The Next President?

A bit embarrassing arguing a point when you are so completely out of touch

Appeasement of Hitler was an issue BEFORE wars

Iran is attacking isreal through Hezbollah. U didnt even realise that?

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.
Source: Daily Star, 2002-10-23.
Click to expand...

Leader of Irans favourite organisation

Doesnt seem too far removed from genocidal intentions does it? And wasnt the idiot president again going on about "wiping out" the jewish state last week?

How many other world leaders are spouting on about "wiping out" other states (and people) What more evidence of warlike intentions does one need?

At worst, it completely fails to recognise the true extent and nature of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi's.
Click to expand...

thats a cretinous comment from someone who believes in dialogue with a holocaust denier

Mcains comments were spot on.
 
The obvious reply to McCain being to presume that he will cut off all diplomatic ties with the anti-Semitic regime in Saudi Arabia should he become President
Click to expand...

As so often you miss the point by a country mile


Vile as they are, Saudi isnt calling for other states to be exterminated. They are not directly funding terrorists and the regime there has gone a long way to beating back AQ, domestically at least
 
clive, did you even read the quote that you said was "very nicely put" by McCain.

It’s hard to see what such a summit would gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks about starting another"
Click to expand...

He's clearly got a problem with the idea of holding a summit with an anti-Semitic regime.

How does this differ from the Saudis again? Or is it ok to have close relationships with anti-Semitic regimes as long as they keep quiet about it in polite company?
 
Because quite clearly the summit would be about Isreal and regional security, not about anti semitism in itself :rolleyes:

I will try and explain again...

Saudi arabia is not threatening Isreal's security. Or the region's

Mccains point is that discussing such issues with someone who disgustingly denies the holocaust and talks about "wiping out" nations is a waste of time.

Not only that, he is a weak leader domestically now and could be gone in the near future
 
So it is ok to be cosy with anti-Semitic regimes as long as you keep that particular elephant outside the room. Thanks for the clarification.
 
For the THIRD time i will slowly explain that ...

Saudi arabia is not threatening the security of the jewish people in the middle east.

In fact, they have (officially) taken steps towards promoting peace and resolutions to conflicts.

Iran does not or intend to do so

It’s hard to see what such a summit would gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks about starting another"



He's clearly got a problem with the idea of holding a summit with an anti-Semitic regime.
Click to expand...

When did Saudi talk about "starting another holocaust"?
 
Originally posted by clivex

Yes

Just like the De Valera regime
Click to expand...

Na, Dev was a right cnut.

Although given that he wasn't from Saudi Arabia or Iran* and has been dead for 35 years, I'm not sure what he's got to do with the price of oil in Saudi, err, I mean tea in China.
 
He'd be insane to take her as a running mate. He needs someone who can win a few southern states for him
Click to expand...

Jeremiah Wright as running mate? :D


But why wouldnt Hilary help take southern states? Its her manor isnt it?

Or are you still digging into sterotyped idea that the south will only elect white males?
 
And what did appeasement of Hitler constitute, clivex? Let me answer for you.

It constituted an acceptance of Hitler's claims on the Sudetenland, with the UK ceding this lock-stock to Hitler, and leaving the Czechs at the mercy of the Wehrmacht. Please explain to me how Barak Obama, by merely speaking to Ahemdinejad, is an any way a comparison to appeasement.

"Iran is attacking Israel through Hezbollah".

Drivel. there have been no attacks on Israel by Hezbollah since the 2006 conflict. Hezbollah are too busy trying to assert themselves within Lebanon. You didn't even realise that???

"Doesn't seem too far removed from genocidal intentions"

Not exactly the same thing as Ahmedinejad actually committing genocide though, is it, which is what you asserted? I'll call this a retraction on your part, given that you have absolute zero evidence to profer that he is committing genocide.

"How many other world leaders are spouting on about "wiping out" other states (and people) What more evidence of warlike intentions does one need?"

She may not be a 'world leader' (and I hope to Christ that she doesn't ever become one) but didn't Hillary Clinton very recently talk about "obliterating" Iran?

As ever, you fail to see the complete and utter contradiction in some of your 'arguments'.

Finally, if you are going to attempt to patronise me, I suggest you do it on solid ground, where your swiss-cheese of a viewpoint cannot be so easily exposed.

There............now that we have shown that your "appeasement" argument is complete and utter cobblers, I ask again - what would be the downside of the US engaging with Iran??
 
Frankly when Saudi brought in that ban on "Jewish visitors" the US should threatened to cut ties there and then (as should the european countries). In cultural terms, saudi is almost certainly more ingrained with anti semitisnm than iran (which has a jewish population). Its a vile country

Iran is a country which should be alot further forward than it is (and has seemingly much potential away from oil). The aim of the US should be towards isolating the current regime because it is weak. Summits would strengthen his credibilty domestically

That is why i think Obama is wrong. Understanding foreign affairs does seem to be a weak point

deleted the reference to Dev cos he isnt worth the effort
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 4 2008, 11:51 AM
I cant find the icon of a head being banged on a wall.... but thats entirely appropiate
Click to expand...
Unlike your uniquely ham-fisted attempt to bring Ireland into the argument, which was entirely inappropriate.
 
Usual left wing drivel grasshopper

First point is total crap. Makes no sense. Iran has made clear its intentions to "wipe out" a state and its people. So its ok to "appease" them because they dont (yet() have the rescources to do so?


Oh wow. Hezbollah havent murdered civilians for what...eighteen months. All ok now is it?

As well as Hezbollah, its hamas too of course

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3512014.ece

Not exactly the same thing as Ahmedinejad actually committing genocide though, is it, which is what you asserted? I'll call this a retraction on your part, given that you have absolute zero evidence to profer that he is committing genocide.
Click to expand...

Yes. Its ok that he calls for genocide. Because he hasnt been able to do so, well pass on that shall we :rolleyes:



She may not be a 'world leader' (and I hope to Christ that she doesn't ever become one) but didn't Hillary Clinton very recently talk about "obliterating" Iran?
Click to expand...

In response to an attack on Isreal. As you may even know. Fair enough

I ask again - what would be the downside of the US engaging with Iran??
Click to expand...

Easy. I repeat. Giving credibility to a racist, holocaust denying regime that calls (regularly now) for genocide. And also boosting domestically (in iran) a weak leader who is a definate threat to regional stability
 
and why not Gareth? An example of anti semitic regime that the US should have broken ties with?
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 4 2008, 11:04 AM
Iran is a country which should be alot further forward than it is (and has seemingly much potential away from oil). The aim of the US should be towards isolating the current regime because it is weak. Summits would strengthen his credibilty domestically

That is why i think Obama is wrong. Understanding foreign affairs does seem to be a weak point
Click to expand...
Finally. This at least has some coherency.

However..............it assumes that the current regime is "weak" (is it?), and that isolating it would be the best policy - my assumption being that the desired outcome is a more moderate regime replaces it?

IMO, all isolating the regime does, is give the Ahemdinejad a big stick to wave which props-up his argument that the US is anti-Iranian, and that they are plotting something more malevolent in the background. For the template, please refer to Iraq.

This plays straight into Ahmedinjad's hands, imo, and has the opposite to the desired effect. It bolsters his position exponentially, if he is allowed to continue with his proaganda that the US is simply itching to bomb the ###### out of them as soon as possible. Under such duress, Iranian's are likely to line-up behind their leaders, rather than overthrow them

If the US were to engage with Iran, they might perhaps be able to explode a few of the myths which are perpetrated by Ahmedinejad and his coterie. If the US is no longer seen as a clear and present danger to the Iranian people, then Ahmedinjad's primary asset is removed. And Iran has a progressive enough democracy (realtively speaking) to throw him out on his ear at the ballot box.

I think Obama has a pragmatic view of Foreign Policy - mainly due to his age. Unlike McCain, he isn't stuck in a Cold-War mindset, where the only policy which works is front and/or confrontation.

He is much more subtle than that, and can see that there is more than one way to skin a cat (or an Iranian President).
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 4 2008, 11:17 AM
Usual left wing drivel grasshopper

First point is total crap. Makes no sense. Iran has made clear its intentions to "wipe out" a state and its people. So its ok to "appease" them because they dont (yet() have the rescources to do so?


Oh wow. Hezbollah havent murdered civilians for what...eighteen months. All ok now is it?

