Arrogant Americans; Iran president

[Alphabit]

I am pretty disgusted at how the Americans reacted to the visit by the Iranian president. The American government conducted themselves like total brats. I really don't care how much the US despises this man; he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people. For one I believe that it was anti-constitutional to not allow him to visit ground zero; this is goes against the very foundations of American ideology; freedom.
I don't see why American's care so much; he's not the one who destroyed the WTC, why can't he be allowed to visit it like a any regular folk.

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches. I can tell you right now that you, as people be pissed of at the Russians. And this situation is an understatement to teh true impact of this arrogance on the part of the Americans; in an unstable Muslim country like Iran; they put even more emphasis on their president than we do on ours. The results of this 'meeting' (if you can call it that) are extremely counter-productive; the Iranian president is going back to his country angrier than before... Not only that, but this display of complete American arrogance and unwillingness to work towards peace will only further worsen the image that the Americans have in the middle east and the Muslim world.

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

[KingPaulP]

I agree the american politicians are idiotic, they have taken a perfectly good oppotunity to get into serious discussion about real issues, i.e. Iranian Nuclear power, Iran's influence in Iraq etc... and figure out a way forward that would suit both party's. In all fairness though America are never going to work with anybody, and are 'as usual' trying to damage the middle east, can you imagine if america never got involved in the middle east, i.e not supporting Isreal, not supporting despotic regimes like the taliban and not kissing saudi ass whulst putting up with their human rights record (which is possibly the worst in the middle east).

[AmontilladoClock]

hhhhhh'[{{]]}[[
v.....//////////////
.../,;;;,.l,,l,l

[Alphabit]

I guess Bush has got this 'We don't deal with terrorists' approach to everything... Even though they're not even terrorists. Looks like Bush just doesn't like dealing with what he thinks is 'evil'. George bush wants peace in Iraq, yet he's doing nothing to promote it. If the Iranian president actually got to talk with Bush; I'm pretty sure they would have found a middle-ground that worked for all; he could have suggested sending a group of American inspectors to moderate the use of Iranian uranium for example... It doesn't take that much imagination.

[cellardoor6]

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: I am pretty disgusted at how the Americans reacted to the visit by the Iranian president. The American government conducted themselves like total brats.

Funny, the American government didn't conduct themselves at all. The US government didn't host Ahmadinejad, the UN and Columbia University did.

I really don't care how much the US despises this man; he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people.

Yes, because people totally don't have the right to protest against political leaders, no way. People can protest against the US and our President, but we Americans have absolutely no right to do the same because everything in the entire world can and should be distorted to hold Americans in a double standard for everything.

For one I believe that it was anti-constitutional to not allow him to visit ground zero; this is goes against the very foundations of American ideology; freedom.

Hahaha! The US Constitution doesn't grant rights to people from foreign countries, not least of which the leaders of foreign countries that have NO SUCH RIGHTS for their people. And even then, the US Constitution doesn't allow anyone to go anywhere and do everything they want even if they are citizens.

If I asked to visit the fenced-in area of ground zero, I'd be rejected too. With that said, there is no freaking reason we should go out of our way to let the leader of a state sponsor of terror, visit the site of a terrorist attack, especially when they terrorist groups they fund are killing Americans right now in Iraq.

And it was the NYPD who rejected the request by Ahmadinejad, not the government. Although rejecting him on the grounds that he supports terrorism is entirely sound, the NYPD declined because it would have required the current construction to stop, and it would have required US Secret Service and police to cordon off the area to enforce security.

I don't see why American's care so much; he's not the one who destroyed the WTC, why can't he be allowed to visit it like a any regular folk.

See, that's ridiculous. "Any regular folk" don't require security, and regular people tend to not be terrorist-supporting, genocidal maniacs.

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches.

I seriously can't believe that people can think like you...

That is not an applicable comparison, not only because President Bush HAS been protested against and has had cold welcomes, but because that would be a government to government meeting. Ahmadinejad wasn't invited by the US government, we only were required to let him come because we host the UN. We don't have to let Ahmadinejad do as he pleases, and we certainly as HELL don't have to let him visit an INCREDIBLY sensitive place of a TERRORIST ATTACK, when he SUPPORTS TERRORISTS that have KILLED AMERICANS on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

I can tell you right now that you, as people be pissed of at the Russians. And this situation is an understatement to teh true impact of this arrogance on the part of the Americans

Arrogance? The only person showing arrogance was Ahmadinejad, expecting to be treated nicely even though he is the leader of a country whose OFFICIAL SLOGAN is "Death to America", who supports terrorists groups, calls for the destruction of our ally, and supports terrorists groups of the same fold that caused the attack at the site that HE wanted to visit.

in an unstable Muslim country like Iran; they put even more emphasis on their president than we do on ours.

Actually no they don't. They put more emphasis on their religious Supreme Leaders, the Ayatollahs.

The results of this 'meeting' (if you can call it that) are extremely counter-productive; the Iranian president is going back to his country angrier than before...Not only that, but this display of complete American arrogance and unwillingness to work towards peace will only further worsen the image that the Americans have in the middle east and the Muslim world.

You're seriously delusional. There was no "meeting" between the US government and Iran. Iran was only invited to a PRIVATE university and therefore the actions of the people there are a subject of free speech, not diplomacy. Then Ahmadinejad made a speech at the UN, which the US only hosts, it's not directly connected to the US political system, not least of which a diplomatic venue of it.

And if you want to talk about being arrogant and confrontational, maybe you should read about what he said in his speech? If you want to see it as a country to country thing, it was HIM who came to our country and started talking shit about our country.

If you want to talk about arrogance, then you should probably point the finger somewhere else. If you weren't so fucking blinded by your political bias in this issue, you'd realize that.

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

Haha, Australians have very good nature commentators, but a 10 year old would be better at coming to a political conclusion.

Seriously, get it through your head that the US government, and the US as a whole not only didn't have ANY responsibility or anything we owe to Ahmadinejad, but we have every right to prevent him from doing what he wants inside of our own country, especially considering his stances.

Yeah, let's make nice with a country that is sworn to our destruction, who is actively fighting against us, and who represents the pinnacle of how bad a country can be in terms of human rights abuses. Let's let the leader of a state sponsor of terror visit the site of a terrorist attack that killed thousands of our countrymen.

Nice logic you have there.

[cellardoor6]

At 9/26/07 05:38 AM, KingPaulP wrote: I agree the american politicians are idiotic, they have taken a perfectly good oppotunity to get into serious discussion about real issues, i.e. Iranian Nuclear power, Iran's influence in Iraq etc... and figure out a way forward that would suit both party's.

Wow... I don't know how ignorance could be this common...

This was not a diplomatic meeting. There was no direct US-Iran meetings. Everyday citizens in a private university decided to not walk on eggshells around a religious fanatic just because he happens to be the leader of a country. Nevermind the fact that his country is our enemy, and his government is just about the most brutal and oppressive in the world.

There was no consular meeting, there was absolutely NO responsibility on part of the US to create a nice, happy photo op for our enemy to exploit for propaganda.

In all fairness though America are never going to work with anybody

Never going to work with terrorists who would only exploit our cooperation for their own benefit, k.

and are 'as usual' trying to damage the middle east, can you imagine if america never got involved in the middle east, i.e not supporting Isreal, not supporting despotic regimes like the taliban and not kissing saudi ass whulst putting up with their human rights record (which is possibly the worst in the middle east).

Actually the worse human rights record in the middle east is held by Iran. Funny though! You make no mention of Iran's human rights in an issue that actually has to do with Iran.

[DingoTheDog]

Cellardoor have you ever considered a career as a spin doctor? It seems to come naturally to you.

[fli]

*reads*
*irritated by what he reads*
*irritated by how it was written*

First:
If you're gonna use semicolons... at least know how. Use semicolons to connect two independent clauses or when you have a conjunctive adverb with a comma after the first clause. When you start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, you have to connect it with a comma and not a semicolon.

It's better to write like a dummy than a dummy who's trying to look smart by using punctuation that most people hardly use.

Now:

C'mon, do you even know what he has done?

We had a right to protest.
This man, after all, is a Holocaust denier who did that silly conference last winter and surrounded himself with such lovely and respectable people such as David Duke and Robert Faurisson. And he is making VERY outlandish claims such as that 9-11 is a plot to control Iran, and etcetera until ad naseum.

He didn't want to go to the WTC to pay respects if we base what he said about the event. So, there's only one conclusion left. It was a political move. Although, the motive behind it is completely lost to everyone.

I mean, what kind of man who runs a country with one of the worst abuse of human rights in the world can conjure up compassion and sincerity? This is the same man who denies that Iran can NEVER have homosexuals and yet there's a youtube video of two innocent and beautiful teenage boys being executed for being lovers.

