Iran's president wants to lay a wreath at ground zero.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pittpizza

pittpizza

CAGiversary!
Our government wont let him and I'm not sure I agree. It wasn't Iran that bombed the WTC was it? It just seems that they took a great opportunity for diplomacy and threw it in Iran's face. How do you think this will appear to the other countries? Do you think it was justified because Iran arguably allows terrorists to operate within thier borders?
 
well, I'd like to read the article about this. He was already in our country I believe to speak at the UN. I mean this could be a stunt by him with hopes of being not allowed knowing that this current administration does not know the meaning of diplomacy. Though if its NYC not letting him in at the site, thats a different story
 
It's probably a wreath shaped like a bull's eye.


And Iran does a heck of a lot more than let terrorists operate within it's borders.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well, I'd like to read the article about this. He was already in our country I believe to speak at the UN. I mean this could be a stunt by him with hopes of being not allowed knowing that this current administration does not know the meaning of diplomacy. Though if its NYC not letting him in at the site, thats a different story[/QUOTE]

Is the different story that NYC "does not know the meaning of diplomacy" either?

Why in the world would our government want to present Ahmadinejad an extra propaganda opportunity on his trip here by feigning sympathy with those killed by terrorists, notwithstanding the fact that the country he is president of is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world at this time?
 
He should be allowed to go. This is America. He can go where he pleases.

Not liking the propaganda possibilities (and I personally don't) is no excuse to stop him.
 
[quote name='speedracer']He should be allowed to go. This is America. He can go where he pleases.[/quote]

Nope, you are wrong.

If you are American you can go anywhere you want in the country, he obviously is not.

As "president" of a country he is allowed to go within 25 miles of the UN, which ground zero is, but that is mainly a rule so he can get to and from the airport.

He might not have attacked us on 9-11, but he is glad someone did. He is a terrorists, he gives money to terrorists and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere new ground zero.

I want him dead and his head on a wreath at ground zero. Can't always get what you want.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Our government wont let him and I'm not sure I agree. It wasn't Iran that bombed the WTC was it? It just seems that they took a great opportunity for diplomacy and threw it in Iran's face. How do you think this will appear to the other countries? Do you think it was justified because Iran arguably allows terrorists to operate within thier borders?[/quote]

It's not about diplomacy, though. It's about a photo op. And we didn't 'throw a diplomatic opportunity in Iran's face'. We threw it in their President's face. I also think that the words from Ahmadinejad's mouth cancel out your 'arguably' notion. As he is 'arguably' pursuing a nuclear weapon so he can 'arguably' wipe Israel off the map. All the while he 'arguably' has his hands in Iraq's government, undermining the U.S. and 'arguably' supplying men and guns to help kill American soldiers. He's doing all this, of course, so that he can 'arguably' bring about the end of the world.

I just don't think we should be granting this guy any favors. Or how about this: if he stops pursuing a nuclear weapon to wipe out an entire nation of people, then we let him lay down all the wreaths he wants?
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Nope, you are wrong.

If you are American you can go anywhere you want in the country, he obviously is not.

As "president" of a country he is allowed to go within 25 miles of the UN, which ground zero is, but that is mainly a rule so he can get to and from the airport.[/quote]
Yea, uh, my comment was more of situational thought than actual law.

I want him dead and his head on a wreath at ground zero. Can't always get what you want.
Click to expand...
At least you're objective.

yawn
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']
He might not have attacked us on 9-11, but he is glad someone did. He is a terrorists, he gives money to terrorists and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere new ground zero.
[/quote]
I'm weary of the word terrorist getting bandied about so much lately. All it does is turn a very gray world into a black and white good guys and bad guys world. Supposing that Iran does fund Hezbollah, is our country that different?

Iran funds Hezbollah, and they attack innocent Israelis.
We fund Israel and help them have perhaps the most powerful military in the region, and then they go out and kill Palestinian militants, innocent Palestinian bystanders, and bomb the crap out of Lebanese suburbs to get to Hezbollah.

Despite all the death dealt by Israel matching if not exceeding that of Hezbollah/Iran, Israel and the US are the "good guys" here? I don't see any good guys or terrorists here, only two sides that will do anything to force their goals no matter the consequences.
 
