Turning Ahmadinejad Into Public Enemy #1

[zengrifter]

Turning Ahmadinejad Into Public Enemy No. 1

by Juan Cole; Salon.com ; September 24, 2007

(September 24, 2007) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.

The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.

Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran’s 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.

There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. ...

...more - http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...7&ItemID=13872

[moo321]

He has been connected to terrorist activity (and may have been in the building where the American hostages were being held). So he's not little more than a terrorist, he is a terrorist.

[jon]

Originally Posted by moo321

He has been connected to terrorist activity (and may have been in the building where the American hostages were being held). So he's not little more than a terrorist, he is a terrorist.

Funny we call him the terrorist. While we (as in US and Allies) have directly caused 4 major changes in Iranian political rule (one of which was a democracy), pushed 4.5 million refugees into their country, supported the use of chemical weapons on the Iranians, and exploited them for cheap oil. We also tried to bring Iran on the nuclear wagon in the 1960s. Islam would never have taken political power if we were not exploiting Iran.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by jon

Funny we call him the terrorist. While we (as in US and Allies) have directly caused 4 major changes in Iranian political rule (one of which was a democracy), pushed 4.5 million refugees into their country, supported the use of chemical weapons on the Iranians, and exploited them for cheap oil. We also tried to bring Iran on the nuclear wagon in the 1960s. Islam would never have taken political power if we were not exploiting Iran.

Eighty percent of the Iranian people are unhappy with the current regime and will throw it off themselves, with or without the U.S.'s help.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by aslan

Eighty percent of the Iranian people are unhappy with the current regime and will throw it off themselves, with or without the U.S.'s help.

I have no idea if that number is right but will bet my last dollar that 80% of the people of Iran will not welcome an invading US Army with flowers and kisses.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

Eighty percent of the Iranian people are unhappy with the current regime and will throw it off themselves, with or without the U.S.'s help.

We know that the Jewish polulation of Iran is not terribly unhappy.

What percentage of the US is happy with its current "regime"? zg

--------------------


The Big Question:
Is America right to demonise President Ahmadinejad of Iran?

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 26 September 2007

Why are we asking this question now?

Because of the furore surrounding the visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to New York for the UN general assembly session. He was greeted by headlines in the New York tabloids which screamed "The Evil has Landed" and "Madman Iran Prez". He gave his third address as president to the UN General Assembly last night, but only after a controversial meeting at Columbia Uuniversity, whose authorities came under strong pressure to deny him a platform.

How did he do?

He set out the policy of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear programme, and responded to questions about his troubling statements concerning his denial of the Holocaust and on seeking the destruction of Israel. But he destroyed his own credibility by asserting, in response to a question, that "in Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country". That comment earned him the most laughter – and boos – of the event.

So was the US right to try to silence him?

Of course not. The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, undermined his own case for freedom of speech in his insulting introduction in which he described the university's guest as exhibiting "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" and expressed the hope that Mr Ahmadinejad would not remain in office.

There are several problems with America's demonisation of Mr Ahmadinejad. Firstly, it confers on him a prominence in the Iranian power structure that he does not have in reality. It is not the Iranian president who wields the most power in Tehran: the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calls the shots and decides nuclear policy. Secondly, scare-mongering has proved counter-productive by enabling him to portray nuclear power as a priority and a matter of national pride.

The personal insults aimed at the Iranian president during his New York visit could also end up increasing his popularity at home, rather than the reverse. But there is also the grim reminder of Saddam Hussein, who was the last foreign leader demonized by the American administration and US television networks. With a figure like President Ahmadinejad held up as the representative of the "axis of evil" by the Bush administration, it can only comfort the position of the US and Israeli hawks who believe that Iran should be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon, by military force if necessary.

Is he convincing on the nuclear issue?

Yes, actually. He noted that Iran is within its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. ...

...more - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2998886.ece

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by shadroch

I have no idea if that number is right but will bet my last dollar that 80% of the people of Iran will not welcome an invading US Army with flowers and kisses.

Some would, some wouldn't. Iranian people are and always have been pro-American, and their culture is much more Western than Arab.

They're less tribal and more united than Iraqis, so there will be little need for a land army in in this war. The only reason we have troops on the ground in Iraq anyway is to keep the different factions from killing each other, with the most vicious one ending up ruling the country.

First we secure the Persian Gulf with the Navy to keep regional commerce going, while neutralizing Iran's meager air resources. Then we can level Qom with cruise missiles to decapitate the religious hierarchy, take out all Revolutionary Guard assets with raids from Bagram and carriers in the Gulf, and the secular democrats in Iran will do what they've always wanted to do to the Islamofascists.

[shadroch]

Wow. Still drinking Rumsfelds kool-aid after all this time.
Just out of curiousity,please name one country that has ever been successfully defeated by surigical strikes?Not to mention that the plan you propose is against international accords. Remember the You break it,You fix it rule? Or is that quaint and out-dated too?

[moo321]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Wow. Still drinking Rumsfelds kool-aid after all this time.
Just out of curiousity,please name one country that has ever been successfully defeated by surigical strikes?

The Taliban was defeated by surgical strikes supported by a much weaker ground force, which would be somewhat similar to this situation.

In fact, Rumsfeld, although he made many mistakes AFTER the initial invasions, did very well in winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost no American (and very few Northern Alliance) casualties, and the wars were over quickly. Really, the only thing he did wrong was not plan for a foreign-supported insurgency, and really couldn't come up with a plan after several years. Those were very costly mistakes, that still haven't been fixed. But they shouldn't blind us to the fact that his battle plans in both wars were actually nearly perfect.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by shadroch

I have no idea if that number is right but will bet my last dollar that 80% of the people of Iran will not welcome an invading US Army with flowers and kisses.

I agree. If the U.S. waits, they'll do it themselves and a million Iranians will die at the hands of their own government. As the nuclear threat looms nearer (whether or not this is a pretext for other motives on the part of the U.S.), chances are the U.S. or Israel will beat them to the punch. I don't think Israel has any phony motives in this regard.