He's the type that denies the very existence of people and THEIR suffering.
Since he denies this to people who died during 9-11, the Holocaust, gay people, and humans in general-- I can hardly believe that his visit could in anyway show any respect.

In fact, that was pretty downright disrespectful and tactful on the presiden's part.
It was good that we protested because we protested against him because we've given a voice to those he has denied.

If there is injustice, we shouldn't prolong it by fussing over Miss Manner's rules of etiquette. We ought to protest. If Bush is bad, then I hope Russians would have good sense to see it and to speak up against it.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 05:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: I am pretty disgusted at how the Americans reacted to the visit by the Iranian president. The American government conducted themselves like total brats.

Funny, the American government didn't conduct themselves at all. The US government didn't host Ahmadinejad, the UN and Columbia University did.

That doesn't rebut my statement, it merely goes off-tangent.

I really don't care how much the US despises this man; he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people.

Yes, because people totally don't have the right to protest against political leaders, no way. People can protest against the US and our President, but we Americans have absolutely no right to do the same because everything in the entire world can and should be distorted to hold Americans in a double standard for everything.

People should be allowed to protest; however, the government should shut up and do what's in the nation's best interest; raising tensions doesn't equate to that.

For one I believe that it was anti-constitutional to not allow him to visit ground zero; this is goes against the very foundations of American ideology; freedom.

Hahaha! The US Constitution doesn't grant rights to people from foreign countries, not least of which the leaders of foreign countries that have NO SUCH RIGHTS for their people. And even then, the US Constitution doesn't allow anyone to go anywhere and do everything they want even if they are citizens.

It's still against the American ideology of freedom.

If I asked to visit the fenced-in area of ground zero, I'd be rejected too. With that said, there is no freaking reason we should go out of our way to let the leader of a state sponsor of terror, visit the site of a terrorist attack, especially when they terrorist groups they fund are killing Americans right now in Iraq.

And it was the NYPD who rejected the request by Ahmadinejad, not the government. Although rejecting him on the grounds that he supports terrorism is entirely sound, the NYPD declined because it would have required the current construction to stop, and it would have required US Secret Service and police to cordon off the area to enforce security.

I don't think that was the reason.

See, that's ridiculous. "Any regular folk" don't require security, and regular people tend to not be terrorist-supporting, genocidal maniacs.

There is no tangible evidence to suggest that he supports terrorism.

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches.

I seriously can't believe that people can think like you...

That is not an applicable comparison, not only because President Bush HAS been protested against and has had cold welcomes, but because that would be a government to government meeting. Ahmadinejad wasn't invited by the US government, we only were required to let him come because we host the UN. We don't have to let Ahmadinejad do as he pleases, and we certainly as HELL don't have to let him visit an INCREDIBLY sensitive place of a TERRORIST ATTACK, when he SUPPORTS TERRORISTS that have KILLED AMERICANS on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

I don't think the Iranian people will put much emphasis into the technicalities of the matter; I bet you that they'll be far more concerned with the outcome.

I can tell you right now that you, as people be pissed of at the Russians. And this situation is an understatement to teh true impact of this arrogance on the part of the Americans

Arrogance? The only person showing arrogance was Ahmadinejad, expecting to be treated nicely even though he is the leader of a country whose OFFICIAL SLOGAN is "Death to America",

They were referring to America Ferrera... Ugly Betty didn't get very good ratings over there ;p

who supports terrorists groups, calls for the destruction of our ally, and supports terrorists groups of the same fold that caused the attack at the site that HE wanted to visit.

There is no evidence to substantiate such allegations. It's just propaganda spread by the American government.

in an unstable Muslim country like Iran; they put even more emphasis on their president than we do on ours.

Actually no they don't. They put more emphasis on their religious Supreme Leaders, the Ayatollahs.

Ha! And I wonder what sort of reception THEY would get from the US... Think snipers and assassins.

The results of this 'meeting' (if you can call it that) are extremely counter-productive; the Iranian president is going back to his country angrier than before...Not only that, but this display of complete American arrogance and unwillingness to work towards peace will only further worsen the image that the Americans have in the middle east and the Muslim world.

You're seriously delusional. There was no "meeting" between the US government and Iran. Iran was only invited to a PRIVATE university and therefore the actions of the people there are a subject of free speech, not diplomacy. Then Ahmadinejad made a speech at the UN, which the US only hosts, it's not directly connected to the US political system, not least of which a diplomatic venue of it.

It was intended to be a meeting between nations including and especially the US.

And if you want to talk about being arrogant and confrontational, maybe you should read about what he said in his speech? If you want to see it as a country to country thing, it was HIM who came to our country and started talking shit about our country.

If you want to talk about arrogance, then you should probably point the finger somewhere else. If you weren't so fucking blinded by your political bias in this issue, you'd realize that.

Unlike you I haven't made any claims of anyone supporting terrorists. I cannot possibly be biased; all I've done is recount the facts along with my personal opinion.

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

Haha, Australians have very good nature commentators, but a 10 year old would be better at coming to a political conclusion.

You lost me there. Speaking of political conclusions; when is the date of withdrawal from Iraq by US forces? Oh, you don't know; well that's too bad, our Australian politicians know damn well when they've getting out; whenever the US lets us do so without damaging our economic ties.

Seriously, get it through your head that the US government, and the US as a whole not only didn't have ANY responsibility or anything we owe to Ahmadinejad, but we have every right to prevent him from doing what he wants inside of our own country, especially considering his stances.

Yeah, you do have the right to treat him that way, but that doesn't make it right.

Yeah, let's make nice with a country that is sworn to our destruction, who is actively fighting against us, and who represents the pinnacle of how bad a country can be in terms of human rights abuses. Let's let the leader of a state sponsor of terror visit the site of a terrorist attack that killed thousands of our countrymen.

Nice logic you have there.

There is no evidence to support such a statement.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 06:29 AM, fli wrote: *reads*
*irritated by what he reads*
*irritated by how it was written*

First:
If you're gonna use semicolons... at least know how. Use semicolons to connect two independent clauses or when you have a conjunctive adverb with a comma after the first clause. When you start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, you have to connect it with a comma and not a semicolon.

It's better to write like a dummy than a dummy who's trying to look smart by using punctuation that most people hardly use.

Pfff, it's not like I actually take the time to proof-read my posts. Also, I wasn't trying to look smart; I use semicolons all the time and I'll use them however I please.

[SuperDeagle]

At 9/26/07 06:32 AM, Alphabit wrote:

At 9/26/07 05:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Hahaha! The US Constitution doesn't grant rights to people from foreign countries, not least of which the leaders of foreign countries that have NO SUCH RIGHTS for their people. And even then, the US Constitution doesn't allow anyone to go anywhere and do everything they want even if they are citizens.

It's still against the American ideology of freedom.

Instead of whisting through all your garbage, I decided to pluck one out and laugh at you for it.
Hahahahahahaha.
American ideology implies to "Americans". Fuck cellar even said that.
Deal with it, is-ought arguments don't work.

[cellardoor6]

At 9/26/07 06:32 AM, Alphabit wrote:

Funny, the American government didn't conduct themselves at all. The US government didn't host Ahmadinejad, the UN and Columbia University did.

That doesn't rebut my statement, it merely goes off-tangent.

Actually it entirely rebuts your statement because you're ignorantly suggesting that it was a conscious effort by the US government to humiliate Ahmadinejad and treat him poorly. Of course, it is too much for you to acknowledge that the US government didn't invite or host Ahmadinejad, they simply allowed him to travel here.

Columbia University, a private college that has no connection to the government and actually bars military from their campus, invited Ahmadinejad to their school. THEY were the ones who treated him poorly in your eyes. But instead of looking at this topic in any rational or logical way, you're desperately trying to find some way of making a larger anti-US stance out of something that could not be used for such unless you mutilate the details and actual context of what transpired.

People should be allowed to protest; however, the government should shut up and do what's in the nation's best interest; raising tensions doesn't equate to that.

Actually the government should make public its concerns about Ahmadinejad and not withhold its feelings just because Iranians expect mindless politeness, and idiots like you think the US can't hold people to the same standard that they hold us.

The US government didn't invite Ahmadinejad, they have absolutely ZERO obligation to do anything other than make sure he doesn't get put in danger. Hell, the Iranian government tends to imprison Americans when they go to Iran so I don't see how you expect us to extend courtesies that Ahmadinejad doesn't deserve, and would only exploit for propaganda.

It's still against the American ideology of freedom.

Actually it absolutely does not and you have ZERO support for such a claim.

Supporting freedom doesn't mean that we should allow the leader of a country that actively fights against freedom to use our country for his own benefit. Iran is our enemy, preventing them from exploiting any extension of good will for their own purposes is in no way a violation of freedom.

Hell, by your ridiculous view on the subject, why don't you let Bin Laden live in your country? Hey, you believe in FREEDOM right? How dare you not give Bin laden freedom! Oh hey, and I'm just going to show up to your country and demand that I get to visit anywhere I want, even private property. If you don't let me, you're violating my freedom.

I don't think that was the reason.

Well that was the claimed reason, it was the same reason they also declined requests from other people. The ground was closed off for all visitors, their not about to stop construction just to let someone visit it, not least of which the leader of a country that is one of our major enemies in the world right now.

There is no tangible evidence to suggest that he supports terrorism.

Aside from the fact that Iran openly supports terrorist groups???

Iran supports Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, through these proxies, Iran was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 Americans. Iran supports Hezbollah mostly, and Hezbollah has terrorist cells inside the US. Iran is supporting terrorist groups that have infiltrated and seek to attack the US. Iran is providing weapons to terrorists in Iraq.

I don't think the Iranian people will put much emphasis into the technicalities of the matter; I bet you that they'll be far more concerned with the outcome.

The outcome of what? There were no negotiations or diplomatic meetings! Ahmadinejad came specifically to give a speech at the UN, in which, in case you didn't know, HE spewed out some pretty inflammatory crap about the US. Before this speech, he visited a PRIVATE UNIVERSITY where he wasn't treated how YOU think the leader of a terrorist state should be treated.

The Iranian people are going to be lied to anyway. In case you didn't know, they have ZERO media freedom and any pro-American source of information is quickly silenced, through internet censors or through the threatening and imprisoning of journalists.

The Iranian people are going to have plenty of material to be pissed at the US, regardless of what the US actually does.

They were referring to America Ferrera... Ugly Betty didn't get very good ratings over there ;p

See, you're just parading ignorance. You intentionally refuse to acknowledge something significant that compromises your views, so you either entirely ignore it, or resort to mindless jokes.

You call the US arrogant, and you pretend that we're being confrontational, but then when it's brought to your attention that Iran's OFFICIAL SLOGAN as a nation is "Death to America", something that is chanted in their government meetings... you want to play it off as a joke.

You're only helping to further discredit your entire stance.

who supports terrorists groups, calls for the destruction of our ally, and supports terrorists groups of the same fold that caused the attack at the site that HE wanted to visit.

There is no evidence to substantiate such allegations.

Actually there is loads of evidence that proves those claims. Which doesn't even need to be done considering Iran does not hide the fact it provides weapons to what almost the entire world considers terrorist groups.

It's just propaganda spread by the American government.

Whatever you want to claim to find a way of ignoring the facts that disprove your entire stance. How do you think that your stance has any credibility when you're showing that your entire view in this subject is based on your desire to find fault in the US, rather than your desire accept any kind of fact.

Ha! And I wonder what sort of reception THEY would get from the US... Think snipers and assassins.

Another example of how nothing you say has any credibility. Keep going, you're not only discrediting the very points you're trying to make, but you're also showing that there is so little logical support for your stance, that people who try to take it have to perpetually ignore reality and resort to petty distractions and jokes whenever a point is made they can't deal with. Good job.

It was intended to be a meeting between nations including and especially the US.

No it wasn't, and you're pulling complete nonsense straight out of your ass. There was no meeting between Iran and the US. It was a UN meeting in which no real diplomatic interaction even occurred, it was a just a venue for leaders to create give speeches, there were no sit-down meetings taking place of any kind.

Unlike you I haven't made any claims of anyone supporting terrorists.

That's because you have no clue what you're talking about. Iran supports terrorist groups that have killed Americans, period.

I cannot possibly be biased; all I've done is recount the facts along with my personal opinion.

Actually you've proven you're biased because you have not recounted facts, you've only paraded your completely misconceptions and unfounded personal opinions based on your predetermined desire to rip on the US. You've PROVEN this, because when you're corrected, you play it off.

[cellardoor6]

You lost me there. Speaking of political conclusions; when is the date of withdrawal from Iraq by US forces? Oh, you don't know; well that's too bad

Actually it's not too bad because only idiots would set a date of withdrawal from a war before it is won. That's called RETREAT.

our Australian politicians know damn well when they've getting out; whenever the US lets us do so without damaging our economic ties.

