He says "9/11 attacks were an inside job, carried out with help of intelligence agents."

http://tinyurl.com/2h7gkw

[Unsecured Coins]

nope. he has been denied like dylan at film school

[Sabrina]

He's been denied, as I understand it, because he wants to go into the area where construction is going on, and they can't guarantee his safety.

That's me speaking rationally. Were I to speak IRrationally, I would say this gigantic b****** should never be allowed anywhere near the site, and if I were around, I'd want to rip his [rule10]ing head off for daring to appear sympathetic toward the victims while in the same breath blaming the US government for that event.

[Pardalis]

He says "9/11 attacks were an inside job, carried out with help of intelligence agents."

http://tinyurl.com/2h7gkw

The supreme commander of his Revolutionary Guard seems to agree with him:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8512

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.
Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the Axis of Woo.

[Unsecured Coins]

you're cute when you're angry

[Sabrina]

I'm a woman. I'm allowed. :p

[yairhol]

That guy is just pissing on everybody.
He's manufacturing nuclear weapons while the international community demands him to stop and he wants the destruction of the state of Israel.

I say don't let him into the U.S. and make his flight movie be The Spice Girls.

Regards,
Yair

[SDC]

Latest AM local news (today, 20th) is that he and his entourage are arranging the GZ visit with the Secret Service, and in fact doesn't need the permission of the NYPD, though presumably he wouldn't be allowed in the actual construction site. You know, that's the great thing about living and working here; there is never a dull moment. (I work in midtown, though perhaps the cavalcade of limos will race down 5th Ave, banners flying.)

[Disbelief]

Let him come. Make sure that victims' family members and NYPD and FDNY are on hand. Make sure that after he gives some little speech that someone follows up and points out how the US gives him rights that US citizens have. Point out that in his country, someone speaking with a dissenting voice would be jailed or killed. Point out that women have little or no voice.

Don't stoop to his level, because you play into his hand. Give him some courtesies and show the world that we aren't afraid of his stupidity.

[negativ]

Let him come. Make sure that victims' family members and NYPD and FDNY are on hand. Make sure that after he gives some little speech that someone follows up and points out how the US gives him rights that US citizens have. Point out that in his country, someone speaking with a dissenting voice would be jailed or killed. Point out that women have little or no voice.

Don't stoop to his level, because you play into his hand. Give him some courtesies and show the world that we aren't afraid of his stupidity.

Only problem with this is that pretty much everyone in the world already realizes this (however dimly), and secondly nobody in Iran would be allowed to see it anyway. And somehow, I don't think he would be likely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh) to be personally moved by platitudes.

[Swing Dangler]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).

[Disbelief]

Only problem with this is that pretty much everyone in the world already realizes this (however dimly), and secondly nobody in Iran would be allowed to see it anyway. And somehow, I don't think he would be likely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh) to be personally moved by platitudes.

But we so often go out of our way to be confrnotational that it is used against us. If we make sure that we let him do his thing and point out the inconsistencies, we come off looking better than if we try and ban him.

Swing, what does that link have to do with anything? Can you tell me how they protect women's rights "in accordance with Islamic law?"

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Let him only go from JFK to the UN, and back to JFK and back on his plane. He should not be allowed in the United States. But he has the right to go to the UN.

[twinstead]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).

Quite interesting. I noticed that "...not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam" pretty much qualified every right in the constitution. It means that one merely has to define what the 'fundamental principles of Islam' is to give or deny anyone's rights for just about anything.

Hey. It worked for the Taliban...

[dudalb]

Only problem with this is that pretty much everyone in the world already realizes this (however dimly), and secondly nobody in Iran would be allowed to see it anyway. And somehow, I don't think he would be likely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh) to be personally moved by platitudes.

I disagree with everybody in the world knowing what a jackass the President of Iran is,consideirng the amount of whitewashing and justification he seems to get on the Internet.

[dudalb]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).


Peoples' rights were "guaranteed" in the laws of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too.
Please note that the first guy defending the President of Iran is a Truther.

[Sabrina]

This link (http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html)says that women have rights in Iran IN SPITE OF, not because of, Islamic law. Strict Sharia law would limit these women further.

[yairhol]

This link (http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html)says that women have rights in Iran IN SPITE OF, not because of, Islamic law. Strict Sharia law would limit these women further.

That's the one law I would adopt from Iran....Just kidding...keep your shirt on...;)

Regards,
Yair

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Peoples' rights were "guaranteed" in the laws of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too.
Please note that the first guy defending the President of Iran is a Truther.

It's kind of amazing. I have yet to hear a truther bash Kim Jong Il, Osama, Ahmadinnajacket, or others...

[dudalb]

It's kind of amazing. I have yet to hear a truther bash Kim Jong Il, Osama, Ahmadinnajacket, or others...

I think it is the "Anybody who opposes Bush and the NWO is on our side" mentality.
The most common example of not seeing a dictator as a dictator for ideological reasons seems to be the Hugo CHavez fan club,though.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I think it is the "Anybody who opposes Bush and the NWO is on our side" mentality.
The most common example of not seeing a dictator as a dictator for ideological reasons seems to be the Hugo CHavez fan club,though.

Don't get me started about the folks who scream that they think Bush is doing things that Chavez is actually doing... and in the same breath, praise Chavez.

Oh! The Ironing!

[Pardalis]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic of this thread.

[Swing Dangler]

Peoples' rights were "guaranteed" in the laws of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too.
Please note that the first guy defending the President of Iran is a Truther.

I'm defending his right to visit Ground Zero, not necessarily his policies both domestic or foreign. Until the law states he can not visit ground zero, he has that right, correct?

If I'm not mistaken, he condemned the attacks correct?
I maybe wrong but the number of terrorists that participated in the attacks from Iran was 0, correct?

[Bell]

I'm defending his right to visit Ground Zero, not necessarily his policies both domestic or foreign. Until the law states he can not visit ground zero, he has that right, correct?

But no one has the plight to alowe him to go to GZ.