[quote name='looploop']I'm weary of the word terrorist getting bandied about so much lately. All it does is turn a very gray world into a black and white good guys and bad guys world. Supposing that Iran does fund Hezbollah, is our country that different?

Iran funds Hezbollah, and they attack innocent Israelis.
We fund Israel and help them have perhaps the most powerful military in the region, and then they go out and kill Palestinian militants, innocent Palestinian bystanders, and bomb the crap out of Lebanese suburbs to get to Hezbollah.

Despite all the death dealt by Israel matching if not exceeding that of Hezbollah/Iran, Israel and the US are the "good guys" here? I don't see any good guys or terrorists here, only two sides that will do anything to force their goals no matter the consequences.[/quote]


buh da biblez sez so.

der duh chozen peeplez.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Is the different story that NYC "does not know the meaning of diplomacy" either?

Why in the world would our government want to present Ahmadinejad an extra propaganda opportunity on his trip here by feigning sympathy with those killed by terrorists, notwithstanding the fact that the country he is president of is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world at this time?[/QUOTE]



he pulled a smart political move, something that hasn't happened in this country in awhile, either way he wins. Either he looks like a good guy by laying down a wreath as a peace offering showing he is not such a bad guy or he is not allowed to lay the wreath and it shows that he tried but the Americans won't even let him honor their dead.
 
I don't think NYC should be carrying out foreign policy. I thought it was stupid when Giuliani kicked Arafat out of Lincoln Center.

Ahmadinejad is making us look like petty fools. What's the worst that can happen by allowing him to visit Ground Zero? Does anyone think he would actually commit a terrorist act himself? At best, he gets a first-hand look at the hole in the NYC skyline that religious fanatics caused and maybe cooler heads can prevail between us and Iran. At worst, he says something stupid and makes an ass out of himself.
 
[quote name='level1online']One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.[/QUOTE]

No, legitimate freedom fighters don't attack innocent civilians, like terrorists do.
 
[quote name='looploop']I'm weary of the word terrorist getting bandied about so much lately. All it does is turn a very gray world into a black and white good guys and bad guys world. Supposing that Iran does fund Hezbollah, is our country that different?

Iran funds Hezbollah, and they attack innocent Israelis.
We fund Israel and help them have perhaps the most powerful military in the region, and then they go out and kill Palestinian militants, innocent Palestinian bystanders, and bomb the crap out of Lebanese suburbs to get to Hezbollah.

Despite all the death dealt by Israel matching if not exceeding that of Hezbollah/Iran, Israel and the US are the "good guys" here? I don't see any good guys or terrorists here, only two sides that will do anything to force their goals no matter the consequences.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that funding a group that purposely targets innocent civilians and giving aid to a military that responds to attacks on innocent civilians is the same thing? Wow.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, legitimate freedom fighters don't attack innocent civilians, like terrorists do.[/quote]

Operation Ajax.

Declassified.

CIA.

Google It.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you're saying that funding a group that purposely targets innocent civilians and giving aid to a military that responds to attacks on innocent civilians is the same thing? Wow.[/quote] Sadly, both acts are having the same result... So what else am I to think? The way you say it simply glosses over the atrocities that we've had a hand in funding.
 
It is true that the US, Iran, Israel, or any other country in the world has blood on its hands. No actor in world politics is completely free of culpability.

That isnt the point. The point is that a good foreign policy is to take every possible situation and analyze it, think about it, then take the action that is the most beneficial to our nation as a whole. I don't think this response did that very well. While allowing the guy to plant the wreath may not have been popular domestically, it doesnt seem like it will win favor extraterritorially either.

"Terrorist" is about as loaded a word as is "racist". Our country has done fucked up shit no doubt. I am sure we have killed civilians, tortured people, bombed innocent people and committed a ton of atrocities, only the surface of which are scratched by the light of publicity in instances such as Abu Grahaib. Instead of focusing on the wrongs that have been done to them in the past, it seems more productive (IMO) to focus on actions that can be taken to improve things in the future. I am not advocating forgeting past wrongs, whatever they may be, rather forgiving and trying to improve relations and move forward.

