Iranian President Ahmadinejad visits Columbia University

[AmerikazMost]

You know, knowing about all the shit the us did in the last few decades and the shit they are still doing to this day makes it sound so damn laughable to hear them talking about what other countries should/shouldnt do to make this world a better place.

You could start with what we did a few decades ago with saving Europe from National Socialism, and then Western Europe from Stalinism. I didn't remember the French issuing a "De Gaulle Plan." The Western European economy, not excluding Britain, would have more than likely collapsed if not for America, so can it about American foreign policy.

Europe has the unique diplomatic advantage of being our allies. They were able to sit back, build up their economy and diplomatic strength while the U.S. did the vast majority of the West's dirty work--the West's, not the United States'.

Everyone thinks their sooooooooo innocent and can point fingers at the U.S. all of the time. I'm sick of the political and historical ignorance on this forum. I bash things America does as much as anyone, but where are the threads about Putin essentially taking sole control of the government? Or about how Europe continues to harass countries like Romania about their civil rights histories? Or any other wrongs in this world that the U.S. doesn't have a hand in?

 

[S O F I]

America has already offered to provide Iran with the nuclear fuel necessary to run nuclear power plants, so long as Iran doesn't enrich its own uranium. That offer was refused.

Ahmadinejad addresses this issue in the videos I provided. He named almost 10 western countries that made all types of contracts with Iran and backed out of them and left Iran stuck. Surely, you could see why Iran wouldn't accept the offer. The trust is not there. I'm not saying that Iran is not planning to enrich uranium, but I find it logical that Iran shouldn't trust the US since the US sees it as an enemy.

And I can't believe anyone would try to argue with a straight face that Ahmadinejad, when he says Israel should be wiped off the map, intends or means that it should be done so peacefully.

Peacefully, no, but it wouldn't be Final Solution 2, either.

 

[Preach]

It's easy to judge when you are living in a country where you don't have to worry about your house being demolished or your family being exiled without the possibility of returning to their own home any time soon. You don't have to wake up to gun shots every day in the morning. You sleep soundly every day. You see, palestine is the land of it's original inhabitants not of those that migrated to it after Hitler did what he did.

When was this, sixty years ago? And the people living there today should now halt everything and hand the land over when there's no point. The whole beef is over religion right? The jews mean they have the right to own the land, the arabs mean they have the right to own it? Who is to say who is right? The lands are divided now, it happened sixty years ago, learn to co-exist please.

Unfortunately, the people that used to live in palestine were manipulated and cheated out of their land. then superpowers aided the Zionists with man power and weapons and many other things to take over the land.

Great Britain controlled the area and made the state of Palestine, then later the "two great Jewish nations" were divided into four or more states after world war 2. Now it's been sixty years. Should the people who grew up there and live there today just relinquish their ownership of their home? Becaaause?

sociopath? that's funny. Last time I've heard is that Bush is the one invading countries not Ahmadinejad. I believe that every country has the right to develop nuclear weapons just like the US or Russia just to maintain their sovereignty. The possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons from Iran is as high as getting it from Russia, China, India, Pakistan or any other country.

Iran insists that it is enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes. I'd like to give Iran the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that the chance is high doesn't justify putting another country on the list of possibles.

Iran doesn't want U.N. inspectors inspecting their facilities, and signed a treaty. This is suspicious, I'm cynical and wouldn't like to give Iran the benefit of the doubt because there is no reason why I should.

Search the forum and find my thoughts about Bush. I am certainly not a supporter, again, that doesn't justify why I should trust Ahmadinejad.

And what does developing nuclear technology have to do with maintaining sovereignty? Norway is doing just fine and we hardly have a military lol. Norway was owned by Sweden, then Denmark, after world war 2. Against our will. We lost our sovereignty against our will after the Germans took over the country during world war 2. We never fought each other though.

It didn't stop the US from using the A-bomb against Japan even though had no nuclear weapons at that time. You see. what will guarantee Iran wont be a victim of the US or any other country with nuclear weapons such as Israel. Israel has shown that it will attack any country it deems a threat to it even without reasonable cause just like it did against Iraq and recently Syria.

That was, again, sixty years ago. There is a different president in the U.S. today. I followed the Israel/Hizbollah war on several news channels from the start. I was in another country and only the news channels weren't dubbed. This piece from Wiki I remeber vividly. I didn't smoke pot while I stayed there so I actually remember this quite well:

"The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns, wounding several civilians, as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence."

Yes, I know that's just one of the wars, but I just wanted to point that out anyway.

I won't dignfy this with an answer.

Yeah because that's so far out there. I was partially throwing a wild suggestion there to paint an abstract image, but to be more direct, I'm certainly open to him having some radical ideas. I never rule anything out.

