This man should not be allowed near nuclear weapons!

[Taem]

U.S. News
View archive | RSS Feed RSS Feed
Receive Free UPI Newsletter
Ahmadinejad: U.S. blocking savior's return
Published: Dec. 8, 2009 at 11:47 AM

TEHRAN, Dec. 8 (UPI) -- The United States is doing whatever it can to prevent the coming of the Muslim savior, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.

The Iranian news Web site Tabnak reported that Ahmadinejad, while speaking to survivors of soldiers killed during the 1980's war against Iraq, asserted that U.S. officials believe the Mahdi -- or the Hidden Imam whom Shiite Muslims believe will be ultimate savior of mankind -- is coming and they are working to prevent it from happening, al-Arabiya said Tuesday.

"We have documented proof that they (U.S. leaders) believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts (the Middle East) and he will dry the roots
of all injustice in the world," the Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule "

Tabnak also reportedly said the hardline Iranian president revealed plots by both the West and the East to wipe out his nation.

Link. I actually felt the FoxNews write up had more in depth coverage, if anyone from here was interested. I didn't post that one because I didn't want to offend.

Anyways, I thought that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the claims he did about the Holocaust a few months ago, it was to rally Islam extremists and piss of the Western nations, however after reading this tidbit, I now think this man might actually be mad, like Hitler mad. I believe that if he ever gets nuclear weapons, it would be very bad for everyone!

On a similar note, am I the only person happy Obama decided to send in 30,000 troops to Afgan to stop the Taliban? I see Obamas popularity is down below the 50% margin, but I think he's finally doing the right thing in the mid-East - what the hell was Iraq anyways? I never understood the purpose of being in Iraq if the people who attacked us were stationed in Afgan and Pakistan...

[Jester]

I've said it before - mixing politics and eschatology is a Very Bad Idea ™.

-Jester

[Lissa]

I've said it before - mixing politics and eschatology is a Very Bad Idea ™.

-Jester

That's been the Middle East since the British broke up the Caliphate. They, the Muslims, are trying to bring it back.

[kandrathe]

Link. I actually felt the FoxNews write up had more in depth coverage, if anyone from here was interested. I didn't post that one because I didn't want to offend.

Anyways, I thought that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the claims he did about the Holocaust a few months ago, it was to rally Islam extremists and piss of the Western nations, however after reading this tidbit, I now think this man might actually be mad, like Hitler mad. I believe that if he ever gets nuclear weapons, it would be very bad for everyone!

On a similar note, am I the only person happy Obama decided to send in 30,000 troops to Afgan to stop the Taliban? I see Obamas popularity is down below the 50% margin, but I think he's finally doing the right thing in the mid-East - what the hell was Iraq anyways? I never understood the purpose of being in Iraq if the people who attacked us were stationed in Afgan and Pakistan...

Actually... I'd prefer it if no one had nuclear weapons, but everyone had very accurate ballistic and short ranged missile shields. Wait... Wasn't that Reagan's idea?

[Zenda]

This man should not be allowed near nuclear weapons!

Many people all over the world felt that way about Bush and Cheney, the past decade. Just sitting it out helped. Maybe that's what you should do with the situation in Iran?

I actually felt the FoxNews write up had more in depth coverage

They usually have, when it comes to subjects like this. One could wonder how much coincidence that is.

On a similar note, am I the only person happy Obama decided to send in 30,000 troops to Afgan to stop the Taliban? I see Obamas popularity is down below the 50% margin, but I think he's finally doing the right thing in the mid-East - what the hell was Iraq anyways? I never understood the purpose of being in Iraq if the people who attacked us were stationed in Afgan and Pakistan...

So, the reason you'd like to see Afhanistan bombed is revenge? You do know that the official reason is to free the people over there from the Taliban? And that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?

[kandrathe]

So, the reason you'd like to see Afhanistan bombed is revenge? You do know that the official reason is to free the people over there from the Taliban? And that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?