Yeah, that's because unlike your government, the US has responsibilities. See, since your country can conveniently scapegoat the US... you can retreat from Iraq and find your country blameless for both having invaded Iraq, or for anything bad that has happened or will happen in Iraq. Even though your country invaded Iraq, your country is such a cowardly piece of shit that you can entirely disregard it and pretend that the US is the only country doing anything in Iraq. Your country has the luxury of retreating because just like Vietnam, you'll disown what happened in the war, and exploit the fact that the US gets all of the attention, and both to yourself and others find your country blameless and immune from criticism.

Seriously, get it through your head that the US government, and the US as a whole not only didn't have ANY responsibility or anything we owe to Ahmadinejad, but we have every right to prevent him from doing what he wants inside of our own country, especially considering his stances.

Yeah, you do have the right to treat him that way, but that doesn't make it right.

Actually it makes it entirely right. We have the right to refuse access to anywhere in our country from our enemies, other than the UN and places they stop and stay in between. Individual Americans also have a right to confront anyone if/when they agree to give a speech in our country that, in case you didn't know, has free speech, something Iran doesn't have.

In fact, choosing NOT to do this would be wrong. We would both be denying our sovereignty, and our free speech by not doing it just because we want to tread on eggshells for someone who doesn't deserve it and wouldn't do the same for anyone else.

There is no evidence to support such a statement.

Actually there is loads. Of course, evidence, fact, logic... these things mean nothing to you because, as you've proved, your goal in this thread was to bash the US. Bashing the US no matter how much you have to lie to yourself is worth it to you.

[3vi1]

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches.

In fact, I can see that happening before he leaves office...

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

Haha, Australians have very good nature commentators, but a 10 year old would be better at coming to a political conclusion.

True, but you didn't argue against his point, which is also (for the most part) correct. Therefore your comparison is irrelevant and (more than) possibly offensive.

:the leader of a state sponsor of terror,

Yeah, let's make nice with a country that is sworn to our destruction, who is actively fighting against us,

:Let's let the leader of a state sponsor of terror visit the site of a terrorist attack that killed thousands of our countrymen.

Nice logic you have there.

More than anything, the most talked-about topic on the subject of Iran is not Ahmadinejad's link to terrorism, but rather Iran's nuclear program. While, of course, America hold more, longer-range, and powerful missiles than Iran could in a bloody long time, and Iran (like anyone else) has a complete right to nuclear power. Ha, imagine what would happen if Iran launched a missile into North America? The US would flatten the whole country, and possibly all nearby ones too.

Of course, one obvious theory is that America is only causing a fuss because they want to invade Iran, just as they did Iraq. If this is true (as it may well be, considering the circumstances), then the US certainly seems to be trying to achieve nothing but a monopoly on oil, and utter military supremacy.

The media (on a whole) doesn't help. Their pathetic sensationalism of "Terrorism" (yes, with a capital) seems to have adjusted the word to mean "label for anyone who takes part in covert warfare".

They certainly seem to have taken a shine to showing the president up with tabloid-like headlines (even among broadsheets, as the tabloids are far too taken with the current celebrity culture to take notice).

What I'm trying to say is, realistically, you and anyone with your attitude wouldn't know terror if a Muslim sworn to jihad (I'm attempting to be ironic here, as jihad isn't common enough to really mean a great deal amongst anyone but the delusional) ran up and bombed you to hell. At least you haven't used the word "murder" in that (quoted) passage, because if you had I'd have made a Vietnam comparison.

Now fuck off.

[Makaio]

well being Canadian allows me not to give two shiney shits one way or the other when it comes to stuff like this but i would like to clarify something in case it already hasn't been said.

The Iranian president wasn't denied something that "any regular folk" had access to, construction was in progress and they would have had to make special arrangements halting progress, and while he was a president, he was the president of Iran....can you blame them for holding a bit of ill will and not wanting to give him special treatment?

[LordJaric]

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people. :

A nation where most people hate him.

:Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches.

No, Most of us would laugh our asses off.

[Chickidydow]

Wow you haven't got any brains at all have you Alphabit, or do you just refuse to see reason imply becasue then you wouldn't have any grounds to hate America then. I don't even have to provide proof that your completely wrong in the matter because so many before me did so already. And since when does an Australian get to preach about whats protected under the constitution or not?

