Contributors

Monday, September 24, 2007

Mr. Ahmadinejad Goes To New York

As I write these words, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is about to speak at Columbia University in New York. The introduction that is being given before he goes on, by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University...well...to say that it is not very welcoming would be the understatement of the year. It makes me wonder why the right is as bunged up as it is over this visit because basically President A just got bitch slapped all over the mother!

The reaction to this whole visit has been hilarious, in sad and pathetic way. I could write a long essay about the substance of President Ahmadinejad's speech, being delivered as I am composing the remainder of this post, but what's the point? We already know what he is going to say. At this point I am more interested in illustrating how little we understand Iran fully exposed by the silly reaction of conservatives in this country.

President Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. The leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader. The president of Iran has the power he has because he is granted it by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah grants him his power as long as he goes out, spews his bile of lies AND gets a reaction from the West. President A currently holds a whopping 20 percent approval rating in his country and is generally loathed by most citizens, largely due to the fact that the economy is in the tank.

By reacting to him the way the conservative fake outrage machine has in the past few days, they have GIVEN, not taken away, power from him. They have demonized him to biblical (pun fully intended) proportions, comparing him to Adolph Hitler (as if!) and launching him onto the world stage and limelight....a stage he is all too willing to occupy for lengthy periods of time. Even more farcical is that fact that it has been President Bush's own policies in Iraq that have led to the hard line factions of Iran further cementing their power in the region, thus making Iran the larger enemy today than it was six years ago when reform seemed to be on the horizon.

Oddly, the outrage has been directed at President A's visit to Columbia but not to his speeches earlier in the day at the National Press Club or the Council on Foreign Relations. I wonder why this is so? (I know the answer...just want to see if y'all do :))

Anyhoo, it has been a truly remarkable day for myself as well as other people in this country that know a thing or two about Iran, to see an already semi-scary guy fully "made" into the enemy that conservatives want him...or actually NEED him to be. Ah, well, just another example of what Army Sargent Ben Busch called a "childish understanding of the region."

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, you can't say the University is a "liberal commmie pinko" place after the introduction Pres Bollinger game Ahmendinejad. Zowie! It makes me wonder if the invited him just to yell at him.

Anonymous said...

This man is pure evil. I heard that he wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero and is now not allowed to. Scumbag

Anonymous said...

So not one one peep of condemnation of Aminthemoodforjihad, our focus should be on the "conservative reaction" to the visit. Lovely.

So it’s the "conservative reaction" that has given power to him? I think you’re doing a bit of projecting here because it is Columbia University who is giving him a microphone and a stage to stand on. If conservatives are to be ashamed then please tell us why Columbia University covered up their "Columbia University" backdrop behind Mahmoud?

Conservative ignorance may be on display but so is leftist priorities...inviting dictators to speak at the same place where the ROTC has been banned from campus.

Approval ratings aside, when he gets that nuke you can bet all those bold pro-Western leaners in Iran will very quickly turn quiet as a church mouse. Can you spell Kurds under Sadaam?

With all your defense of homosexuals on here you didn’t mention his remarks about homosexuals at all (the fact that there are none in his country). Could that be because he kills anyone who’s openly homosexual? But that shouldn’t be our focus here...Sean Hannity is the real problem.

Anonymous said...

when he gets that nuke you can bet all those bold pro-Western leaners in Iran will very quickly turn quiet as a church mouse.

Could that be because he kills anyone who’s openly homosexual?

Wrong, and wrong again. But let's just sensationalise the fear-fanning incorrect, because that's what we did with iraq. And it's serving us really well there...

Nice post Mark. Whatever ANYONE thinks of the leader of Iran, the hundreds of students that wanted to be there and heard him (outside on giant screen as well as indoors) and all the rest of us that watched it -- uncommented and unedited -- and read about the subject, will form our own opinions. Like Chris Rock said in this great (but somewhat rude..) commentary -- LET IT SWIRL AROUND YOUR HEAD first... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auqRgzuLaK8&mode=related&search

Anonymous said...