War is completely fucked. I don't mean War in Iraq or War on drugs I mean real, global, world war, with a draft and rationing and death and suffering and massive loss of lives and all that jazz. I dont know if its wise to take an opportunity to move away from that and turn it into something that urges us towards it.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
That isnt the point. The point is that a good foreign policy is to take every possible situation and analyze it, think about it, then take the action that is the most beneficial to our nation as a whole. I don't think this response did that very well. While allowing the guy to plant the wreath may not have been popular domestically, it doesnt seem like it will win favor extraterritorially either.
[/quote]

We haven't done this in regard to Iran in years. I read a BBC article a while ago on US-Iran post 9/11 relations. The gist was that Iran was excited to offer support to the US and aided them in the run-up to the Afghan War. At a press conference soon after the Bush administation labels them part of the Axis of Evil, and sets relations back right where they were. How's that for taking advantage of diplomatic opportunities?:roll:
article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm
 
I have a better idea, how about we get rid of the U.N. and save billions of dollars. That way he wouldn't be allowed in the country at all.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']I have a better idea, how about we get rid of the U.N. and save billions of dollars. That was he wouldn't be allowed in the country at all.[/QUOTE]

Oh my. I think we need to make a "lil' politicians" version of the vs forum just for juvenile banter like this.

Get rid of the UN? What a brilliant idea. I've got a brilliant idea, too. Since we're $7 trillion in debt, why doesn't the US mint just print $7 trillion dollars, and we can pay off everything in one fell swoop?

fuckin' *genius,* I tells ya.
 
Iran is a bag of shit. The buy and sell from russians, which are supporting N Korea, which is tring to launch a big long dong at us. And they also harbor terrorists. Its like someone shooting your dad in the head and forgiving them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh my. I think we need to make a "lil' politicians" version of the vs forum just for juvenile banter like this.

Get rid of the UN? What a brilliant idea. I've got a brilliant idea, too. Since we're $7 trillion in debt, why doesn't the US mint just print $7 trillion dollars, and we can pay off everything in one fell swoop?

fuckin' *genius,* I tells ya.[/QUOTE]



hahaha, why not just make a 7 trillion dollar bill, it would be much simpler
 
[quote name='level1online']Operation Ajax.

Declassified.

CIA.

Google It.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you're not wasting any more of my time today.
 
[quote name='looploop']Sadly, both acts are having the same result... So what else am I to think? The way you say it simply glosses over the atrocities that we've had a hand in funding.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. We did not fund anyone while telling them to kill innocents. And they aren't the same acts at all. How can you say intentionally targeting innocents is the same as innocents killed because terrorists hid in the mosque they were attending or in their neighborhood? Why for you is terrorism and any military response to terrorism the same? Why do you count someone beheading someone for being Christian at the same level of barbarity as bombing that person, which might end in innocent lives being lost?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry, you're not wasting any more of my time today.[/quote]

ok, no problem ;)

back to your regulary scheduled program-ming:

faux.gif
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Bullshit. We did not fund anyone while telling them to kill innocents. And they aren't the same acts at all. How can you say intentionally targeting innocents is the same as innocents killed because terrorists hid in the mosque they were attending or in their neighborhood? Why for you is terrorism and any military response to terrorism the same? Why do you count someone beheading someone for being Christian at the same level of barbarity as bombing that person, which might end in innocent lives being lost?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I'm not challenging your logic or thinking capabilities; you're just talking about the ends justifying the means, and I, at least, refuse to accept that. It really doesn't matter whether you intended to kill ten innocent people, or accidentally killed a thousand -- they're still innocent people, and they're still dead, and it's still because of you. To say otherwise is to excuse any atrocity, just because you meant well, and, frankly, who doesn't?

