jkirk3000
Sex God
I think the lack of response may reflect that many on this site agree with what he said. Sad, but true.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTurn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.
Mahmud Ahmadinejad U.N. speech
- Thread starter jkirk3000
- Start date
Not sure about that jkirk - not sure. I certainly hope not.
I think the reason is the majority of the JUB posters know that when Mahmud Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, everyone sees/knows that we (US) are dealing with a madman who speaks in absolutes, who is a disciple of hate and who given his drothers, would act out his delusions without remorese. This is a real problem for the majority here as this kook is living proof of the danger we face as a nation and as a civilized world. When MA talks, the various liberal positions become that much weaker because instead of "we're not really in danger - the Repubs just say we are because they want us to be afraid" - we know it's real.
Because they know that spending all their time demonizing Bush, his admin, the U.S., etc - seems awfully weak when they ignore the real problem - rogue countries and leaders like MA and Iran.
Not gonna get a lot of play on this one
It's not good for their biz
unclaimedblessing
JUB Addicts
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2005
- Posts
- 4,593
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
I've read frequently that he is not popular with the vast majority of Iranians and thought why don't they just depose him?
Then I remembered I live in the USA and people in glass houses etc.
Then I remembered I live in the USA and people in glass houses etc.
CO Bob
Sex God
Well, ds, this is my first chance, and since you asked.....
MA is similar to Bush in that, he beleives that he is his gods instrument to bring worldwide change through his religion, creating a world as he believes his god wants it. Bush, after the events of 9-11, saw the imminent threat posed by the radical element of Islam, and believes that he is the President at the exact moment that God needs him to be. They are both driven by their belief that they are working as their God has chosen. MA though, was raised this way. He took hostages as a student in 1979, and has gone down the same path, as dictated by the Mullahs. One was inspired in an instant, the other, groomed to act as his Mullahs wish.
The President of Iran has stated that the Holocaust never happened, that it is a western myth.
The President of Iran has called for the extermination of Israel, and of all "pig-Jews".
The President of Iran recently abolished free press in his country.
The President of Iran denies basic human rights to Women.
The President of Iran allows public executions of all homosexuals.
What do I think of this person? He is the devil, incarnate. He is the modern version of an Adolf Hitler. He is bent on defying the civilized world, and believes that he is Allah's tool to defeat all of the west.
On the day before he spoke at the U.N., he visited his great friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuala. Ahmadinejad is a nut who believes God is calling him, Chavez is a nut because his wing-bolt came loose a long time ago. Chavez is full-goose bozo!
What do I think of Ahmadinejad? I think we better be ready for the stakes to get higher. This man is very, very dangerous.
MA is similar to Bush in that, he beleives that he is his gods instrument to bring worldwide change through his religion, creating a world as he believes his god wants it. Bush, after the events of 9-11, saw the imminent threat posed by the radical element of Islam, and believes that he is the President at the exact moment that God needs him to be. They are both driven by their belief that they are working as their God has chosen. MA though, was raised this way. He took hostages as a student in 1979, and has gone down the same path, as dictated by the Mullahs. One was inspired in an instant, the other, groomed to act as his Mullahs wish.
The President of Iran has stated that the Holocaust never happened, that it is a western myth.
The President of Iran has called for the extermination of Israel, and of all "pig-Jews".
The President of Iran recently abolished free press in his country.
The President of Iran denies basic human rights to Women.
The President of Iran allows public executions of all homosexuals.
What do I think of this person? He is the devil, incarnate. He is the modern version of an Adolf Hitler. He is bent on defying the civilized world, and believes that he is Allah's tool to defeat all of the west.
On the day before he spoke at the U.N., he visited his great friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuala. Ahmadinejad is a nut who believes God is calling him, Chavez is a nut because his wing-bolt came loose a long time ago. Chavez is full-goose bozo!
What do I think of Ahmadinejad? I think we better be ready for the stakes to get higher. This man is very, very dangerous.
I see no indication that Ahmadinejad is a "madman". He seems to be a rather smart politician that knows his base and tells them what they want to hear. Sound familiar? While the moderates in Iran may not like him, the poor and less educated do and so do the Mullahs. Certainly the case can be made that he is a product of Democracy, he represents his people. Does anyone expect a pro Israel or pro American Iranian President?
The problem with politicians who are continually playing to the base of their support is that one can never be sure how sincere their public utterances are. Sound familiar?