Wasn't it to protect the CIA's heroin crop?

[Occhidiangela]

Many people all over the world felt that way about Bush and Cheney, the past decade.

Because they these "many people" were morons. Bush and Cheney were NEVER a threat to use nuclear weapons. All that talk/crap about tactical nukes was just that, talk.

So, the reason you'd like to see Afhanistan bombed is revenge? You do know that the official reason is to free the people over there from the Taliban? And that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?

The Taliban chose to ally themselves with AL Qaeda, in terms of providing them with a safe haven during the 90's. They also chose to protect them, rather than join in the party to hunt them down and kill them. That put them as co belligerents with Al Q, by their own choice.

Sorry, you are just plain wrong, yet again.

[kandrathe]

Because they these "many people" were morons. Bush and Cheney were NEVER a threat to use nuclear weapons. All that talk/crap about tactical nukes was just that, talk.

An, often heard refrain from the left. XYZ is so unbalanced they are apt to launch the nuclear missiles. Nixon, Reagan, etc. Don't you know? Conservatives are warmongers, and progressives are the party of peace (except for Obama, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, etc. etc. etc.). Interventionism is the crux of progressive foreign policy. Now we can throw back into the face of liberals and progressives the words of Obama's Nobel speech. "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason." Now we see that the President Obama, when actually given the job of deciding peace or war, acts according to the pragmatic reality of a commander in chief and reveals the ideological nonsense spewed by Senator Obama used to garner votes.

I am more troubled by the use of US military force to accomplish humanitarian, or political goals. We stray and risk straying toward becoming akin to the empires that we stood against in our very foundation. There is a vast difference between smacking down Barbary pirates or Nazi dictators, or defending our borders AND guaranteeing Iraqi women equal rights, spreading liberal democratic society, or preventing systematic starvation and rape in Darfur.

[Jester]

Interventionism is the crux of progressive foreign policy.

And what, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I (to say nothing of Dubya) just sat back and let the world run its course without interference? You're correct that Democrats are more interventionist than their image, but the other party is no better.

Now we see that the President Obama, when actually given the job of deciding peace or war, acts according to the pragmatic reality of a commander in chief and reveals the ideological nonsense spewed by Senator Obama used to garner votes.

What did Senator Obama say? If I recall his campaign correctly, he had two basic positions on America's current wars: Iraq was a bad choice, that needs to end, and Afghanistan was an important fight that must be fought and won. Sounds more or less like what he's saying these days, although the facts on the ground make things a touch more complicated.

I am more troubled by the use of US military force to accomplish humanitarian, or political goals.

All military goals are, in the end, political goals.

We stray and risk straying toward becoming akin to the empires that we stood against in our very foundation.

Aren't you already?

-Jester

[Taem]

I am more troubled by the use of US military force to accomplish humanitarian, or political goals. We stray and risk straying toward becoming akin to the empires that we stood against in our very foundation. There is a vast difference between […]

Stray? As in regards to our military strength spread out over the rest of the world? Because that ship has sailed long ago. It seems to me that we became like Britain many, many years ago - and keep getting closer to that model all the time. This could be another topic in and of itself.

In regards to using our military might for humanitarian needs, I'd have to agree that we're leading the pack on the war in Iraq and how we deal with Iran and the rest of the middle-east for that matter. The greatest tool to end this war is education - remember that! Our military campaign and humanitarian strategy must go hand in hand - teach these women and children what is right and wrong with their country, and they will grow up to change their world! It's a smart, long term military plan that must succeed if we ever expect there to be any long term difference. It seems to me that since Viet Nam, we’ve learned that you cannot fight these types of individuals (you can kill the man but you can't kill the idea) on their own turf. This is the only way to succeed, by being both the strong-arm enforcer, and the gentle educator.

[Jester]

The greatest tool to end this war is education - remember that! Our military campaign and humanitarian strategy must go hand in hand - teach these women and children what is right and wrong with their country, and they will grow up to change their world! It's a smart, long term military plan that must succeed if we ever expect there to be any long term difference.

Do you really think people react well to being taught "what is right and wrong with their country" by foreign occupiers with big honkin' guns? I can only imagine how well it would go down in North America...

There might be ways to put education to good use, but it's more than a little naive to think we can just waltz in, with our foreign concepts, convince the locals, and be home in time for Christmas. It doesn't usually work that way.

-Jester

[Zenda]

All that talk/crap about tactical nukes was just that, talk.

And all that talk mentioned in the first post is just that, talk. Sounds less threatening too.

The Taliban chose to ally themselves with AL Qaeda, in terms of providing them with a safe haven during the 90's.

That was before Al Qaeda offered help to Kuwait to drive of Iraq, is it not? How things can change.

They also chose to protect them, rather than join in the party to hunt them down and kill them.

Bad memory, or just selective?

link The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the United States would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over"

[Occhidiangela]

That was before Al Qaeda offered help to Kuwait to drive of Iraq, is it not? How things can change.

More stupidity from you, where's my surprise?

link The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the United States would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over"

You choose, selectively, to forget what the Taliban actually put into their first communiques to the US. "Prove it, then we'll help, maybe." "We hope the children of the people who died in the attacks will get justice in the courts."

No surprise at your attitude, and selective memory.

Your ignorance on display: I guess you just glaze over the sustained relationship between Taliban and Al Qaeda well preceded the attacks on WTC. This relationship is one of the reasons President Clinton penetrated Taliban/Afghanistan airspace with Tomahawk missiles: to attack a terror organizations base and training camps, since it was a terrorist organization, supported and housed by Taliban Afghanistan, which had attacked and killed people in American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, long before KSM got his plan off the ground.

Zenda: your selective memory is no surprise, given the rectal location of your cranium. I thank goodness that fools like you are not assigned any role in security or strategic roles.

Occhi

[Ashock]

I thank goodness that fools like you are not assigned any role in security or strategic roles.

Occhi

Think again :(

[Zenda]

More stupidity from you, where's my surprise?

Does that mean you didn't know? Bin Laden did offer help to drive out Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. It was the refusal, and the consequence that foreigners were allowed on 'Islamic' soil, that made him expand his activities. He was pretty unknown before that, here in the West.

You choose, selectively, to forget what the Taliban actually put into their first communiques to the US. "Prove it, then we'll help, maybe."

Is that what they literally said? Sounds like the situation needed some negiotation or diplomacy, then. Too bad your former president lacked such skills. Things could have gone quite different, for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyway, is the refusal of a foreign nation to hand over wanted criminals sufficient reason to declare war on them? When there are no mutual extradition treaties? When you cannot, or will not, even show proof of guilt?

This relationship is one of the reasons ...

So, having relations is enough to get bombed?

Ah well, my point was about the official reason why the international community is interfering in Afghanistan. It is obvious that you and many others have their own personal reason for hating a country on the other side of the world.

[Thecla]

I never understood the purpose of being in Iraq if the people who attacked us were stationed in Afgan and Pakistan...

Well, you know that when someone says it's not about the oil, it's always about the oil. There is only one sufficiently compelling reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to establish a client state (or, if you prefer, an ally) of the US, strategically located in the heart of the middle-east. Following the British in more ways than one. The desire was already there in the Cheney/Bush administration and 9/11 provided them with the opportunity.

[kandrathe]

There is only one sufficiently compelling reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to establish a client state (or, if you prefer, an ally) of the US, strategically located in the heart of the middle-east.

I concur with this theory. If you look at a map of the region, and then consider global strategic posturing of Europe, China, Russia, and the US. Baghdad is dead center.