If I'm not mistaken, he condemned the attacks correct?
I maybe wrong but the number of terrorists that participated in the attacks from Iran was 0, correct?

Do you believe terrorist attacked on 9/11?

[GreNME]

This link (http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html)says that women have rights in Iran IN SPITE OF, not because of, Islamic law. Strict Sharia law would limit these women further.

I'm sorry, but this kind of phrasing always grates on me. You need to be aware that the very conservative "Sharia law" espoused in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran (among other places) is not direct Islamic law. Those countries are ruled by groups who have interpreted the Sharia, which is a methodology for creating laws, in the manner which they exist presently. Comparing these countries' "Sharia law" as synonymous with "Islamic law" is one of the biggest misconceptions propagated by repetition in the West regarding Islam as a faith.

It does not cover everything, but a good explanation of Sharia can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia).

We now return back to the regularly-scheduled Ahmacrazyguy hate-fest. :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm all in favor of letting Smackdude I'madinnerjacket into Ground Zero so long as US authorities allow this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong) into New Jersey.

[Kryptos]

I'm defending his right to visit Ground Zero, not necessarily his policies both domestic or foreign. Until the law states he can not visit ground zero, he has that right, correct?

The WTC site itself (inside the fenced area) is owned by the Port Authority, and not public. To go down and lay a wreath, as he asked, requires permission of the Port Authority. The NYPD (and the Secret Service) are responsible for providing security to visiting "heads of state", and can say no to his request.

[GreNME]

I'm all in favor of letting Smackdude I'madinnerjacket into Ground Zero so long as US authorities allow this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong) into New Jersey.

Wow, that's an impressive story. I'd never heard of that guy before. And he taught himself!

[dudalb]

I am actually in favor of letting his go,if he agress to a open press conference afterwards .I am sure a lot of embarassing questions would be asked.
I find it ironic that somebody who has the image of Guy Fawkes from V for Vendetta is an apologists for a regime as oppresive as that of Iran.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I find it ironic that somebody who has the image of Guy Fawkes from V for Vendetta is an apologists for a regime as oppresive as that of Iran.

But not surprising given their shared beliefs. (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=6132768354953077568)

Don't forget, troofers define as oppression and dictatorship any state where they aren't the oppressors.

[JoeEllison]

It is interesting to see people gloss over the faults of some leaders, and exaggerate the faults of others.

Sorry folks, but I have very little respect for the idea that somehow everything bad said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez is the literal truth, and everything bad said about George W. Bush is a fabrication. That seems to be a major theme in this thread, and it destroys the credibility of the people who appear to hold this viewpoint.

Maybe a little less childishness about international politics would do us good? Maybe? Possibly?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fact: Ahmedinijad is routinely engaging in direct acts of war that cost the lives of US servicemen.

He kills Americans, ok?

Now he wants us to believe he mourns dead Americans? Bull[Rule10].

[dudalb]

It is interesting to see people gloss over the faults of some leaders, and exaggerate the faults of others.

Sorry folks, but I have very little respect for the idea that somehow everything bad said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez is the literal truth, and everything bad said about George W. Bush is a fabrication. That seems to be a major theme in this thread, and it destroys the credibility of the people who appear to hold this viewpoint.

Maybe a little less childishness about international politics would do us good? Maybe? Possibly?

That is a nice strawman,guy. If you do not share a hard left "The US has itself to blame" for 9/11 viewpint,you are a Bush supporter.
As somebody said in another thread,it is possible think Bush is an idiot and still think that Iran is a threat.
The problem with a lot of the hardcore Bush haters is when it comes to the Mideast,they seem to under just as many illusions as Bush is,just different illusions. They simply do not want to admit that Islamic Fundamentalism is a real threat.
And what should we have after 9/11? Just get a UN resolution condemning it?

[GreNME]

Fact: Ahmedinijad is routinely engaging in direct acts of war that cost the lives of US servicemen.

He kills Americans, ok?

Now he wants us to believe he mourns dead Americans? Bull[Rule10].

Not to get too political-debate-ish over this, but Saudi Arabia is the source for more money and non-Iraqi insurgents by far than Iran, and yet the drums aren't beating about that. It wasn't even mentioned in the Patraeus hearings (but shows up in reports from military summaries (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/REPOSITORY/707160351/1013/NEWS03) and even in publications like military.com (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,120258,00.html)).

Ahmalooneybin is engaging in direct acts of pretending he's a tough guy to try to look tough for his people at home. He wants to keep the US government ticked off at him, because that way he gets to play the hero to the country that is currently viewed as the biggest bully in the world (the US) right now by many Mid-Eastern states. All this war drumming nonsense just feeds into his desire for martyrdom (if needed) or an Iranian comeuppance (if able). Every chance possible results in states like Iran being demonized, while our "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are getting little to no pressure because they have given us just a tiny bit more than a little lip service in support of the "War on Turrah".

Yeah, the conspiracy theory nonsense is just another example of how Ahmagoofypuss is a certifiable nutjob, and certainly the government of Iran and its Supreme Leader are an ever-present political problem for most of the Western world. It doesn't change the matter that we can't even prosecute our current military entanglements efficiently because focusing on the sources and funding of those fighting us would be slightly politically embarrassing (and costly if OPEC decided to have a repeat of the embargo from 30 years back), and all I friggin hear on news, from pundits, and from the mouths of average people is "Iran, Iran, Iran!"

I agree that Ahmadenijihad shouldn't be allowed a trip to Ground Zero. Tell him: "No. Not yours. You get your country in order and stop behaving like you want to start a fight, and we'll get the mayor to give you a personal tour here. Until then, not a snowball's chance." Make that the public response (okay, word it less colloquially), and don't even address it any further. Let that stand. There is no need for venom and vitriol, and offering such is giving the nutjob exactly what he wants (undue attention and the opportunity to play 'pick a fight with the bully' again).

--


As somebody said in another thread,it is possible think Bush is an idiot and still think that Iran is a threat.
The problem with a lot of the hardcore Bush haters is when it comes to the Mideast,they seem to under just as many illusions as Bush is,just different illusions. They simply do not want to admit that Islamic Fundamentalism is a real threat.