Ahmadinejad obviously wants to make Iran as strong and influential as possible, as any good President would. The best way to do that is to bash America and Israel and to weaken those countries influence. It is really a very logical policy for Iran. What do they have to gain from friendship?
Current American policy is only making the situation much worse. We are hated in much of the world and severely weakened by the morass of Iraq. Now, even Chavez feels free to threaten us and is applauded by many for doing so.
As if all this was not bad enough, Bush seems to be painting himself into a corner, where force is his only option.
The problem with politicians who are continually playing to the base of their support is that one can never be sure how sincere their public utterances are. Sound familiar?
Ahmadinejad obviously wants to make Iran as strong and influential as possible, as any good President would. The best way to do that is to bash America and Israel and to weaken those countries influence. It is really a very logical policy for Iran. What do they have to gain from friendship?
Current American policy is only making the situation much worse. We are hated in much of the world and severely weakened by the morass of Iraq. Now, even Chavez feels free to threaten us and is applauded by many for doing so.
As if all this was not bad enough, Bush seems to be painting himself into a corner, where force is his only option.
I take exception only with what I highlighted in red.
Here's my take on Mahmud Ahmadinejad. (Man that's a mouthful!
)I've read and heard that the Iranian peoples still resent the United States involvement in restoring the Shah of Iran back in the 1950's when they're "democratically elected" President wanted to "nationalize" the Iranian oil supplies.
We all know that the Shah of Iran was sent into exile in 1979, and died a few months later while Iran was being converted to an Islamic Republic.
For the past twenty-seven years the United States has had little if any influence in Iran's government, and now Iran has a leader who's publicly standing up to the west; United States, United Kingdom, and he's playing the EU members against each other, while dismissing the United Nations as a tool of the U.S.
He may be coming across as a mad man here, but over there he's the guy who's standing up and "telling it like it is."
I can't help but think that he's saying publicly what a lot of people in the Arab World have been thinking privately.
I think that both Bush and Ahmedinejad are playing to their "conservative" base. Those folks who so unconditionally embrace figures of authority, that they'll follow them into the depths of hell, even if it means a third world war.
Conservatives in the United States have always "needed" an enemy to stay in power or to gain power; Communists, Liberals, Gays, Lesbians, Abortionists, and terrorists.
None of them ever posed a real serious threat to our national security, but sure helped fill the coffers at the Pentagon, Conservative Think-Tanks, and Evangelical Churches.
Now we have a real enemy! Some one who's made it apparent that he's on some crusade, posed against another enemy who believes that everything that he does is "God's will."
It's those types of conservatives on both sides of the "east/west" divide who support the status quo that bother me more than what Ahmadinejad or Bush has to say, because they represent the governments that are coming to a head in the region.
Bush decries them as evil, and Ahmadinejad describes us a infidels.
What a way to get your based worked up? What a quick trip to Armageddon!
Considering Bush's policies of "pre-emptive strikes," the desire to "tinker with the Geneva Convention," and his apparent failures at "nation building" I honestly believe that the REAL debate should be on the type of leadership that we need to ease these tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Both Ahmadinejad and Bush speak eloquently about our nations becoming "friends and living in peace," then turn around and take actions which suggests that they're both liers.
Ahmadinejad is, in my opinion, playing Bush and his foreign policies to his own advantage. He knows that the world's opinion of Bush and his "war on terror," especially after the quagmire that Bush has gotten us into in Iraq, isn't very popular.
I'm amazed at how my fellow "conservatives" in my own country say that we should support our President because if we don't we'll be giving the terrorists exactly what they want, don't hold the same view giving up the moral high ground, in the view of World of Public Opinion, at places like GITMO, Abu-Graib, and our unconditional support of Isreal fuels the Rhetoric for people like Ahmadinejad.
In the 21st Century we're not playing a war with the kid on the block that has the biggest guns (or dick) wins.
Millions of lives are at stake, and not just several thousand that are lost threw random/planned attacks of terrorism, or nation building.
The game has changed, and considering Bush's past track record, I'll be looking for anyone that has a rational plan for changing the direction of this mess.
Even if we're never attacked on U.S. soil again, an all out war in the Middle East will undoubtedly have an impact on Western Economies. I suspect that Ahmadinejad knows this, and is one of the reasons why he's gotten so cozy with the likes of Hugo Chavez.
I for one DO NOT feel safer under Bush, and will be voting for someone who has a plan beyond, fear, fear, fear.
In my life, the state of fear has never been a good place to make decisions.
As always Centex - thorough
And as always I find common ground on much, not on all
My thoughts
1 - Does MA (can't say it) have a liberal constituency? isn't his "conservative base" 100% - that's some base. Another big difference between the two countries - we have dissent
2 - We are having the debate on new leadership - midterm elections will handle some of that - 2008 Presidential (lifetime away) more of that. That debate should NOT put our nation at further risk however. Hatred for Bush/his admin should not be put ahead of national security. I think it's ok not to disagree on all things Bush - but that's impossible for the Dems.
3 - MA sure is playing the game - and capitalizing on Bush's lack of good PR internationally. Having the 3rd world have more say in the UN is a lark though,
4 - I hear you on the world opinion - but honestly - sometimes right is right - I know that sounds so . . . . . . BUSH - but the bottom line is these folks are fucking dangerous - Iran, No. Korea, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah - and make no bones about killing indiscriminately. Are you suggesting that we are doing the same? Or just that the world thinks we're doing the same? Cause there's a big difference. I await your response on thsi one
5 - I don't think the Bush/Repub plan is fear fear fear. I think a lot of the Dems that get headlines are ostriches with their head in the sand - that will say anything negative about current events - in order to get elected. So anti-war is the play. So the Repub counterplay is "Dems are naive". Both sides are full of it. But, I'm not sure that teh Dems will know what to do when they're in - and have to make real decisions. Yup, Bush will be gone. But we better have a tough cookie to replace him otherwise, we will be out of Iraq, out of the Middle East and likely in greater danger.
Now you may say I'm doing the fear fear fear thing. But I gotta tell you, I am afraid of terrorists, rogue nations with nuclear capability - when you combine that with the US self loathing that's going on right now. I think it's a recipe for appeasement for the sake of change.
CO Bob
Sex God
Generally Alfred;
The thread starter asked what you thought of MA's speech at the U.N. As usual, you go off topic to bash someone, and continue your hate-filled litany.
My opinion was given. Stay on topic, and stop with the personal attacks!
W
Watch out for the hate! It will surely be your ondoing.
A. Yes. But I'm pretty sure that if they're not dead, or in prison that they're political exiles outside of the country at this point.
So, apparently America isn't that bad in their regard toward liberals.
We just assasinate their character, and attempt to destroy their careers, without any regard to their dissent!
B. True.
The problem that I see with a Democratic take over in the house in this stage of the game is that the conservatives in this country will attempt to use any "gridlock" as a political ploy against them, and claim that we're only strengthening our enemies ideas that we're weak, or "don't have the stomach" to follow through.
C. See B.
D. No. I am not suggesting that we're doing the same. I'm implying that we already have done these things.
The hypocrisy of "bringing democracy to the mid-east" is as plain as day to those living inside of the Middle East, and more plain to Iranians than anyone.
The CIA backed coup of 1953 to overthrow the Democratically elected Prime Minister.
Not to mention our involvement in various other coups throughout the world:
The U.S. Involvement with a coup against the Diem Governemnt of Vietnam in 1963.
The Chile Coup: The U.S. Hand 1973
Just to name a few.
And there's the current (that would be Bush Administration support and funding of) National Endowment for Democracy.
And an article to what that's perceived to be about beyond their website:
Denial in Haiti
In otherwords. In the view of those who rule other countries, and who seek political gain at the expense of the United States, their claim of self-defense is based upon the United State's actions in other governments.
The CIA and U.S. government did things "covertly" while terrorists are attemting to do the same thing "overtly."
E. I agree. But I also feel it necessary that if you're going to continue to support the Republican "leadership," shouldn't their plans and ideas be held into consideration to the news and information that the U.S. media isn't telling us?
What's that saying about an "educated electorate?"
An upcoming leader is going to have to have a broader picture of how we're perceived in the world in order to put together a more colorful plan, as opposed the the black and white world that conservatives seem to find ourselves in.
Otherwise, you're going to need to find another job sustaining yourself when the world goes to war over idealogies, and you're growing your own food in container plants on your back deck.
F. I don't see any "self-loathing." Well, outside of JUB anyway.
There can be no appeasement. Appeasement, history has shown, only puts off the inevitable.
The check has been delivered, and the bill is due.
Bitch slapping each other into submission will no longer suffice.
That suggest to me that you have some serious thoughts on the matter.
Surely you've come to some other thoughts and consideration on Mahmud Ahmadinejad since your AIM session with your friend.
Please share ICO7!
W
wentworth
Guest
You know, nobody said it better.
I'm sorry. Did somebody just say something?
What is that???
It suddenly smells like ass in here!