[3vi1]

Actually it's not too bad because only idiots would set a date of withdrawal from a war before it is won. That's called RETREAT.

Hardly a war, considering the casualty rate.

Yeah, that's because unlike your government, the US has responsibilities. See, since your country can conveniently scapegoat the US... you can retreat from Iraq and find your country blameless for both having invaded Iraq, or for anything bad that has happened or will happen in Iraq. Even though your country invaded Iraq, your country is such a cowardly piece of shit that you can entirely disregard it and pretend that the US is the only country doing anything in Iraq. Your country has the luxury of retreating because just like Vietnam, you'll disown what happened in the war, and exploit the fact that the US gets all of the attention, and both to yourself and others find your country blameless and immune from criticism.

Then this proves, if true, that, in your opinion, all objectionable acts that America has done with regard to invading countries is wrong? Members on the UN/EU only support America to, in this case, avoid being tithed and damaging relations, simply because America is nothing but a brutish state - God, I could imagine, at some point, America declaring war on another member of the UN, only because the victim country doesn't want to go to war! And, regardless of its veracity, we'll always have people such as you condoning it! Ha!

Actually it makes it entirely right. We have the right to refuse access to anywhere in our country from our enemies, other than the UN and places they stop and stay in between. Individual Americans also have a right to confront anyone if/when they agree to give a speech in our country that, in case you didn't know, has free speech, something Iran doesn't have.

And a good thing too. I wouldn't like to see Iran, a perfectly functional (if "inhumane") state, turn into (I would say bourgeoisie, for a little flavour) America.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 07:51 AM, Chickidydow wrote: Wow you haven't got any brains at all have you Alphabit, or do you just refuse to see reason imply becasue then you wouldn't have any grounds to hate America then.

I don't hate Americans, I just don't like the American government. They literally walked out on the guy before he got the chance to make his speech; it's extremely rude and it's definitely not going to resolve the problems. My brain is better than yours.

[LordJaric]

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation;

So I guess we should respect people like Hitler, Saddam, and Stalin. Even if they did evil things, we should respect them, is that what you are trying to say.

[Alphabit]

You can toss-in all the technicalities you want, but the fact is that the US has been counter-productive in their 'encounter' with the Iranian president. As I said before; it doesn't matter how evil he is; he represents a lot of people in a critical part of the world and, for the sake of peace, the US should have at least pretended to show some respect to the millions of people he represents. It's not about them; the US itself is digging its own grave. You can't possibly argue that the tensions between the US and Iran hasn't worsened since Ahmadinejad's visit.

[cellardoor6]

At 9/26/07 08:06 AM, Alphabit wrote:

At 9/26/07 07:51 AM, Chickidydow wrote: Wow you haven't got any brains at all have you Alphabit, or do you just refuse to see reason imply becasue then you wouldn't have any grounds to hate America then.

I don't hate Americans, I just don't like the American government.

No, you're brainwashed to hate all things American and only use pretend your problem with is with the American government to make it seem as if you're not what you really are, an ignorant little fool.

They literally walked out on the guy before he got the chance to make his speech

Actually the US ambassador never even entered the building during the session that Ahmadinejad gave his speech.

it's extremely rude

No it's not, it's extremely normal and justified.

Meanwhile, you'd be hooting and hollering if someone ACTUALLY insulted the US or the US president. What did you think about Chavez calling Bush the devil? I'm sure that the ignorant, small-minded anti-Americanism gave you a boner, didn't it?

and it's definitely not going to resolve the problems.

Haha, and EVERYTHING Iran does resolves problems huh? Nevermind what his actual speech was at the UN. Never mind that his government supports terrorist groups that are fighting the US. Never mind that he oversees a government that begins its meetings with "Death to America".

Yeah... simply refusing to witness his speech, in light of all he deoes.... THAT is causing the problems huh?

Such an idea could ONLY exist in the head of someone like you.

My brain is better than yours.

Your brain has been tainted by a political ideology in which distortion of facts and outright lies are acceptable as long as a political attack can be made. You willingly take a stance that the facts are against because your goal is not to know the truth or perceive something reasonably, your goal is what you entered the thread with... attack the US and create ammunition to attack the US.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 08:10 AM, LordJaric wrote:

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation;

So I guess we should respect people like Hitler, Saddam, and Stalin. Even if they did evil things, we should respect them, is that what you are trying to say.

They're only evil because they lost. If they had won, they would have been the good guys. Just think about that.