 

[Jokerman]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jokerman]

I'm really surprised that Bush and Amadinejad don't get along better, since they're both such idiots.

 

[Sebastian]

You could start with what we did a few decades ago with saving Europe from National Socialism, and then Western Europe from Stalinism. I didn't remember the French issuing a "De Gaulle Plan." The Western European economy, not excluding Britain, would have more than likely collapsed if not for America, so can it about American foreign policy.

Yes, i could start with that...but then, getting closer to today, there would be no "good actions" anymore. Or rarely i would say. It has changed.

Everyone thinks their sooooooooo innocent and can point fingers at the U.S. all of the time. I'm sick of the political and historical ignorance on this forum. I bash things America does as much as anyone, but where are the threads about Putin essentially taking sole control of the government?

There are no threads because there is no one who would defend Putin. So, it makes no sense if we all agree with each other.

Or about how Europe continues to harass countries like Romania about their civil rights histories? Or any other wrongs in this world that the U.S. doesn't have a hand in?

To harass romania about their history? What do you mean?

 

[AmerikazMost]

Yes, i could start with that...but then, getting closer to today, there would be no "good actions" anymore. Or rarely i would say. It has changed.



There are no threads because there is no one who would defend Putin. So, it makes no sense if we all agree with each other.



To harass romania about their history? What do you mean?

Romania and Bulgaria. Harass was probably too strong of a word though. In short, they continue to demand reforms from the countries even after accepting them as worthy enough to be in. Romania and Bulgaria have made "significant progress," yet the EU insist on further reforms--there, and no where else, by the way--and they could face heavy punishments if they don't.

Point is that some countries in Europe (I won't mention any names) think that their shit doesn't stink, and using Romania and Bulgaria's recent history against them is a good way of stroking their own penises.


No good actions anymore? How about when Clinton basically single-handedly ended the Kosovo conflict? Or stopping Saddam from annihilating the Kurds? Bush sucks ass, but Europeans these days talk shit on the United States as if this asshole erases every good act we've ever made or everything the country stands for.

I don't remember threads about Great Britain being America's lackey and following Bush around blindly through Iraq. Why isn't Britain this shameless entity that is nothing but a shell of its former prowess?

I'm ashamed of what Bush has done for our reputation. What I'm more ashamed of are the idiots in America that voted for him and the idiots across the Atlantic who are so narrowed-minded when it comes to world politics and history.

 

[Sebastian]

Romania and Bulgaria. Harass was probably too strong of a word though. In short, they continue to demand reforms from the countries even after accepting them as worthy enough to be in. Romania and Bulgaria have made "significant progress," yet the EU insist on further reforms--there, and no where else, by the way--and they could face heavy punishments if they don't.

Well, of course the eu demands reforms. Whats so bad about it? They are light-years behind germany, france, etc when it comes to infrastructure and so on.

Point is that some countries in Europe (I won't mention any names) think that their shit doesn't stink, and using Romania and Bulgaria's recent history against them is a good way of stroking their own penises.

Why dont you mention any names? Are you scared?lol

No good actions anymore? How about when Clinton basically single-handedly ended the Kosovo conflict? Or stopping Saddam from annihilating the Kurds? Bush sucks ass, but Europeans these days talk shit on the United States as if this asshole erases every good act we've ever made or everything the country stands for.

How and when did he do those things?

I don't remember threads about Great Britain being America's lackey and following Bush around blindly through Iraq. Why isn't Britain this shameless entity that is nothing but a shell of its former prowess?

I dont remember any threads either. But i share your opinion.

I'm ashamed of what Bush has done for our reputation. What I'm more ashamed of are the idiots in America that voted for him and the idiots across the Atlantic who are so narrowed-minded when it comes to world politics and history.

Well, co-sign.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Well, of course the eu demands reforms. Whats so bad about it? They are light-years behind germany, france, etc when it comes to infrastructure and so on.

I'm referring specifically to their civil liberties policies, not economic. Just last week I was in on a video conference with Ollie Rehn where he skirted around the issue when asked directly about the two countries by a professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

How and when did he do those things?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(September_1996)

As for Serbia, I would assume you know what happened there.

 

[Sebastian]

I'm sorry. I actually got the Iraq situations mixed up. What Clinton did in Iraq was destroy key military bases to take Saddam down a notch.

Was this move authorized by the UN? Or was it one of many solo attempts by the US?

As for Serbia, I would assume you know what happened there.

It was an UN maneuver, right?

 

[AmerikazMost]

Was this move authorized by the UN? Or was it one of many solo attempts by the US?



It was an UN maneuver, right?

Actually, I found what I was thinking about. When I originally wrote that, I was reading about a separate incident and thought that maybe my memory was failing me. I found a link for you though, and he did step in to help the Kurds.