Yeah, but is it proper to counter extremism with extremism? It is equally possible to think Ahmasillyhead is an idiot and still think all the venom and overreaction is unnecessary.

[MarkyX]

I just find it stunning that the 9/11 Deniers often label the United States as a fascist police state country that is the source of all the problems in the world...

Yet they love to praise to Chavez who considers Castro to be a role model and a certain Iranian President who enforces laws that limits numerous freedoms including freedom of speech and press.

And they wonder why an ass like myself even bothers to castrate their beloved internet videos. I'm more worried about these idiots then the guy who yells "Allah Ackbar". At least I haven't been threatened by a Muslim Extremist, can't say the same about the 9/11 Deniers.

[dudalb]

I hope we have a bit more rationality when Dubya is out of office. I really think hatred for Bush (and I don't like him either,BTW) is really clouding people's thinking.
And it not just 9/11 deniers. A lot of non 9/11 deniers who are on the political left seem to be like the people you describe in your first sentence,Marky X.

[dudalb]

Yeah, but is it proper to counter extremism with extremism? It is equally possible to think Ahmasillyhead is an idiot and still think all the venom and overreaction is unnecessary.


For the record, I am against military action against Iran at this time. We seem to have a couple of years before Iran goes on line with it's Nuclear program. We have time to let Iran show it's hand before making a final decison.
On the other hand, a lot of the tough talk might be to let Iran know the West is dead serious about them having Nuclear weapons. It is pretty apparent that the carrot approach with them has not worked.

[Bell]

I hope we have a bit more rationality when Dubya is out of office. I really think hatred for Bush (and I don't like him either,BTW) is really clouding people's thinking.
And it not just 9/11 deniers. A lot of non 9/11 deniers who are on the political left seem to be like the people you describe in your first sentence,Marky X.

What does Dubya mean btw? I know who it means, but never figured this one out. :confused:

[Civilized Worm]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).


Yeah, here's how it actually is: http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran

[dudalb]

What does Dubya mean btw? I know who it means, but never figured this one out. :confused:
A not too complemetary nick name for George Bush.

[Kryptos]

What does Dubya mean btw? I know who it means, but never figured this one out. :confused:

That's the way that "W." is pronounced in Texas. "Dubya" is his nickname, distinguishing him from his father.

[dudalb]

Yeah, here's how it actually is: http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran


I can't beleive that Swing Dangler walked into that one.
As I stated earlier,no constitution in the world talks more about liberty and rights then the one for the Soviet Union.

[Bell]

That's the way that "W." is pronounced in Texas. "Dubya" is his nickname, distinguishing him from his father.

Thanks.

[GreNME]

I just find it stunning that the 9/11 Deniers often label the United States as a fascist police state country that is the source of all the problems in the world...

Yet they love to praise to Chavez who considers Castrol to be a role model and a certain Iranian President who enforces laws that limits numerous freedoms including freedom of speech and press.
I certainly hope you aren't putting me in either of those groups. I think nearly half the comments in this thread are ridiculously overblown, and a few that are nearly as extreme as some statements the "troothers" spout.

And they wonder why an ass like myself even bothers to castrate their beloved internet videos. I'm more worried about these idiots then the guy who yells "Allah Ackbar". At least I haven't been threatened by a Muslim Extremist, can't say the same about the 9/11 Deniers.
Well, I kind of agree about the idiots who support fascist leaders just because they hate Bush. Just an FYI for ya, though, the phrase you were referencing is "Allahu ackbar," and is literally Arabic for "God is great[er]." It sees fairly common use, not just from car bombers or insurgents, all over the Arabic-speaking world. Whenever I hear it I am reminded of churches with people exclaiming "Praise God" and "Praise Jesus" or similar equivalents.

Basically, the parts I find scary about it is because I can imagine exactly what the fervor might be in the eyes of those who would strap a bomb to their chest or plant a homemade roadside bomb. That fervor is what scares me, not the possibility of bombing. Granted, it doesn't scare me half as much as it would were I to live somewhere that bombing had even a slight regularity, though.

---

For the record, I am against military action against Iran at this time. We seem to have a couple of years before Iran goes on line with it's Nuclear program. We have time to let Iran show it's hand before making a final decison.
On the other hand, a lot of the tough talk might be to let Iran know the West is dead serious about them having Nuclear weapons. It is pretty apparent that the carrot approach with them has not worked.

The "carrot approach" was never attempted. In Spring of 2003, before Ahmalizardbrain was 'elected', Iran's government offered to re-open dimplomatic relations and offered to meet every requirement to achieve diplomatic relations. High off the "Shock and Awe" strikes, the State Department tossed the offer into File 13. This was after the insult of accepting Iranian support against the Taliban in December of 2001 and subsequently calling them part of the "Axis of Evil" in January of 2002. Don't believe me, though... Google Flynt Leveritt. He was one of the guys who was around when it happened. He's got the diplomatic and academic cred, and his claims have been cleared by the CIA to state publicly.

So, if by "carrot approach" you mean "acting like total jerks to them and then telling them to kiss your <censored> when they want to make nice," then maybe we actually do agree.

No, what we need to do is keep them talking long enough for Ahmadoofynut to be out of office and someone more like his predecessor (Khatami) to be elected. And if that happens our government needs to not shoot itself in the foot diplomatically again. We have enough trouble getting Iran to come to the discussion table-- we went about 25 years with barely a nice word with them-- and the current administration has screwed up twice at the opportunity to get them to a moderate discussion by doing exactly the wrong thing.

I'm past wanting Ahmaloonybin gone. I want some leadership in my own country that doesn't behave like complete friggin idiots. It's embarrassing.

[PhantomWolf]

The "carrot approach" was never attempted.

Actually it was. Not by the US, but by Russia. They even offered to do the uranium enrichment for Iran and get a power station up and running for them. All offers were rejected.

[JoeEllison]

Fact: Ahmedinijad is routinely engaging in direct acts of war that cost the lives of US servicemen.

Really? Did Bill O'Reilly tell you that?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really? Did Bill O'Reilly tell you that?

You think I'm dumb enough to believe what that guy says?

I read it on MichelleMalkin.com. :p

[Pardalis]

Really? Did Bill O'Reilly tell you that?


I know where this is going... :rolleyes:

[OldTigerCub]

Ahhhhh....Michelle....:lovestruck:

Sorry, just hearing her name brightens my day!:D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ahhhhh....Michelle....:lovestruck:

Sorry, just hearing her name brightens my day!:D

A couple weeks ago, Michelle was guest hosting for Bill on the O'Rielly Factor and she had Kirsten Powers on to discuss... something... I can't remember.

All I remember is watching theb two of them there together and thinking "Daaaaammmnnn..."

[dudalb]

CNBC has the hottest news babes. Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett.....yummy.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is interesting to see people gloss over the faults of some leaders, and exaggerate the faults of others.

Sorry folks, but I have very little respect for the idea that somehow everything bad said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez is the literal truth, and everything bad said about George W. Bush is a fabrication. That seems to be a major theme in this thread, and it destroys the credibility of the people who appear to hold this viewpoint.

Maybe a little less childishness about international politics would do us good? Maybe? Possibly?


I'm having difficulty in finding the post or posts in this thread that promote the idea that all criticisms against Bush are fabrications. Perhaps you could point them out.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

CNBC has the hottest news babes. Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett.....yummy.

If cheesecake and current events is your thing, watch "Red Eye" on FOX news.

Courtney Freole and Samantha Judge... *droool*

[B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)]

I am actually in favor of letting his go,if he agress to a open press conference afterwards .I am sure a lot of embarassing questions would be asked.
I find it ironic that somebody who has the image of Guy Fawkes from V for Vendetta is an apologists for a regime as oppresive as that of Iran.


Well, he has been invited to speak at Columbia University, which I feel is a double standard for that school. Thursday, they cancelled Jim Gilchrist's (Minuteman Project founder) invitation to a different speaking engagement.

[JimBenArm]

Well, he has been invited to speak at Columbia University, which I feel is a double standard for that school. Thursday, they cancelled Jim Gilchrist's (Minuteman Project founder) invitation to a different speaking engagement.
Welcome to the forums! Just one thing before I can allow you to post further, however. As the official grumpy out-of-touch old fogey here, I need an explaination of your screen name. Now, mister! Oh, sorry, excuse me, I do that from time to time. Would you please translate that into, well, something us creaky ones might understand?

Thanks, and again, :welcome2

[peteweaver]

Ahmedinejad is probably the thickest President of a country in the world.

And he's a holocaust denier.

Maybe his nuttiness, stems drugs? Iran has the highest concentration of heroin addicts in the world (an estimated 2 million Iranians are addicts).

[Travis]

That guy is just pissing on everybody.
He's manufacturing nuclear weapons while the international community demands him to stop and he wants the destruction of the state of Israel.

I say don't let him into the U.S. and make his flight movie be The Spice Girls.

Regards,
Yair

Yeah sure. Then Amnesty International would cry foul over how cruel that is.

[1337m4n]

At least he isn't visiting to get re-elected.

Here is a nice link to the laws of Iran, including people's rights, located here (http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/).

Interesting link.

You know, as much as people complain about religion oppression in this country (supposedly because the religious are preventing us from researching stem cells and are putting Ten Commandments in courthouses), one thing that can't be denied: We don't have it written into our Constitution that "ALL SHALL WORSHIP ALLAH!" The worst that would happen to the likes of Dawkins and Harris here in America is that they might get hate mail. I wonder how long they'd last if they tried doing their preaching in Iran.

But I'm not trying to make any point regarding religion vs atheism. My point is: America is WAY more free than people give it credit for.

[GreNME]

Actually it was. Not by the US, but by Russia. They even offered to do the uranium enrichment for Iran and get a power station up and running for them. All offers were rejected.
Russia's offers to Iran included a lot of agreements on Iran's part that they would secure a pipeline into former Soviet states that are adjacent and into Russia itself. It was denied because it would have pretty much made Iran beholden to Russia in exchange for crude revenue (Iranian refineries are decades out of date). While I suppose that could kind of be an example of a carrot-and-stick offer, it was so obviously biased in Russia's direction that any Iranian leader who would have agreed to the whole thing would have been discrediting themselves (and their nationalism, which apparently is very important there in many locations).

---

Interesting link.

You know, as much as people complain about religion oppression in this country (supposedly because the religious are preventing us from researching stem cells and are putting Ten Commandments in courthouses), one thing that can't be denied: We don't have it written into our Constitution that "ALL SHALL WORSHIP ALLAH!" The worst that would happen to the likes of Dawkins and Harris here in America is that they might get hate mail. I wonder how long they'd last if they tried doing their preaching in Iran.

But I'm not trying to make any point regarding religion vs atheism. My point is: America is WAY more free than people give it credit for.

Oh, even with all of the increased tension between ideological and partisan differences in the US, it certainly is not the worst example of such things out there. However, considering how the US is the world's largest and most powerful superpower, with all eyes on this country and many American leaders speaking from an assumed role of moral superiority, the bar should be much higher in US politics and governance than it currently is in, say, Iran or Venezuela or Sudan. This is even doubly so if we are to be interfering politically or militarily under the auspices of seeking improvements in change. Our largest obstacle in our foreign relations with areas of conflict around the world is our ever-growing lack of a moral high ground, whether real or perceived.

To give you some perspective, though: Iran has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. Iran is one of the places in the world where gender reassignment surgery is not only allowed, but in some places (in Iran) is subsidized to a degree. The degree of Westernized commercial integration in Iran is quite high-- Iranians in general are welcoming to most Western commerce, despite conflicts between governments.

