The behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, has led me to conclude that he is just as dangerous as Adolf Hitler ever was, perhaps more so because he has the capability to produce nuclear weapons in the near future
( Read more... )
two completely different stories.mikeijamesJanuary 26 2006, 18:17:04 UTC
ahmadinejad's rhetoric matches the passions of not only the iranian people but the majority of people in the region. if we take his life, we'll make him a martyr and energize his movement across the middle east. furthermore, his assassination would not diminish the iranian push for nuclear weapons as they had similar intentions long before he got elected president.
Re: two completely different stories.izukoJanuary 26 2006, 21:32:20 UTC
aka, the Castro Argument. As bad as Fidel is, we want him alive, because the guy right behind him in line (his brother, Raoul), makes Fidel look like Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not entirely sure that applies here, though (nor am I entirely sure it doesn't). The question is, is Ahmad bad enough that, even if we got someone who is worse, it's still pretty much the same thing? If that's the case, then replacing him benefits us. It's a chance at something better, and even if it fails, we just replace one evil with another, so it's a wash.
On the other hand, if his death makes him a martyr, and increases support in the public, then we've got a problem.
Re: two completely different stories.mikeijamesJanuary 26 2006, 22:06:03 UTC
the public outpouring for this president after his comments about israel shows that he's a much different animal than some of iran's previous presidents. he got elected specifically on the charge of returning to the more conservative ways of the islamic faith -- making women wear traditional garments, etc. -- so assassinating someone that well beloved would have consequences.
furthermore, the iranians had strong nuclear ambitions before this current president and will have strong nuclear ambitions after this president. even a democratized iran would pursue nuclear technology because it no longer makes sense for them not to have it. they're surrounded by nuclear powers.
Re: two completely different stories.mikeijamesJanuary 27 2006, 02:36:00 UTC
Once again I'll ask for documentation.
documentation on the antisemitism of the middle east is pretty easy to come by. i'd like to see you try to make a case otherwise. now that we're done playing the "prove it" game, care to address the substance of the argument?
I don't agree with your premise or your conclusion. I don't agree with this conclusion, either.
disagreement, unfortunately, doesn't take away from the substance of the argument at all.
Re: two completely different stories.reality_hammerJanuary 27 2006, 02:45:05 UTC
I asked for a reference to back up you claim about a majority of people in the region wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Pointing to a study on anti-semitism doesn't suffice.
Re: two completely different stories.mikeijamesJanuary 31 2006, 23:38:11 UTC
i've already posted documentation of the rampant antisemitism in the middle east. you're trying to put words in my mouth and avoid answering the argument.
Re: two completely different stories.mikeijamesJanuary 27 2006, 03:51:21 UTC
sicne we're slipping into the anecdotal, one of my best friends actually comes from persian origins and much of her persian family attended her wedding, which i also attended, and i can testify that they do love many american things. i can also testify that they resent getting called arab. however, they resent america's policy toward israel more.
Reply
I'm not entirely sure that applies here, though (nor am I entirely sure it doesn't). The question is, is Ahmad bad enough that, even if we got someone who is worse, it's still pretty much the same thing? If that's the case, then replacing him benefits us. It's a chance at something better, and even if it fails, we just replace one evil with another, so it's a wash.
On the other hand, if his death makes him a martyr, and increases support in the public, then we've got a problem.
Reply
furthermore, the iranians had strong nuclear ambitions before this current president and will have strong nuclear ambitions after this president. even a democratized iran would pursue nuclear technology because it no longer makes sense for them not to have it. they're surrounded by nuclear powers.
Reply
If the public decides to follow, then so be it. We have weapons that are effective against entire cities.
Reply
Once again I'll ask for documentation.
we'll make him a martyr and energize his movement across the middle east.
I don't agree with your premise or your conclusion.
his assassination would not diminish the iranian push for nuclear weapons as they had similar intentions long before he got elected president.
I don't agree with this conclusion, either.
Reply
documentation on the antisemitism of the middle east is pretty easy to come by. i'd like to see you try to make a case otherwise. now that we're done playing the "prove it" game, care to address the substance of the argument?
I don't agree with your premise or your conclusion.
I don't agree with this conclusion, either.
disagreement, unfortunately, doesn't take away from the substance of the argument at all.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment