(I know there are a lot of links in this post. If you doubt the veracity of a statement, just click.)
Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave us these and many, many other thoughts to ponder:
MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully [sic], with security.
~ and ~
QUESTION: Mr. President… Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom…
In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country. We don’t have that in our country.
~From President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University, September 24, 2007
This morning, Thomas from Snowmass called President Ahmadinejad a sociopath. I could not agree more. What are some of the defining characteristics of a sociopath?
- Tendency to violate the rights of others
- Lack of remorse for hurting others
- Superficial charm
- Recklessness, impulsivity
Dr. Jaffrey questioned the wisdom of allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. Ordinarily, I think the more light you can shine on a turd, the more people will avoid stepping in it, which kind’ve puts me in agreement with Michael… But after reading several pages of comments on this BBC News forum, I’m pretty sure Dr. Jaffrey is correct. For example,
The president of Iran had a wonderful chance at Columbia to act as the more educated and civil person, and he used that chance.
America needs to recognize that Iran’s hostilities will not falter as long as ours hold so high. A little bit of trust could make [Iran] no longer have desire to use the weapons they may or may not have. Unless the west intends on starting a war, it may be beneficial to placate them, otherwise we won’t make any progress whatsoever…
~Galen, Connecticut, USA [Comment on a BBC News forum]
Cheers,
Iran’s president is an obvious idiot, but no more so than our own, who also exhibits the characteristics of a sociopath.
Why anyone gives any credence to what either of these guys says is beyond me. If it weren’t for the fact that these are probably the world’s two most dangerous leaders, we could very well just ignore them.
That was mild, G. I rather thought you would have come at this subject with something a bit more vitriolic… maybe something like:
Let’s just dismiss Ahmadinejad and convert this thread into soapbox for your impeachment efforts.
Cheers,
Geez Mitch! I didn’t know you were so serious about wanting to dissect Ahmedinejad’s sociopathic mind.
By all means, dissect away, I’ll keep my apparently one-track view out of it.
Hey, I am told I have a one track mind too…but it doesn’t involve politics…. : )
Down, Simba, er, Alpha… G describes herself as happily married. Just ask Ibbotson.
Cheers,
BTW–I can’t believe Ibbotson doesn’t have a wikipedia entry… then again, maybe he moved to Woody Creek to avoid one…
I say we let this Awccckkkhh(clear your throat)mennaajhaaaad dude be heard. I have a fundamental problem with squelching and deleting and editing so as to promote an agenda.
If we are truly a democracy, and if we truly have a foriegn policy of promoting and fostering and conducting and spreading democracy throughout the world — with perhaps our own agendas and corporate influences in mind…. then perhaps we should do the fundamental right thing — i.e…. dont’ filter or shelter or alter info. Let the man speak, like him or loathe him. Let him has his say. Let the American people decide (fair and balanced reporting?…. HAH!)
Two be honest, right now, here and now…. I think Bush and Iranian president are two leaders we all should be fearing and investigating.
Lastly, before I move on… only have a few minutes….
I seriously have a problem with the fact that our government officials a the highest levels won’t even take a phone call from him, instead labeling him as a quacko.
What ever happened to diplomacy, to sitting down in closed door sessions and figuring out how we could just simply @#$%$ get along for the betterment of all peoples???
But, we are all too busy paying mortgages, putting food on the table, caring for our kids, and the world and it’s shenanigans are enveloping the very fabric and security we have the right to vote for, participate in and perhaps change. Sheesh, I’ve got soooo much to say. Gotta run, seriously….. — BJT
[I say we let this Awccckkkhh(clear your throat)mennaajhaaaad dude be heard.]
This puts you in agreement with the President of Iran, Chimpie McHalliburton, Michael Conniff, and me, before I read the BBC comments.
[I think Bush and Iranian president are two leaders we all should be fearing and investigating.]
And this puts you in agreement with the fetching Mrs. G.
[I seriously have a problem with the fact that our government officials a [sic] the highest levels won’t even take a phone call from him, instead labeling him as a quacko.]
What? You won’t answer the door when you see a pair of young, clip-on’d Mormon men walking down the street, or Jehovah’s Witnesses handing out Watch Towers, but you’ll take an unsolicited phone call from the President Iran?
Where’s your freedom of religion, man?
Cheers,
Like him or loathe him, he is the official head of a nation. As such, our political leaders have an obligation to let him have his say, and preferably to at least listen, rather than walking out on him in the U.N.
I have a sneaking suspicion that our leaders have no interest in diplomacy. They have strategic plans for Iran that don’t include talking things over. The demonization of Iran’s leader is the first step in convincing Americans what must be done.
Let’s see, axis of evil, brutal leader, weapons of mass destruction…hmmm…where have I heard that before?
But enough about that, let’s talk about impeachment…
[let's talk about impeachment...]
OK.
In a recent article, George F. Will says, “Two days before Christmas in 1967, President Lyndon Johnson, visiting the Vatican, presented Pope Paul VI with a foot-high bust of Lyndon Johnson. Small choices can reveal the character of a person.”
Where this talk of impeachment is concerned, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Had they not impeached Clinton, the idea of impeachment wouldn’t even be a blip on the horizon.
I have read several versions of Articles of Impeachment.
Then as now, small choices do reveal a person’s character.
Cheers,
[Had they not impeached Clinton, the idea of impeachment wouldn't even be a blip on the horizon.]
I disagree. Regardless of what has been done in the past, by presidents or parties, this administration has undoubtedly broken the laws of our our country. According to our constitution, they have comitted impeachable offenses.
Unlike in Clinton’s case, where the Republicans just wanted to make a point, presumably about the corrupt Democratic party, impeaching the current administration is not about partisan politics or punishing a president we don’t like. It’s about preserving our constitution and our freedom.
The framers of our constitution didn’t put impeachment on the table just so Nancy Pelosi could take it off. It’s up to US the American citizens to demand impeachment, not the whim of Congress.
But don’t let me sidetrack you with my pet issue, weren’t we supposed to be discussing someone else’s president?
Geesh, G, I floated you a puffball you could smack into Delta County, and you didn’t even swing at it… That’s so unlike you. More later… I’m herding soccer players in Steamboat tonight–kind’ve got my hands full…
Cheers,
I do enjoy Michael’s choice of photograph to bump G’s comment #10.
If I ever have occasion to meet Michael, you can be sure I’ll hang up my cowboy hat in favor of my USS Abraham Lincoln cap.
You don’t have to like a person to respect a person.
Cheers,
[You don't have to like a person to respect a person.]
I’m curious to which “person” you are referring. Bush, Conniff, me?
[Geesh, G, I floated you a puffball you could smack into Delta County, and you didn't even swing at it... That's so unlike you.]
You seem to see me as more of a fanatic than I believe I am. Have my past statements really been so passionate or vitriolic that they make my above comments seem tame? Maybe so. Maybe I’m just tired. Maybe I’m just starting to not care.
Nihilism is looking more attractive with each passing day.
[I’m curious to which “person” you are referring. Bush, Conniff, me?]
Actually, I was referring to no one. I was just stating this as a matter of general principle.
I fail to see how going Friedrich Nietzsche will give you rest, but if you seem to think so, who am I to stand in your way?
Cheers,
“Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other. The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.”
Wow, interesting topic…..anyone want to go there?
Sue, hopefully you are just tired. It can be tiring doing what you have been doing. Maybe its time to take a little break and pursue something less taxing and more enjoyable for awhile….like pumpkin carving. : )
Well it looks like I’m already damn near a nihilist now! Amazing how close to Taoism it comes; “there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.” Yep that pretty much sums up my beliefs.
And I often, especially lately, teeter toward “a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.” Maybe I’ll have to reclassify myself.
But I dunno, pumpkin carving sounds awful fun.