Are you assuming that I didn't hear what he had to say? I did hear it, he had a hard time directly answering a question.

My point about the pro western leaners in the country was speculation on my part, just as your statement of "wrong" is. Also, if my statements are wrong then inform us how exactly homosexuals are treated in that country.

I’d like to know your opinion (and Marks as well) of how this visit will play in the Muslim world; Mahmoud bravely struts into the jaws of the devil and craps in it. This is pretty good PR for him and conservative pundits did not provide him with the stage and microphone.

I'd also be curious to know what you thought about what he said. Mark hasn't told us his thoughts on what MA actually said either.

What can not be deemed "wrong" is that a Columbia alumnus was released from an Iranian prison just days before the Iranian president was scheduled to speak at Columbia University.

Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh, who works for George Soros’s Open Society Institute, was one of several Iranian-Americans detained by Iran for allegedly conspiring against Iran’s national security.

Tajbakhsh was freed last Thursday.

Anonymous said...

Gang bang, all good points. By 'wrong' (which sounds absolute and judgemental -- i could be wrong myself) i simply mean 'when he gets the nuke' : there are two possibilities, Iran develops and uses nuclear power like every other country and their cousin around the world, which depend heavily on nuclear power to generate electricity, knowing Oil is on the way out this century, OR Iran builds a nuclear weapon in the next 5 years (again, a real possibility) in which case, what are they going to do with it? NOTHING. It would piss off Israel no end (which has already said WAR before nuclear iran) since Israel would stop having an ultra-free hand in the region, being the sole nuclear power, but tempering Israel's free hand so that they start using their brain for a change, might not be such a bad thing. In addition, a nuclear Iran would make us the US think twice about using conventional force in the Persian Gulf, i.e. Iran's neighbourhood as Central America and Canada are ours, this is the point of even thinking about a Nuke, it's a major deterrent - all psychological. Isn't the policy of deterrence what stopped the US and Soviet Union from one side annhialating the other? I am against nuclear weapons (but they're here,) as i am against hypocritical applications of policies with regard to their use (i.e. we can drop a nuclear bunker buster on Iran, so can Israel, Iran can't generate nuclear power.)

Re: gays in Iran -- they exist too, whether Ahmedinejad thinks so or not -- and no, no one is killed for being gay. More people (young women) are killed in Jordan for marrying the love of their lives without the approval of a psycho brother in the family (again, nothing to do with religion -- more tribal ignorance.)

I am tired of the 'wmd & human rights abuses' talk thing. Our closest allies in the region are much bigger human rights abusers, not a peep of indignation elicited when they (often) come to visit, and also, much less democratic societies than iran -- which is free to a pretty flexible degree -- otherwise, more people, especially the young would hate him at home and they don't. Some hate him, others love him, most tolerate him. isn't that the case here too?

everyone knows Iran is about Oil, Israel and longterm transformational influence in a very strategic heartland and energy rich area. We can be mega-influential in that region (as we have been and continue to be) without going to war or beating the drums. Columbia was a start.

Anonymous said...

Agreed,gangbang. Why won't Markadelphia make comments about the speech itself?

Anonymous said...

Another thng that stopped the US and Soviet Union from going to war with each other, among other things, was the total collapse of the Soviet economy under the overbearing state. Overregulation, limits on wealth creation and tax rates of 70% will collapse any economy.

I don't think a nuclear Iran will make us think twice...I think that since politicians are in full cover-their-ass mode over Iraq that will deter them from going in anywhere else more than anything. Right and wrong be damned...they may not get reelected (since that is what matters to them after all).

I'm not sure how we got on the subject of Israel, human rights, or oil but the point of Marks post was not any of those, although it is always neat to see which "ism" reigns supreme in certain cases (your example of women in Jordan is a situation where multiculturalism trumps feminism).