As well as Hezbollah, its hamas too of course

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3512014.ece

Not exactly the same thing as Ahmedinejad actually committing genocide though, is it, which is what you asserted? I'll call this a retraction on your part, given that you have absolute zero evidence to profer that he is committing genocide.
Click to expand...

Yes. Its ok that he calls for genocide. Because he hasnt been able to do so, well pass on that shall we :rolleyes:



She may not be a 'world leader' (and I hope to Christ that she doesn't ever become one) but didn't Hillary Clinton very recently talk about "obliterating" Iran?
Click to expand...

In response to an attack on Isreal. As you may even know. Fair enough

I ask again - what would be the downside of the US engaging with Iran??
Click to expand...

Easy. I repeat. Giving credibility to a racist, holocaust denying regime that calls (regularly now) for genocide. And also boosting domestically (in iran) a weak leader who is a definate threat to regional stability
Click to expand...
Damn...................you blew your credibility again with all this tosh.

Iran has NOT made it's intention clear to "wipe out" a nation and it's people, and there is NO CALL for genocide against the Jews from Iranians - not even Ahmedinjad. If there was, then Jews living in Iran right now - this very day - would be piling-up in body-bags in the street.

This point about genocide against Israel by Iran is fundamental (pardon the pun) to your whole argument - this belief you have that if/when they acquire nukes, Iran will thinks it's 'game-on', and immediately start lobbing them into Israel. It is an utterly preposterous argument, and impossible to back-up.

It is also old ground that we have covered before, and I have no intention of going there again, as you are too set in your opinion to actually have an objective view on it.
 
Some of that might be true, but again, appeasment of regimes with attitudes such as shown by the president of iran has not worked. the Hitler comparison is justified. In fact, Hitler did not actually state he was going to "wipe Out" certain states or peoples beforehand, so could be argued that his stance was more moderate....

I think hes alot of hot air myself but within Iran there is apparently a lot of unease with his continuing sabre rattling and even within the ayatollahs (let alone the large urban middle class) there is a desire to get off this stupid pedestal

Iranians know full well that they will be attacked by teh US if they attack isreal. That will not change. Its up to them to decide whether they want a leader who is seemingly intent on dragging his country into such a war

Isloationism will send the message that the US (and the west) consider him to be just such a threat
 
Yes we have been through this befoe

He keeps stating that he wants to "wipe out" Israel but as the hand wringing lefties always like to tell us about their extremist muslim brothers "they dont really mean it"

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.
Click to expand...

And just last week...

of course, israel will no doubt be "erased" in a peaceful manner wont it?
 
Yes Clivex...............but as we have said before................he refers to the State of Israel, and not the Jewish population...........................and for genocide to take place, it needs to be committed against a race - not a State......................ergo, it isn't genocide that he is proposing.................it is the end of the State of Israel.

Now, I'm not saying that that is a desirable outcome - quite the contrary in fact. All I'm doing is pointing out that attaching the epithet "genocidal" to Ahmedinjad, is incorrect on a number of levels.

"Arsehole" would be much more appropriate.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 4 2008, 11:36 AM
Some of that might be true, but again, appeasment of regimes with attitudes such as shown by the president of iran has not worked. the Hitler comparison is justified.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but isolationism hasn't worked either.

Let's look at Syria. A few short years ago, they were vying for Axis of Evil status. Now, not only are they allowing UN inspectors in there, they are also (allegedly) assisting the US with their rendition programme.

We have to ask ourselves "What caused the change in attitude?".

Was it down to isolating Assad's regime, or was it down to engaging with him?

I'll be honest, and tell you I don't know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

Still don't think the Hitler comparison is in any way justified, and think you have failed to prove your point on that one.
 
Yes Clivex...............but as we have said before................he refers to the State of Israel, and not the Jewish population...........................and for genocide to take place, it needs to be committed against a race - not a State......................ergo, it isn't genocide that he is proposing.................it is the end of the State of Israel.
Click to expand...

I think that given the present circumstances and as he knows full well, one cannot be achieved without the other
 
Wasnt that down to the change in leadership in Syria?

they are also (allegedly) assisting the US with their rendition programme.
Click to expand...

This is largely down to their fear of AQ and other fundamentalists
 
Back
Top