One of the things I learned about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Ted Koppel special was the intriguing parallel between Bush and his Iranian counterpart. Apparently much of the intellectual class in Iran thinks Ahmadinejad is a bit of a lightweight, heavy on religious rhetoric but not exactly there intellectually. His power comes from the rural parts of Iran, where the poor vote for him and his populist promises and while he hasn’t delivered for them fiscally, the religious rhetoric convinces them that he is their “man”.
Remind you of anyone?
Yes, it reminds me of your contempt for the poor and the religious.
Considering I and my family have and are both of those it’s kind of funny.
Oh, I don’t doubt that you do. But, one, they’re your family, and, two, they probably vote Democrat.
All poor and religious who don’t fit into those categories, you have contempt for.
Most of my family cannot vote Democrat because they aren’t citizens. I don’t have contempt for either the poor or the rich or the religious who make an honest living.
It’s the hypocrites I hate.
Awesome, Tuco! Way to defend the radical elements of Iranian society! You’re bitchin’.
Ahmedinejad’s position isn’t anywhere near Bush’s (not even symbolically). The Iranian ‘president’ is more like our secretary of the interior. It’s the ayatollah, the mullahs, and the clerics who hold the real political power. If Ahmedinejad has a great deal of popularity with the “poor and religious,” it is because it serves the purpose of the mullahs.
What’s more, contemporary Iranian society isn’t quite as uniformly radical as Ahmedinejad’s widely publicized rhetoric would seem to indicate. The Iranian president is more useful to our own militant blowhards (and their corporate media kiss-ups) than he is to his own constituents.
So what CS is saying is that Iran should be a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow the religious overlords all-encompassing control over public policy.
We’re not there. But we’re much closer than many of us would prefer.
I wonder if they both part their hair on the left?
That would clinch it, allright!
Lesse: First of all, you’ve been saying for six years that the rich vote for Bush, not the poor. But set that aside.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was most likely one of the student maniacs that held Americans hostage. I don’t recall Bush holding any hostages at anytime. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Which country has Bush desired to be “wiped off the map.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have the support of the Mullahs, as pointed out by Church Secretary above, and he could be in power for life. Bush is the ex-President in January, 2009, no matter what happens.
Now, can we get back to intelligent dialog?
“First of all, you’ve been saying for six years that the rich vote for Bush, not the poor. But set that aside.”
Yes, please do set this aside becuase it’s totally moronic. The rich fund republicans. The poor just get snookered by them.
“Which country has Bush desired to be “wiped off the map.”
Um Iraq, Iran, North Korea. You know, the Axis of Evil. Remember that?
Actually, BD, what I was saying is that Iran may not be as ‘evil’ or irrational a place as we’re told to think it is.
fd’s characterization of the student revolutionaries who stormed the U.S. embassy in ‘79 is highly instructive. If they were “maniacs” for holding U.S. personnel hostage, then what was the U.S. government, which gave unconditional support to the Shah who held all of Iran hostage for decades? The Shah was brought to power after the CIA engineered the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953. How many of our elected leaders have been thrown out of power by Iran? In how many of our wars– wars in which our nation was invaded, and in which millions of our citizens were butchered– did Iran give critical material support to our enemies?
This isn’t to suggest, of course, that Iran is ‘better’ than the U.S., or that the ‘Islamic Revolution’ holds any moral high ground by comparison. It is merely to say that before we go casting aspersions on another country, we ought to check our own bloody record.
fd, you need to get your facts straight before you engage in any “intelligent dialog.” Ahmedinejad’s ‘power’– lifetime office or not– is extremely limited. And I’d like to see the word-for-word quote where Ahmedinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map; I think you’ll find that as useful a loudmouth as Ahmedinejad might be, he didn’t say that. And speaking of maniacs holding hostages, the Bush administration is currently holding an entire country (Iraq) hostage.
You should educate yourself before trying to pass yourself off as clever.
You guys sure showed me a thing or two!
My remark about the poor voting referred to statements made by Oliver over and over again, not any personal belief of mine.
While I’ve never heard of “Um Iraq”, Pres. Bush has never — not ever — suggested that North Korea or Iran should be “wiped off the map.”
And, as to what the US Government was up to with the Shah, that is either a red herring or a non sequitur, take your pick.
And I didn’t say Ahmedinejad was extremely powerful, you’re disagreeing with something I didn’t say. I did say he could hold that office for life at the whim of the Mullahs. Or, as someone else put it (remember who?): “Ahmedinejad’s position isn’t anywhere near Bush’s (not even symbolically).” [Yet, again, an example of a difference between the two, not a similarity. Thanks for reminding me.]
Finally, the “friendliest” interpretation of Ahmedinejad’s words I found was this:
Nice fellow.
As for Pres. Bush holding Iraq hostage, that’s not even a good metaphor, let alone a fact.
I won’t make any remarks about your educating yourself. But I think I would try to understand, or at least question, a commenter, before I made such a lackluster attempt at debate.
“While I’ve never heard of “Um Iraq”, Pres. Bush has never — not ever — suggested that North Korea or Iran should be “wiped off the map.”"
Six and one half dozen of the other.
Bush’s rhetoric is eliminationist: He wants regime change in all three of those countries because they are “evil” and in the process of trying to achieve that in Iraq he just may have wiped that country off the map. We’ll just have to see how bad it gets.
Your attempt to draw some distinction on this point is totally moronic and it cuts the heart of why the right wing can’t be trusted to run our foreign policy.
When the president of Iran makes radical, irresponsible remarks, conservative hardliners in the US work themselves up into a lather about the “hitler of our time” and start calling for military strikes.
But when our President makes radical, incendiary remarks about other countries, by suggesting, for instance, that Iran is evil and that its regime must be removed, hardline conservatives in this country expect moderate reformers in Iran to suddenly rise up as if on cue to bring forth a new revolution and a full flowering of democracy.
In other words, they live in fantasy land.
Bush’s axis of evil speech and subsequent nvasion of the first country on the list, emboldened hardliners in Iran., just like Iranian rhetoric emboldens hardliners in the US. In Iran, the hardliners used Bush’s rhetoric to marginalize and discredit moderate voices of reform and dipomacy. Sound familiar?
You idiots seem to think that because we do our saber rattling in staid State of the Union speeches and polite Sunday morning talk shows that the rest of the world doesn’t see it as saber rattling. They do, especially in the countries so often bandied about as tragets for attack.
In terms of reaction, it doesn’t matter that Bush doesn’t want to wipe the “Iranian people.” The radical elements Iran still use his rhetoric to whip up nationalist, religious ferver anyway.
Radicals on both sides want and need enemies and rumors of war to maintain their power base. You don’t think Bush isn’t playing that game? You’re a fool.
“Bush doesn’t want to wipe the ‘Iranian people.’”
uh, that should be “wipe out” …
fd, if you were funny, you’d be a joke.