I'm not saying MA, or anyone else from any other country, cannot come to visit/speak here in this country. I'm pointing out that the campus of Columbia University bans the ROTC (aka the US Military) from its campus yet gives MA a stage and a microphone. My main point is that it is not some conservative on the radio legitimizing MA, it is Columbia University but since Marks main war is against conservatives anyway I'm guessing he didn't notice the fact that the people who gave MA a stage and a microphone were not conservatives.

I am also tasking those who are criticizing others interpretations to put forth an interpretation of their own of what MA said while he was here so I have something to work with.

johnwaxey said...

Maybe because the content is just more political bullshit designed to "enrage" the western world and continue his ongoing mission to stay in power in his country. What Markadelphia is saying (in part) is that by dignifying his comments, you are lending him the much needed attention that he desires. Its the same thing as when people burned Beatles albums...never was their popularity greater after the media circus.

People like Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak and then promptly be ignored. No "outrage" is required and the more name-calling there is, the more likely this individual is to be glorified by his countrymen and the people of the region.

Ahmadinejad poses a problem to free societies because if you let him speak he gets attention. If you don't let him speak, he is a martyr and gets more attention. Let the idiot talk and bury himself. Don't give him any more attention than you would a bully or a spoiled brat.

As for being a threat and a terrorist...absolutely. Why? Because we are this side of the fence. Do you honestly think that we are not terrorists to the people of Iran and Iraq? To top it off, we absolutely have nukes and therefore we have absolute power. We can export our ideals and lifestyle and wherever we choose to do that, and for whatever reason, the native population has to accept it or face being nuked. Isn't that about the size of it? So how is it that we are the "good guys" again?

Several people on this blog have argued for might makes right. We need the oil, we have the muscle, we theoretically benefit from the actions of our government (and if we are not benefiting, why do we allow them to continue their actions?), then we should be able to do what is necessary to maintain these United States.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, has been for a long time. We, as a culture better stop trying to figure out how to bully other nations and figure out ways to form relationships with countries that have nuclear capabilities. The consequences for not doing so are going to be catastrophic. With North Korea, Pakistan and Iran (not to mention unstable former Soviet Union republics) it is only a matter of time before we have to face these countries as friends or as bitter enemies who will have no compunction about selling little nukes to terrorist groups for deposit on American soil. There is no military solution to nuclear proliferation unless you are willing to wage a multi-front war (never a good idea, see Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France) or nuke Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. Losing propositions one and all.

Time to face the fact that short-term solutions like war are not going to win the "war on terrorism." If our enemies were conventional, and it was the 19th century, there might have been a chance. But we are beyond both of those conditions.

I wonder if we can overcome our short attention spans and need for immediate self-gratification and really come up with a lasting solution to the problems that have been created by our own short-sighted foreign policy?

johnwaxey said...

gang bang bukake

Let me get this straight, your criticism is of the university? You are upset that they won't allow the ROTC to stay on campus? First of all, I personally don't have a problem with the ROTC, was accepted and almost went through the program myself. But here is a question...why do we have the US military on any of our campuses? The US military functions outside of that setting in all regards anyway. If they want candidates to get an education, lower the tuition at military academies, create additional facilities to educate and train...why should they be present on any campus?

If your issue relates to influences or free speech, there is a big difference between a permanent program and curriculum at an institution and a several hour visit by a radical guest speaker.

johnwaxey said...

Why are people in this country so fired up over words anyway? Have we become so scared that people can't voice dissenting opinions or show alternative views of given situations? What are we afraid of? That people will become swayed by different ideas and become dangerous? Many of you have criticized Markadelphia (and rightfully so)for his characterizations of the American conservative public as being fat, lazy and stupid. I will give you that it is an offensive stereotype, but what sort of message is being sent by conservatives who condemn ideas, speeches, people or movies that represent alternatives to their own way of thinking? Aren't you simply implying (rather than stating) that the public (liberal or conservative) are incapable of making up their own mind what is garbage and what is not or what is patriotic or not? That goes for so-called liberals as well. It's the reverse side of the same coin folks.