What bothers me greatly about a lot of the punditry focus on Iran nowadays is that so many of the dangers and obstacles in an invasion of Iran are never even brought up over all the faux-moralizing. There is very likely a majority of the Iranian population-- certainly a significant documented number of groups and organizations-- who are moderate and want the extremist government replaced by one that can solve the disputes between Iran and many other countries. Iran was even headed in this direction before Ahmadummyhead was elected (and he was elected on an economic platform, not a foreign policy one). Invasion or directed attacks from outside of the country will not help make this happen, and will in fact prove to cause the exact opposite. Iranians are generally very nationalistic, and historically this nationalism has served to make them very formiddable opponents even to overwhelming force. The people there who want change want it to come from inside Iran, and would violently oppose outside interference (especially if it came from a Dubya-led coalition). Any long-range attacks on that country will just consolidate opposition to any resolution between the West and Iran, and if any country (including the US) were stupid enough to invade the people who live there would make the Iraqi insurgencies look like a picnic at teatime in comparison. It's not that they would have advantages in military tactics, weapons, or numbers (they wouldn't), it's that the only way to make everyone there not be violently against any outside aggression would be to commit acts of genocide. This is not an option, is completely out of the question, and is the strongest argument for why any type of attack against Iran would create an even more untenable situation than the Iraq war has proven to be.

And you know what? Ahmagoofydude knows this. He counts on it. He wouldn't engage in his antics if he didn't believe it completely. Worst of all, the continued sword-rattling from the American side falls exactly into his game and US politicians and media pundits have fallen right into it.

[B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)]

Welcome to the forums! Just one thing before I can allow you to post further, however. As the official grumpy out-of-touch old fogey here, I need an explaination of your screen name. Now, mister! Oh, sorry, excuse me, I do that from time to time. Would you please translate that into, well, something us creaky ones might understand?

Thanks, and again, :welcome2


I am a graduate student studying computational chemistry. The method I use the most is a version of Density Functional Theory (one of the developers, Walter Kohn, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998) known as B3LYP. To the right of the slash is an abbreviation for a model of the electron distribution in molecules (CEP: Core Electron Potential) which I routinely use.

[Pardalis]

I am a graduate student studying computational chemistry. The method I use the most is a version of Density Functional Theory (one of the developers, Walter Kohn, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998) known as B3LYP. To the right of the slash is an abbreviation for a model of the electron distribution in molecules (CEP: Core Electron Potential) which I routinely use.

I have no idea whatsoever of what you just said, but welcome! :) :D

[dudalb]

Well, he has been invited to speak at Columbia University, which I feel is a double standard for that school. Thursday, they cancelled Jim Gilchrist's (Minuteman Project founder) invitation to a different speaking engagement.

No one has ever accused academica of lacking in the hypocrisy department.

[Kryptos]

What if Osama bin Laden wins the war he just declared on Pakistan and takes over as president of that nation?

Would we let President Osama bin Laden go to Ground Zero?

Saw this post - http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=500

[Donal]

Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't the little twerp just a mouthpiece?

Isn't there an Ayatollah and council running Iran. They just put this guy up because he wears Western suits and is fluent in English (ie He's their idea of a good PR move).

I think all this furor over his visit is just helping him. He'll go back home and tell Iran and Muslim extremists all over the world about how barbaric and cruel we are blah blah blah. the NY Daily News had the headline "GO TO HELL" in response to his request to visit WTC. Its giving him "street cred".

While the Secret Service is generally responsible for security of foreign VIPs, they usually defer to the NYPD when in town. The NYPD said they could not guarantee security for the ...person in question.

I would have preferred a quiet, polite, but very stern "no" and let the issue die. It would have been way better than a media circus.

As for the Columbia thing, don't get me started on their double standards.

[OldTigerCub]

If Ahmadinejad wants to tour something, I propose this as part of the travel agenda:
An aerial tour courtesy of UAL where air traffic control directs his flight toward Cleveland, then turns it around toward Pittsburgh, then east toward Washinton. Right over central PA, the pilot starts torqueing the plane from side to side and up and down, all the while screaming "Allah Akbar".
Just guessing that might raise the Iranian pres's blood pressure a little...while providing a nice object lesson.
Of course letting him sky-dive into Ground Zero (sans parachute) might be an acceptable method to visit there.

[A-Train]

I think Ahmadinejad's sympathy for the 9/11 victims is genuine. He is especially empathatic because he understands that the same parties that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are now agitating for an attack on his own nation of Iran.

[Civilized Worm]

Maybe his nuttiness, stems drugs? Iran has the highest concentration of heroin addicts in the world (an estimated 2 million Iranians are addicts).


Nah it stems from religion, same as Bush.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Mohammed Ahmadinejad's presence at Ground Zero would cheapen and insult the presence of the twoofers, kitch peddlers, spotlight-grabbing politicians and camera-wielding toursts there.

I'm not kidding- he should be assassinated if he goes within 2 miles of it.

[Oliver]

Mohammed Ahmadinejad's presence at Ground Zero would cheapen and insult the presence of the twoofers, kitch peddlers, spotlight-grabbing politicians and camera-wielding toursts there.

I'm not kidding- he should be assassinated if he goes within 2 miles of it.


Well, why not assassinate him for setting a foot on holy Indian US-Soil as well?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Oliver, he's the head of one of the worlds leading state sponsors of terrorism.

Having him at the site of a terrorist attack would be a little like having Mussolini and Stalin visit Westerplatte.

[Pardalis]

Eeney, Oliver wants to imply that you are a crazy Evangelical genocidal American.

ETA: clarification

Well, why not assassinate him for setting a foot on holy Indian US-Soil as well?

holy= Evangelical like Bush
Indian= the alledged genocide of Indians by the first settlers.

You have to understand how his mind works.

[GreNME]

Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't the little twerp just a mouthpiece?

Isn't there an Ayatollah and council running Iran. They just put this guy up because he wears Western suits and is fluent in English (ie He's their idea of a good PR move).

He's a bit more than than, just like the president here isn't simply a figurehead. He proposes and signs off on legislative measures, has limited control of military, can charge or pardon people of crimes, and so on. The Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader, who has the final say on pretty much everything. He and his council don't always step in on regular political activity, though, which is why they have the president. If they disagree, they have no problems with making it known and they have a short leash on the president when it comes to stopping the president from doing what they won't allow.