Further, to act like all these dead civilians are simple accidents is disingenious. You don't blow up a car a terrorist is traveling in, in the middle of a crowded market, and suddenly notice there are hundreds of bystanders around him. If we don't directly condone it, we absolutely turn a blind eye to it, and we're better than that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Bullshit. We did not fund anyone while telling them to kill innocents. And they aren't the same acts at all. How can you say intentionally targeting innocents is the same as innocents killed because terrorists hid in the mosque they were attending or in their neighborhood? Why for you is terrorism and any military response to terrorism the same? Why do you count someone beheading someone for being Christian at the same level of barbarity as bombing that person, which might end in innocent lives being lost?[/quote]

I'm my view, when so many innocent lives are essentially terrorized by us in our fight against terrorism, we've just duplicated what we've been claiming to fight. All this says to me is that we simply don't value the lives of any of these people caught in the crossfire.
I'm not against all military responses to terrorism. I've been saying all along that I'm against military responses that make us no better than what we're fighting. I can't think of a better example than the Lebanon War. 2 people kidnapped, 1000+ unconnected lives destroyed. Any moral high ground we've had is null because of things like that.
 
[quote name='trq']Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I'm not challenging your logic or thinking capabilities; you're just talking about the ends justifying the means, and I, at least, refuse to accept that. It really doesn't matter whether you intended to kill ten innocent people, or accidentally killed a thousand -- they're still innocent people, and they're still dead, and it's still because of you. To say otherwise is to excuse any atrocity, just because you meant well, and, frankly, who doesn't?

Further, to act like all these dead civilians are simple accidents is disingenious. You don't blow up a car a terrorist is traveling in, in the middle of a crowded market, and suddenly notice there are hundreds of bystanders around him. If we don't directly condone it, we absolutely turn a blind eye to it, and we're better than that.[/QUOTE]

I think you and I are not so far apart, really. I am definitely not trying to justify missile attacks against a terrorist in a shopping mall, for example. But what I am saying is that there is a very large difference between aiming rockets at residential neighborhoods full of entirely innocent civilians versus a targeted attack against a known terrorist leader in an area not crowded with throngs of people.
 
[quote name='looploop']I'm my view, when so many innocent lives are essentially terrorized by us in our fight against terrorism, we've just duplicated what we've been claiming to fight. All this says to me is that we simply don't value the lives of any of these people caught in the crossfire.
I'm not against all military responses to terrorism. I've been saying all along that I'm against military responses that make us no better than what we're fighting. I can't think of a better example than the Lebanon War. 2 people kidnapped, 1000+ unconnected lives destroyed. Any moral high ground we've had is null because of things like that.[/QUOTE]

1. The U.S. did not fight in Lebanon, at least not during the most recent conflict.

2. Your solution is tantamount to allowing terrorists to shield themselves from any reprisal, all while firing rockets into residential neighborhoods on purpose. Ergo, your solution is let terrorists kill innocent civilians and do nothing about it, since clearly police rather than military action is not going to resolve such a situation.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']1. The U.S. did not fight in Lebanon, at least not during the most recent conflict.

2. Your solution is tantamount to allowing terrorists to shield themselves from any reprisal, all while firing rockets into residential neighborhoods on purpose. Ergo, your solution is let terrorists kill innocent civilians and do nothing about it, since clearly police rather than military action is not going to resolve such a situation.[/quote]
1) We've funded the Israeli military and helped it gain the capability that allowed it to carry out its lebanon campaign. So I think we're culpable in that respect. Especially since we held off from pressing Israel to stop destroying so many Lebanese for so long.

2) I didn't suggest a solution. I said the current system is terribly flawed and taints us. In any event, the current "solution" clearly doesn't work either since it's only resulted in more reprisals one after the other.
 
[quote name='looploop']1) We've funded the Israeli military and helped it gain the capability that allowed it to carry out its lebanon campaign. So I think we're culpable in that respect.[/quote]
If that's the standard of culpability, the world would be turned on its head.

Just sayin.
 
I've said it before and I will say it again, no nation's hands are free of blood. There is no country that is completely free of culpability. There are many reasons nations and people within them fight, religion, land, independence. Nobody is entirely "right" or "wrong."

I dont know what the best way to run a country is but I doubt it is by pissing all the other countries off. What we are doing doesn't seem to be working. Maybe its conspiratorial but diplomatically and politically things seem to be turning towards world war--or at least in that direction-- and that scares the shit out of me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top