Hey, here's an idea...how about everybody speak their peace without condemnation, without being accused of being a terrorist or unpatriotic. Is it possible that we all might learn something from the dialog (gasp).

Anonymous said...

John, I agree with the first sentence of your first post. Do "we" really need to give him the microphone though and thus enable his PR? Indeed people have the right to free speech in this country but noone has the inalienable right to be heard.

Yes we have nukes and power but Canada and central America don't have to worry about us destabalizing our region of the world.

I'm not sure why the military is present on any campus...I'm just curious as to why they have to be banned. It's one thing to not have an ROTC program on campus but quite another to ban the military altogether from campus or to vandalize military recruiting offices on college campuses.

For the record, I'm not scared or playing on fear since I don't care if people agree with me or not and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I've said no less than 6 times on this blog that I view the people around me as being smart enough to make up their own mind about things, which is why I don't feel the need to know the politics of those around me. I just felt like challenging Mark or Joanne (or anyone else for that matter) to put forth their own interpretation and to put forth the idea that it is not conservative talk radio hosts that are the ones legitimizing AM...it is the folks who gave him the stage and the miocrophone.

At least the conservative pundits have taken a stand.

Anonymous said...

Everyone in the US (or everyone who cares, i know a lot of people don't give a toss about politics or watch news..) is forming an opinion about Iran -- based on what exclusively US Information and News sources, whether the Military, Media or Lobbyists for x or y company country or agenda, say Iran is up to. It's interesting to have IRAN (Official Iran) speak for itself. I follow this stuff regularly so it's interesting. Other than that, i've commented as much as i think is relevant, about THE issue, Iran's developing Nuclear capability and related priority issues that came to mind. I'm not going to dissect and interpret his every phrase, for Gang bang, because what does it matter? I heard what he had to say and frankly, some of it was logical and made intelligent sense and some of it was completely irrelevant PR, beyond that, what stand am i (or mark or anyone) expected to take exactly?

Anonymous said...

I wrote the above, but keep in mind gang bang's following :

...I don't feel the need to know the politics of those around me. I just felt like challenging Mark or Joanne (or anyone else for that matter) to put forth their own interpretation and to put forth the idea that it is not conservative talk radio hosts that are the ones legitimizing AM...it is the folks who gave him the stage and the miocrophone...

i think the War on Terror is legitimising AM more than anything, because Iran has been designated the next showdown area of interest. all the media / official rhetoric buildup since '04 has focused on Iran.

One of the most interesting things, i thought, AM had to say on 60 Minutes & at Columbia was that, there is NO inevitability of War between the US and Iran. Mirroring what a lot of Americans are also thinking and saying.

Mark Ward said...

The reason why I didn't comment on AM's speech is because it's all the same crap anyway. We know where he stands. What else is there to say?

We should focus on how to deal with him and what I am hearing from the conservative side of the aisle completly lacks depth and understanding. That was what I thought was more important to write about.

You have to look at the whole history of Iran, our involvement in it (good and bad), who really runs that country and who is their puppet. Our policies have helped to create what Iran is today. Ask yourselves this question:

Would we behave any differently if 160,000 Iranian troops moved into Canada and got involved in the oil business?

Anonymous said...

All you faithful readers probably believed Mark when he said it was conservatives demonizing Mahmoud.

He can say..."to see an already semi-scary guy fully "made" into the enemy that conservatives want him...or actually NEED him to be."

Yet just click back on the archives of this very blog to January of 2006 and you get these words from Mark...

"It's been a long time since Adolph Hitler spoke and I guess he's back. But this time he has nuclear weapons. Super! For those of you who don't know, Iran has broken the seals on the containers in the Natantz nuclear "research" facility and will have the materials to make 4-20 bombs in 2-4 years. Awesome, dude!