[Travis]

I think Ahmadinejad's sympathy for the 9/11 victims is genuine. He is especially empathatic because he understands that the same parties that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are now agitating for an attack on his own nation of Iran.

Wow, A-Train just broke some big news that Al Qaeda wants to attack Iran......... Oh wait, he means the USA wants to attack Iran. I keep forgetting A-Train struggles to distinguish "real evil" from "fictitious evil."

[Comsat Angel]

Given that Ahmedwhatsit believes The Holocaust to be fictional, I have frequently wondered how he would behave when confronted with people who firmly believe the Iran-Iraq War was fictional.

"But I fought there!"
"yeah, yeah. You and everyone else paid to be there."
'Paid? We were fighting for our country!!
"Yeah, right. Got any evidence? This newsreel says different."
"Hey - I saw people killed on the front line!"
"What front line? The Sit-In-A-Hole front line? The "Don't-worry-it's-not-real-front-line?" The "Sitzkreig-Front-Line?"

[Civilized Worm]

Eeney, Oliver wants to imply that you are a crazy Evangelical genocidal American.

ETA: clarification



holy= Evangelical like Bush
Indian= the alledged genocide of Indians by the first settlers.

You have to understand how his mind works.


Alleged?

[OldTigerCub]

For anyone curious about how Prez Ahmadininutjob spent his day, an AP article in today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A day before flying to New York to speak directly to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a confrontational tone Saturday with a parade of fighter jets and missiles and tough warnings for the United States to stay out of the Mideast

The whole story:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_US?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[~enigma~]

If Ahmadinejad wants to tour something, I propose this as part of the travel agenda:
An aerial tour courtesy of UAL where air traffic control directs his flight toward Cleveland, then turns it around toward Pittsburgh, then east toward Washinton. Right over central PA, the pilot starts torqueing the plane from side to side and up and down, all the while screaming "Allah Akbar".
Just guessing that might raise the Iranian pres's blood pressure a little...while providing a nice object lesson.
Of course letting him sky-dive into Ground Zero (sans parachute) might be an acceptable method to visit there.
If he really wants to visit GZ, Israel or the US can easily create on for him in Tehran. Not saying anybody should but if he really insists it can be arranged. His GZ visit in NY is nothing more than a ploy to garner international sympathy.

[Sabrina]

Well, at least Columbia's president told him exactly what he thought of him; and it wasn't flattering.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger and audience members took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, as well as Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/iran_us)

From the same source, naturally Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, although he couches it in veiled terms and never flat out accuses ANYONE; just casts doubt on Al Qaeda being the culprit:

He reiterated his desire to visit ground zero to express sympathy with the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, but then appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible.

"Why did this happen? What caused it? What conditions led to it?" he said. "Who truly was involved? Who was really involved and put it all together?"

And lastly, New York's response to his presence:

Thousands of people jammed two blocks of 47th Street across from the United Nations to protest Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. Organizers claimed a turnout of tens of thousands. Police did not immediately have a crowd estimate.

The speakers, most of them politicians and officials from Jewish organizations, proclaimed their support for Israel and criticized the Iranian leader for his remarks questioning the Holocaust.

Gee, if New York can get tens of thousands of people organized in a rally with approximately a month's notice, I wonder why the TM can't get more than a thousand at best, with only around two or three hundred in any given place at at time, with a YEAR'S notice?

[GreNME]

Wow, A-Train just broke some big news that Al Qaeda wants to attack Iran......... Oh wait, he means the USA wants to attack Iran. I keep forgetting A-Train struggles to distinguish "real evil" from "fictitious evil."

Um, al Qaeda would sack the Iranian government in a heartbeat if they had half a chance. Bin Laden and company hate Iran's government. Iran actually supported the ousting of the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Is the hatred between al Qaeda and Iran really not common knowledge? Oh yeah, that's right: of course it isn't, because not a single large news corporation has the juevos to point that out (for risk of being labelled "unpatriotic").

[JimBenArm]

I am a graduate student studying computational chemistry. The method I use the most is a version of Density Functional Theory (one of the developers, Walter Kohn, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998) known as B3LYP. To the right of the slash is an abbreviation for a model of the electron distribution in molecules (CEP: Core Electron Potential) which I routinely use.
That whooshing sound was all this flying over my head.

But that's okay, you now have my permission to post indiscriminately on the forum.:D

[dudalb]

Wow, A-Train just broke some big news that Al Qaeda wants to attack Iran......... Oh wait, he means the USA wants to attack Iran. I keep forgetting A-Train struggles to distinguish "real evil" from "fictitious evil."

Knowing A Train,he does not mean the USA so much as The Joos.

[Slayhamlet]

Um, al Qaeda would sack the Iranian government in a heartbeat if they had half a chance. Bin Laden and company hate Iran's government. Iran actually supported the ousting of the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan.

True enough, but do you really think Iran is a target of priority for them? On a strategic level the antagonism and brinkmanship between the U.S. and Iran is likely to play to their advantage, and they surely realize this. They may be radicals with insane beliefs, but they're not clueless when it comes to geopolitics.

Is the hatred between al Qaeda and Iran really not common knowledge? Oh yeah, that's right: of course it isn't, because not a single large news corporation has the juevos to point that out (for risk of being labelled "unpatriotic").

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with anybody's "juevos" or cowardice in the face of jingoism. The mass media tends to be very myopic, and it should really be of no surprise to anyone that this antipathy between Iran and Al-Qaeda is not well publicized for the simple reason that Al-Qaeda has not directed a single terrorist operation against the state of Iran (something that can't be said of Saudi Arabia, for example), nor is Al-Qaeda's rhetoric typically unleashed against any nation but the U.S. (plus its allies).

Besides, it really isn't of much significance. Al-Qaeda has a long way to go (or conversely, Iran has a long way to go) before they're on the level where Iran can be considered a major concern to their strategic ambitions in the region. Priority dictates their strategy.