I believe the US "knows" the real heart(s) of Islamic extremism lie in every nation surrounding Iraq. It was a convenient pariah state, once toppled and occupied, that from which the US might strategically project its hegemony to the entire surrounding region. Again, also in Afghanistan, if we maintain the concept of "special forces led" backing of tribes (Northern Alliance) friendly to our mutual interests, we can use our proxies (Karzai) to influence the neighborhood. I fear the ramp up of 30,000 troops is signaling either a failure of that strategy, or an intentional retreat from the Rumsfeld doctrine. I see the problem with the strategy change being that our only alternative US strategy was the same one that kicked the Soviets butt (with our subtle help from behind the scenes using the Rumsfeld doctrine).

But, in my opinion, the bottom line is not to own the oil, but the power to control the region, and thereby police the streets keeping the radicals on the run or chasing us around the deserts of Iraq, or the mountains of Afghanistan and Waziristan. The ultimate result being a stability in the price of oil, which is controlled by those who are friendly to the US and Europe. The same argument can be made for kicking Chavez in the butt as well, but we would be over extended and lose all three wars. We might be losing two as it is.

I object the the means, but not the ends. It is the means that inspire and give creed to wacko's like Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk. Which, in fact, make the ends harder to accomplish. I'm reminded of the monkey trying to get the orange out of the bottle by using direct force.

[Thecla]

I object the the means, but not the ends.

That's a bit like saying you agree with the goal of reducing the world's population, you just disagree with murdering people as a means to that end.;)

[kandrathe]

That's a bit like saying you agree with the goal of reducing the world's population, you just disagree with murdering people as a means to that end.;)

Exactly. Which can be either by action or inaction (Rwanda). And, I agree we need to reduce green house gases, but not by destroying the economies of the westernized democracies.

I like Win - Win, and Win - Win - Win scenarios. Anyway, the problem, as usual, is that people are not very good at patiently applying crafty and subtle nudges or containment over prolonged periods of time. So, the brute force technique seems to be the only way to accomplish the objective within the limited 4 to 8 year attention span of Uncle Sam. Which will likely either end up as Win - Lose, or Lose - Lose.

Here is another take on Iraq; Gulf War II was the US finally being honest and direct in attempting to accomplish a 20 year goal, albeit ironically deranged that they ended up fabricating flimsy reasons for doing it. Under Reagan, we simultaneously propped up Saddam against Iran, and traded weapons to Iran to fund the Contras. It appears our strategy was to have both sides kill each other. We then seemingly lured Iraq into a trap, or acted stupidly in allowing them to invade Kuwait. After GW I, we made a feeble attempt at having the southern Shiites and northern Kurds rise up against a semi-weakened Iraq with tragic consequences. Again, we were trying to get someone else to do the dirty deed of deposing Saddam. I made the point at the time of GW II, that if the UN, Europe, and Clinton had been harsher in holding firm to intense sanctions against Iraq, then GW II would not have been necessary. But, with the UN corruption and black marketeering going on, Saddam was regaining power and funneling it into building asymmetric and non-traditional forces. That was the growing threat, that Iraq AND Iran would both become nations who train and export terror squads throughout the world.

[Occhidiangela]

Anyway, is the refusal of a foreign nation to hand over wanted criminals sufficient reason to declare war on them?

Yes, since they had a record of aiding and abetting and harboring them when they attacked our embassies and ships.

You aren't even funny in your blinders on attempts at revisionism here.

Osama bin Laden offered to help get Saddam out. Zenda, I offer to help Mahmoud of Iran get the 12th Imam back. Equally useful offers.

I don't think it is possible for you to understand how silly you sound. Get your head out.

At MEAT: I do not think it matters if Iran gets nuclear weapons. All that would mean is that our President sends them a memo: "Hi, idiots, you are now targeted by our strategic forces, which you were not before. Nice job joining the nuclear club. Now you get to lose sleep every night."

I suspect Iran actually does want the nukes for their deterrent value, not for the apocalyptic fantasies people are bellowing about in the press. If you look at their strategic situation, a nuclear deterrent posture makes sense. They don't have a lot of friends, and a lot of their neighbors have nukes. India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel ...

Occhi