I can't wait for the day when a country run by Muslim extremists has the bomb. What a warm and comforting time that will be!!
this sad excuse of a human being has been running his fucking mouth all over the joint and I have had it.

Here's a thought for the Iranian president: Stop threatening to annihilate countries while producing nuclear fuel or the rest of the world will assume control, through force, of YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY, BITCH!!

Appeasement in the case of Iran will quite simply not work. We basically need to tell them to cease their volatile activities immediately or their life as they know it will be over. No more mullahs talking smack about the USA....no more masturbation parties whilst watching the WTC attacks....no more firebombing magazines run by women.....and, for that matter, no more getting your jollys out of abusing the shit out of women....all of that will be gone. So sorry!!

It's time for this administration to actually back up all their tough talk. In 2002, President Bush called Iran one of the members of the Axis of Evil and yet has done virtually nothing to stop them from pursuing a course that threatens the entire world. We have let Europe "negotiate" with Iran and look where it has gotten us?"


I try to learn so much from this blog but people tell me I am fanning flames. I learned in January of 06 that women are being abused in Iran. I also learned that it was OK to to advocate taking control of their country by force.

Why did you get so worked up over words back then Mark? Who is fanning flames on here again? How can you type what you did, and now tell us that it's the conservatives who are fanning flames?

Mark Ward said...

I would say the only error I made back then was comparing AM to Hitler. I was wrong. He's not even close.

But all the rest of what I said is true still to this day and I stand by it. My chief gripe with conservatives is that the bitch about his visit to Columbia (haulin out the ol "edu-libs are evil" tirade) and don't bitch about his other visits, none of which were reported in the media.

The issue here, gangbang, is one of strategy. While conservatives and I agree in principle that appeasement will not work with Iran, they WAY they have gone about not appeasing is moronic. Prop up a Iranian ally (al Maliki) as president? Help to consolidate Shi'a power in Iraq, which also helps Iran? Continued poor (if not outright evil) behavior in the Middle East? Real smart...

It's what I have said all along...you have to be tough and smart....trying to ram a square peg into a round hole will get you nowhere.

To put it simply, these people who are leading us have no idea what they are doing or who they are dealing with...

johnwaxey said...

Just for clarification sake...we are not equating political discourse with appeasement are we?

If we are to take a hard line with Iran, what will that be? I see two options, sanctions and military action. Sanctions work, but slowly over time. Military action...hmmm...lets see...

We are overextended with our volunteer army according to every report coming out of the pentagon and by the judgment of most respected retired military personnel. We could do a bombing campaign, short, sweet, awe and shock and all that...of course the mess at the end of it is what created Iraq, so we could look forward to another long occupation that we could not afford. On the ground military action would not be limited to insurgents...it would be a fight against the whole populace. That leave nukes...anyone here honestly believe that we would get away with dropping even a tiny one on Iran soil? The rest of the world would come down on us so hard our economy would collapse and we would find ourselves in the stone age fairly quickly.

I am interested what other people have to say on this matter. Run the scenarios in your head, tell me there is something more than empty threats that the US can muster at this point. Without Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, we might have been able to field a force that might have the possibility of success, but with them in the picture...are we talking a draft? That would be awesome! You want to see a civil war erupt in this country, give that a whirl.

Anonymous said...

hey!! i just realised (DUH)that all of the OTT sentiment expressed by a confused gang-bang above was mark (a la chris rock on stage) not gang bang going nutso, yeah, that is a progression of expression on the subject, but with media portraying things in black & white, and a lot happening in the 18months inbetween, i think it's a maturity of thought.

sorry gang bang, i guess IM the one who called you a fear-fanner (in a post) above, i didn't mean exclusively you, i meant the WMD-worst planet humanrights-new worst enemy argument that's an emotional veil, not really telling us the truth about what we're doing and why we're doing it.

I think john waxey's making a lot of sense (quite unusual for him :)