[dudalb]

The Iranian's president visit could not have turned out better,though not for him.
He was ridiculed and hooted at by the students,made a laughing stock out of himself,
put some of those who are trying to whitewash him in a embarassing position of having to defend his bigotry,and in a rare display of unity,almost all the major canidates for both major political parties seemed to compete in denouncing him. A great PR triumph for the President of Iran.

[PhantomWolf]

And you know what? Ahmagoofydude knows this. He counts on it. He wouldn't engage in his antics if he didn't believe it completely. Worst of all, the continued sword-rattling from the American side falls exactly into his game and US politicians and media pundits have fallen right into it.

I don't think that many Americans understand exactly what the Middle East is like. The more I read about it the more I learn, and their politics is very different to that of the west. They are, well to put it bluntly, sneaky. They are more then willing to manipulate their enemies into attacking each other, and they play a long term game. Bush and his cronies just don't have the intellect to foot it with that "bunch of Arabs in caves" or the bunch of Persians in Tehran either. They are masters of manipulation and decept, they have to be to have gotten were they have in their world, Bush couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag with a GPS unit and mono-sylabllic instructions.

I am a graduate student studying computational chemistry.

Mwahahaha, soon us chemists will rule the NWO, and thus the World! I mean welcome to the forum, always good to see another chemhead here.

I'm not kidding- he should be assassinated if he goes within 2 miles of it.

And this makes you different from OBL how?

Um, al Qaeda would sack the Iranian government in a heartbeat if they had half a chance. Bin Laden and company hate Iran's government. Iran actually supported the ousting of the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan.

Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. The amount of hatred for each other that the Sunnis, Shi'tes, and Suffis have, it's surprising the entire Middle East isn't involved in a constant war. Even when trying to unite together to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan they couldn't manage it, splintering into a vast number of groups based on ethnic and religious lines, and those funding them refused to fund those groups that weren't of the same religion as they were. It's insane.

Since OBL comes from Saudi and is Suffi, so has beliefs that are in some ways closer to the Sunni ideals, and totally opposed to the Shi'ite ideals, I can understand why OBL and the Mullas of Iran would dislike each other's ideas a lot.

BTW for those that don't know, one of the Suffi objectives is for the entire world to be under Islam and Islamic Law.

[Slayhamlet]

I don't think that many Americans understand exactly what the Middle East is like. The more I read about it the more I learn, and their politics is very different to that of the west. They are, well to put it bluntly, sneaky. They are more then willing to manipulate their enemies into attacking each other, and they play a long term game. Bush and his cronies just don't have the intellect to foot it with that "bunch of Arabs in caves" or the bunch of Persians in Tehran either. They are masters of manipulation and decept, they have to be to have gotten were they have in their world, Bush couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag with a GPS unit and mono-sylabllic instructions.



Mwahahaha, soon us chemists will rule the NWO, and thus the World! I mean welcome to the forum, always good to see another chemhead here.



And this makes you different from OBL how?



Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. The amount of hatred for each other that the Sunnis, Shi'tes, and Suffis have, it's surprising the entire Middle East isn't involved in a constant war. Even when trying to unite together to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan they couldn't manage it, splintering into a vast number of groups based on ethnic and religious lines, and those funding them refused to fund those groups that weren't of the same religion as they were. It's insane.

Since OBL comes from Saudi and is Suffi, so has beliefs that are in some ways closer to the Sunni ideals, and totally opposed to the Shi'ite ideals, I can understand why OBL and the Mullas of Iran would dislike each other's ideas a lot.

BTW for those that don't know, one of the Suffi objectives is for the entire world to be under Islam and Islamic Law.

You mean Salafists, not Sufists. Sufism is a mystic tradition in Islam that's not specific to Sunnis or Shiites.

[~enigma~]

You mean Salafists, not Sufists. Sufism is a mystic tradition in Islam that's not specific to Sunnis or Shiites.
OBL is Wahhabi.

[Slayhamlet]

OBL is Wahhabi.

The terms are not mutually exclusive. The founder of the Wahhabism movement was himself a Salafi, and those who are often called "Wahhabis" don't actually refer to themselves by that name.

[portlandatheist]

I'm defending his right to visit Ground Zero
Wow. In another thread you claim that American's have the "right" to resist arrest and here you claim that Ahmadinejad has a "right" to visit GZ?! Where in the world do you get these crazy notions?

[~enigma~]

The terms are not mutually exclusive. The founder of the Wahhabism movement was himself a Salafi, and those who are often called "Wahhabis" don't actually refer to themselves by that name.
Wahhabi is considered a "derogatory" term by those called Wahhabi but Salafism and Wahhabism are two distinct sects. It is a fiarly common error to think they are the same.

[GreNME]

I don't think that many Americans understand exactly what the Middle East is like.
Replace "Americans" with "Westerners" and I agree completely.

The more I read about it the more I learn, and their politics is very different to that of the west. They are, well to put it bluntly, sneaky. They are more then willing to manipulate their enemies into attacking each other, and they play a long term game.

I don't know. I think framing it like that is just an odd way of acknowledging that the politicians over there pull it off with more cunning than Western counterparts, of whom I would say an equal number engage in the same behavior.

Bush and his cronies just don't have the intellect to foot it with that "bunch of Arabs in caves" or the bunch of Persians in Tehran either. They are masters of manipulation and decept, they have to be to have gotten were they have in their world, Bush couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag with a GPS unit and mono-sylabllic instructions.
It's a region that has swayed between brutal subjugation and constant in-fighting for centuries. There's a cultural distrust for anything that would be considered "Western imperialism" that has developed from events dating back to the First World War (and regularly reinforced). Political quid pro quo has historically turned out not in their favor in most cases.

Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. The amount of hatred for each other that the Sunnis, Shi'tes, and Suffis have, it's surprising the entire Middle East isn't involved in a constant war.
Have you looked at the last 90 or so years over there?

Even when trying to unite together to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan they couldn't manage it, splintering into a vast number of groups based on ethnic and religious lines, and those funding them refused to fund those groups that weren't of the same religion as they were. It's insane.
Oddly, that reminds me of American partisan political organizations. Everyone wants the biggest piece of the pie and they're not thrilled about the idea of sharing.