Serbia was not a UN maneuver. It was technically a NATO mission, but it might have well been credited entirely to the U.S.

The United States ended the genocide and then handed over the rebuilding to Europe.

 

[S O F I]

LOL at Clinton ending the Kosovo conflict. If you call bombing civilian bridges with nato airplanes a successful mission, then by all means, sure. What Clinton did was put Serbia under horrific sanctions and when Milosevic wouldn't back down, Clinton bombed us. Civilian casualties, auto factories, bridges, you name it. I would know, I lived through it all the way to may '99.

Even without all that, Kosovo is a hot spot right now. The Albanians didn't get the full independence that they wanted for Kosovo (thank God) since our Orthodox brother Putin (Russia = UN Security Council) wouldn't allow it. Most likely, war will erupt again. It's sad because I know Bush was trying really hard to create that Islamic state in the Balkans to show the Muslims of the world that he doesn't really hate them. Clinton is already a saint, go take a picture with his statue in Albania.

Now, the Kosovo conflict was not genocide. There are American writers and news journalists who have stated that they were wrong in even mentioning genocide and Kosovo in the same sentence. Srebrenica can be said to be genocide, although that's debatable as well (no, it really is highly debatable). It has been established that there was no genocide in Kosovo! If anything, it was the Kosovo Albanians committing genocide. But, I'll give you "ethnic cleansing" since you Americans just love that phrase.

I admire you Matt for being attentive in class and a good student as your two recent posts reveal that you take in word for word everything that these American college professors say to you. You'd be surprised how many of them got their knowledge about Bosnia and Serbia from just news reports and biased western authors. Anybody can write a book! Also, Croatians hate Serbians with a passion, so take that into account when you listen to that lady.

 

[AmerikazMost]

LOL at Clinton ending the Kosovo conflict. If you call bombing civilian bridges with nato airplanes a successful mission, then by all means, sure. What Clinton did was put Serbia under horrific sanctions and when Milosevic wouldn't back down, Clinton bombed us. Civilian casualties, auto factories, bridges, you name it. I would know, I lived through it all the way to may '99.

Even without all that, Kosovo is a hot spot right now. The Albanians didn't get the full independence that they wanted for Kosovo (thank God) since our Orthodox brother Putin (Russia = UN Security Council) wouldn't allow it. Most likely, war will erupt again. It's sad because I know Bush was trying really hard to create that Islamic state in the Balkans to show the Muslims of the world that he doesn't really hate them. Clinton is already a saint, go take a picture with his statue in Albania.

Now, the Kosovo conflict was not genocide. There are American writers and news journalists who have stated that they were wrong in even mentioning genocide and Kosovo in the same sentence. Srebrenica can be said to be genocide, although that's debatable as well (no, it really is highly debatable). It has been established that there was no genocide in Kosovo! If anything, it was the Kosovo Albanians committing genocide. But, I'll give you "ethnic cleansing" since you Americans just love that phrase.

I admire you Matt for being attentive in class and a good student as your two recent posts reveal that you take in word for word everything that these American college professors say to you. You'd be surprised how many of them got their knowledge about Bosnia and Serbia from just news reports and biased western authors. Anybody can write a book! Also, Croatians hate Serbians with a passion, so take that into account when you listen to that lady.

Someone's a little touchy, I see.

The NATO airstrikes rendered the Yugoslav government incapable of effectively continuing their "ethnic cleansing" (since you prefer that term). Clinton and NATO didn't end the tensions, but they did end the armed conflict directly responsible for the mass casualties in the late 1990s.

Serbia's not going to break out into war again. Putin may be a hard-liner, but the EU is seriously considering subverting the UN and setting up an sovereign government there. Kosovo is going to be independent eventually. It's inevitable (just like Belgium breaking up). Serbia has no political capital with anyone but Russia, and no one wants to see more armed conflict in the Balkans.

There were also American writers and news journalists who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Serbia was only cleared of not committing state-sanctioned genocide in that incident, but the International Criminal Court found that it was genocide and that Serbia did nothing to stop it. As far as Kosovo is concerned, sure, the terrorist KLA sparked things, but I would call displacing hundreds of thousands of Albanians and killing thousands more at the very least "ethnic cleansing," wouldn't you?



Now I know you're particularly touchy about the subject since you took the low road and decided to attack me personally--I expected better from you, by the way. I do happen to be taking a class on East Central European politics, but no, we haven't quite gotten to Yugoslavia yet (although we will, and after we do, I'll be happy to go head-to-head with you on it).

As far as my American professor is concerned, she's a first generation Czech-American, whose parents were lucky enough to be outside of Czechoslovakia during the Soviet suppression in 1968. Her latest book, "Europe Undivided," won an award from the International Social Science Council in Europe, and she'll be delivering the Stein Rokkan address in Paris to the ISSC Congress. She also worked for the Czech Republic's President from 1999-2001 as an advisor, she taught at two universities in Prague and at Columbia before UNC, and she was also a Marshall's Scholar at Oxford.