If Hitler could convince millions of people that Germany was the good guy, why couldn't the US?

[cellardoor6]

At 9/26/07 08:28 AM, Alphabit wrote: You can toss-in all the technicalities you want, but the fact is that the US has been counter-productive in their 'encounter' with the Iranian president.

No the US hasn't. Iran is our enemy. What would be counterproductive would be to ignore all the facts showing Iran is actively fighting against us, and GIVE THEM a source of propaganda in their larger campaign against us.

As I said before; it doesn't matter how evil he is; he represents a lot of people in a critical part of the world and, for the sake of peace, the US should have at least pretended to show some respect to the millions of people he represents.

You're not even saying that because you mean it. You wouldn't care at all if people disrespected the US or the US president and I'm sure you'd support it pretty heavily if this issue was the other way around.

It's not about them; the US itself is digging its own grave. You can't possibly argue that the tensions between the US and Iran hasn't worsened since Ahmadinejad's visit.

Hahah? The US has been the one to worsen the tension?

As opposed to Iran supplying weapons to our enemies and threatening to wipe our allies off the face of the earth.

Yep, the US escalated it by allowing a few college students to confront a dictator, by refusing this terrorist-supporting dictator to visit the site of a terrorist attack, and by refusing to see him spread his propaganda via the UN speech.

Yep, actually causing the death of another country's troops is NOTHING to cause problems, in fact since it's the US we're talking about... good for Iran. But simply exercising logic, protecting free speech, and protecting your sovereignty... THAT'S BAD if you're the US.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 08:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Your brain has been tainted by a political ideology in which distortion of facts and outright lies are acceptable as long as a political attack can be made. You willingly take a stance that the facts are against because your goal is not to know the truth or perceive something reasonably, your goal is what you entered the thread with... attack the US and create ammunition to attack the US.

Oh, and you're not opinionated? Common. Your view is just as distorted; it's not like you've been to Iran and personally investigated the situation... Well at least the chances are ver slim.

[Alphabit]

At 9/26/07 08:37 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/26/07 08:28 AM, Alphabit wrote: You can't possibly argue that the tensions between the US and Iran hasn't worsened since Ahmadinejad's visit.

Hahah? The US has been the one to worsen the tension?

I didn't say that, but yeah, it's certainly contributed its share.

[KingPaulP]

At 9/26/07 06:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Wow... I don't know how ignorance could be this common...

How the hell am i ignorant, I didnt once say it was a diplomatic meeting but i know they could have certainly made it one given the effort

Nevermind the fact that his country is our enemy, and his government is just about the most brutal and oppressive in the world.

i certainly agree, Iranian human rights could be better, but it is a hell of alot better than your good friends the rowdy saudi's your country has accepted trillions of dollars of investment from, despite them being behind Al Quada, and 9/11, were the majority of the people involved in the atrocity Saudi's, yes.

Never going to work with terrorists who would only exploit our cooperation for their own benefit, k.

If american foreign policy wasnt so atrocious in the first place you wouldnt have terrorists baying for american blood.

Actually the worse human rights record in the middle east is held by Iran. Funny though! You make no mention of Iran's human rights in an issue that actually has to do with Iran.

the thread wasnt about Iranian human rights but we could argue all day about who is worse than who, lets just agree they are both shite, I was actually pointing out the hypocrisy of american foreign policy in stating saddam is a bad man, the taliban are bad men, then sucking off the teet of the saudi's who invented Wahabism (the fundemental Islam America seeks to destroy)

You mentioned before Iran was your enemy, i cant see America attacking Iran the logistics of it would be impossible, however they could support their pet cat Isreal in attacking them.

[Luxury-Yacht]

At 9/26/07 06:28 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: Cellardoor have you ever considered a career as a spin doctor? It seems to come naturally to you.

While he may be good at spin, the last posts he made were pretty legit, in my opinion. I'd have to agree with just about all of it, minus some minor disagreements that aren't really relevant to the issue. It was NOT a government action, and therefore the government can't be held responsible. Ahmadinejad knows that he's not exactly popular in the U.S., and he would expect protest.

[SouthAsian]

Can we just take a look at what the US did to Iran first then concentrate on what Iran did to the U.S.?

[EnragedSephiroth]

If you thought Ahmadinejad was treated disrespectfully here wait until Bush visits Iran... oh wait that will never happen. Gee I wonder why... maybe he's too humble to accept such a warm welcome?