[PhantomWolf]

Replace "Americans" with "Westerners" and I agree completely.

Fair enough, I used Americans because currently they are the ones being played like a Harp, but yes you're right, it'a all us suckers in the West and unfortunately I think that when our leaders finally wake up enough to realise what's going on, it'll be too late, just like when playing chess and you realise that no matter what you do, your opponet has checkmate in 3 moves.

I don't know. I think framing it like that is just an odd way of acknowledging that the politicians over there pull it off with more cunning than Western counterparts, of whom I would say an equal number engage in the same behavior.

Yes and no. In western politics if you get it wrong you aren't likely to be discovered floating down out of the sky in a million tiny pieces. Middle Eastern politicians are doing for their lives, Western for their pocketbook. That tends to make the Middle Eastern ones a bit sharper.

It's a region that has swayed between brutal subjugation and constant in-fighting for centuries. There's a cultural distrust for anything that would be considered "Western imperialism" that has developed from events dating back to the First World War (and regularly reinforced). Political quid pro quo has historically turned out not in their favor in most cases.

Very true.

Have you looked at the last 90 or so years over there?

Well... okay fair cop... but I was really meaning on the level of some of the stuff we've seen recently in Ruwanda and Bosnia.

Oddly, that reminds me of American partisan political organizations. Everyone wants the biggest piece of the pie and they're not thrilled about the idea of sharing.

In a way yes, though westerners seem more willing to put aside their differences to deal with threats that face them as a whole. Note how the partisaness vanished after 9/11 and only has returned and strengthened as a result of Iraq. The afghanis were facing an invading force that had taken over their country and they were still often more interested in fighting each other and getting control over their allies than they were at fighting the enemy. Even after the Soviet retreat we saw that and it resulted in the Taliban take over. Could you honestly see the Dems and Reps more interested in fighting each other more than worrying about dealing with an external threat that was attacking their country?

[GreNME]

Yes and no. In western politics if you get it wrong you aren't likely to be discovered floating down out of the sky in a million tiny pieces. Middle Eastern politicians are doing for their lives, Western for their pocketbook. That tends to make the Middle Eastern ones a bit sharper.
That seems like more an issue of matter of degrees than it does differences, though.

Have you looked at the last 90 or so years over there?
Well... okay fair cop... but I was really meaning on the level of some of the stuff we've seen recently in Ruwanda and Bosnia.

I know, and I admit I was being hyperbolic. However, the region as a whole hasn't seen peace since 'peace' was forced on them from the Ottoman rulers.

In a way yes, though westerners seem more willing to put aside their differences to deal with threats that face them as a whole. Note how the partisaness vanished after 9/11 and only has returned and strengthened as a result of Iraq.
I think it started to happen before Iraq. After a while, the constant barrage of "patriot" and the dubious claims of "bipartisan" measures began to wear on people. Iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back, though.

The afghanis were facing an invading force that had taken over their country and they were still often more interested in fighting each other and getting control over their allies than they were at fighting the enemy. Even after the Soviet retreat we saw that and it resulted in the Taliban take over.
I think you're mixing up the timeline some. By the time the US decided it was worth their while to get involved, some of the warlords had begun to bicker. However, the initial alliances against the Soviet incursion were comparable to the unanimity that America saw after 9/11. Plus, you have to remember that these warlords leading the groups were basically like mafiosos even before the Soviet invasion (politicians were killed or driven off), so I can definitely see different gangs behaving like that in the West.


Could you honestly see the Dems and Reps more interested in fighting each other more than worrying about dealing with an external threat that was attacking their country?

I totally can. They can't even adequately work together to come up with a way to stop the increasing number of people in the Mid-East from hating the country, which would require an idiot to not realize the danger it poses for the country.

[PhantomWolf]

That seems like more an issue of matter of degrees than it does differences, though.

I don't know, I think that when your life tends to be on the line you make sure that you know what you're doing and plan well and far ahead, making sure to cover as many bases as possible. I don't see that in Western Politicians. They are thinking only to the next election and figuring out how to cover their butts only when things go wrong. Western Politicians are more inclided to be trusting to each other as well, your own colleuges are generally less likely to stab you in the back and usually not with a real knife.

I know, and I admit I was being hyperbolic. However, the region as a whole hasn't seen peace since 'peace' was forced on them from the Ottoman rulers.

True

I think it started to happen before Iraq. After a while, the constant barrage of "patriot" and the dubious claims of "bipartisan" measures began to wear on people. Iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back, though.

This is possibly true, though that is more a measure of Bush's imcompetence than the parties' inability to work together

I think you're mixing up the timeline some. By the time the US decided it was worth their while to get involved, some of the warlords had begun to bicker. However, the initial alliances against the Soviet incursion were comparable to the unanimity that America saw after 9/11. Plus, you have to remember that these warlords leading the groups were basically like mafiosos even before the Soviet invasion (politicians were killed or driven off), so I can definitely see different gangs behaving like that in the West.

Oh I know that Afghanistan was a mess pre-Soviet invasion, my point was that it stayed that way after the invasion. Instead of uniting the groups together under a strong leader and sticking it to the Soviets (and they did try) they fell apart into bickering along tribal and religious lines till one or two groups got strong enough to force the rest into some sort of co-operation. Western countries generally don't have the same sort of factions and will come together when threatened generally regardless of their factional support. Look at the football thugs in Britian. During the premier season they are all out fighting each other, but as soon as the international season starts they forget those rivallies and go after the Germans or French. ;)

I totally can. They can't even adequately work together to come up with a way to stop the increasing number of people in the Mid-East from hating the country, which would require an idiot to not realize the danger it poses for the country.

true, but that threat isn't on the doorstep. If Iran was landing troops in LA I'd bet you'd find them co-operating with each other just as they did back in 1941.

which would require an idiot to not realize the danger it poses for the country.

Isn't what started this the pointing out that western politicians are so thick they CAN'T see it?