Are those enough "non-American" credentials for you to take my resources seriously?

 

[S O F I]

Serbia's not going to break out into war again. Putin may be a hard-liner, but the EU is seriously considering subverting the UN and setting up an sovereign government there. Kosovo is going to be independent eventually. It's inevitable (just like [Belgium breaking up). Serbia has no political capital with anyone but Russia, and no one wants to see more armed conflict in the Balkans.

Yes, eventually. I hope you see that Kosovo gaining independence is a violation of international law though. But, blood will be spilt. If no one wants to see armed conflict, let Kosovo have autonomy, not independence.

There were also American writers and news journalists who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Serbia was only cleared of not committing state-sanctioned genocide in that incident, but the International Criminal Court found that it was genocide and that Serbia did nothing to stop it. As far as Kosovo is concerned, sure, the terrorist KLA sparked things, but I would call displacing hundreds of thousands of Albanians and killing thousands more at the very least "ethnic cleansing," wouldn't you?

When I mentioned American writers and journalists, I meant American writers and journalists that wrote about the conflict as if it was genocide and then retracted their statements some 5 years later. They cited different reasons, such as believing everything that village albanians would say. (ie. a village man comes up to the newsreporter and says that he saw a mass grave. the newsreporter reports it before the alleged mass grave is even investigated).

Also, the ICT is a joke. It's funded by the US and the criminal procedures are childish. Hearsay is allowed!

Watch a clip of an ICT trial and see what you think of it. It's a circus.

Now I know you're particularly touchy about the subject since you took the low road and decided to attack me personally--I expected better from you, by the way. I do happen to be taking a class on East Central European politics, but no, we haven't quite gotten to Yugoslavia yet (although we will, and after we do, I'll be happy to go head-to-head with you on it).

As far as my American professor is concerned, she's a first generation Czech-American, whose parents were lucky enough to be outside of Czechoslovakia during the Soviet suppression in 1968. Her latest book, "Europe Undivided," won an award from the International Social Science Council in Europe, and she'll be delivering the Stein Rokkan address in Paris to the ISSC Congress. She also worked for the Czech Republic's President from 1999-2001 as an advisor, she taught at two universities in Prague and at Columbia before UNC, and she was also a Marshall's Scholar at Oxford.

Are those enough "non-American" credentials for you to take my resources seriously?

^I didn't attack you, I thought I gave you a compliment. No sarcasm. The Croatian comment was referring to your Croatian professor on Eastern Europe.

Now, when it comes to recent religious conflicts, especially ones in the Balkans, I am extremely skeptical about anything that the media in the West reports. The conflicts run deep and are very complicated, not to mention that the media was very anti-serb from the beginning. Most professors these days haven't looked at the war from all three sides, haven't taken a course on it in a balkan country. Where else are they getting their information, if not the news and certain publications? It is not credentials that I'm attacking, it is mass media misinformation.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Yes, eventually. I hope you see that Kosovo gaining independence is a violation of international law though. But, blood will be spilt. If no one wants to see armed conflict, let Kosovo have autonomy, not independence.



When I mentioned American writers and journalists, I meant American writers and journalists that wrote about the conflict as if it was genocide and then retracted their statements some 5 years later. They cited different reasons, such as believing everything that village albanians would say. (ie. a village man comes up to the newsreporter and says that he saw a mass grave. the newsreporter reports it before the alleged mass grave is even investigated).

Also, the ICT is a joke. It's funded by the US and the criminal procedures are childish. Hearsay is allowed!

Watch a clip of an ICT trial and see what you think of it. It's a circus.




^I didn't attack you, I thought I gave you a compliment. No sarcasm. The Croatian comment was referring to your Croatian professor on Eastern Europe.

Now, when it comes to recent religious conflicts, especially ones in the Balkans, I am extremely skeptical about anything that the media in the West reports. The conflicts run deep and are very complicated, not to mention that the media was very anti-serb from the beginning. Most professors these days haven't looked at the war from all three sides, haven't taken a course on it in a balkan country. Where else are they getting their information, if not the news and certain publications? It is not credentials that I'm attacking, it is mass media misinformation.

Considering this is a thread about Ahmadinejad, I don't want to start a debate about what is "ethnic cleansing" and what is genocide, and whether or not the various things that Milosevic and the Serbian government did constitutes either.

And it was the ICC I believe (not the ICTY), which the US (or at least Bush) refuses to recognize.

And it was a bit of a jab at me. I don't just take in all of the information my professors feed me.

And I've never had a Croatian professor. I do know a Croat; she dates a friend of mine. She's a bit loony, I must say.