Sweet Talkin W.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/international/middleeast/12IRAN.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/international/middleeast/12IRA N.html</a>
^^ This is what happens when you state that a nation is part of an "Evil Axis", in order to make your speach more compelling, even though relations with that nation were slowly improving and could've been a valuable ally in the middle-east. It's things like this that make me nervous about George and his crusade - he seems to lack common sense at times.
Why stir the pot? Why highlight the negative behavior of certain factions in Iran, while ignoring the things that country has done right in the last five months? Yes they have some hardliners in that country, but they also have some more reasonable politicians there as well - and the people of Iran are more open-minded and westernized than just about any other Arab nation...why antagonize them? Would we rather have a few hardline groups there burning our flag, or millions? I guess George doesn't care so long as he can sell this war at any cost?
Why not thank those in the Iranian government who donated hundreds of millions in international aid to Afghan villiages / relief efforts in the wake of the war there? For all his crookedness, Clinton would've been smart enough to recognize the sensitivity of the situation. Rather than slander Iran in a very public address, he would've addressed their leaders off camera. Rather than giving our enemies there fuel to garner public support against us, he would've found a way to diffuse the tension.
George has done an OK job up till now, but he really screwed up royally on the Evil Axis thing. All that served was to set an entire population against us that was not against us a short time ago, and to antagonize a nuclear power (N. Korea), perhaps in a way that will encourage them to get more involved rather than lay low. Iraq is Iraq. If you want to criticize them fine - they're going to detest us no matter what...but to bring those other two into the fold and make up this imaginary axis (nice WWII tie-in George, but this isn't even remotely the same kind of war). I dunno.
Btw, realized this is my 666th post. Perhaps I too am an agent of evil for criticizing the King of "Let's Roll" .
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
^^ This is what happens when you state that a nation is part of an "Evil Axis", in order to make your speach more compelling, even though relations with that nation were slowly improving and could've been a valuable ally in the middle-east. It's things like this that make me nervous about George and his crusade - he seems to lack common sense at times.
Why stir the pot? Why highlight the negative behavior of certain factions in Iran, while ignoring the things that country has done right in the last five months? Yes they have some hardliners in that country, but they also have some more reasonable politicians there as well - and the people of Iran are more open-minded and westernized than just about any other Arab nation...why antagonize them? Would we rather have a few hardline groups there burning our flag, or millions? I guess George doesn't care so long as he can sell this war at any cost?
Why not thank those in the Iranian government who donated hundreds of millions in international aid to Afghan villiages / relief efforts in the wake of the war there? For all his crookedness, Clinton would've been smart enough to recognize the sensitivity of the situation. Rather than slander Iran in a very public address, he would've addressed their leaders off camera. Rather than giving our enemies there fuel to garner public support against us, he would've found a way to diffuse the tension.
George has done an OK job up till now, but he really screwed up royally on the Evil Axis thing. All that served was to set an entire population against us that was not against us a short time ago, and to antagonize a nuclear power (N. Korea), perhaps in a way that will encourage them to get more involved rather than lay low. Iraq is Iraq. If you want to criticize them fine - they're going to detest us no matter what...but to bring those other two into the fold and make up this imaginary axis (nice WWII tie-in George, but this isn't even remotely the same kind of war). I dunno.
Btw, realized this is my 666th post. Perhaps I too am an agent of evil for criticizing the King of "Let's Roll" .
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Comments
Oh! Stop reading the NYT. It's bias.
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
When she asked him if he was going to watch, he said [benaffleckvoice]No young lady, I've got a war to fight[/benaffleckvoice].
Nothing wrong with it, just struck me as funny.
[
George has done an OK job up till now, but he really screwed up royally on the Evil Axis thing.
[][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what i think.
All that said. I do believe he is doing a good job, that his public statements have been accurate and timely (including those in question here) and that he has successfully managed to act with speed and calm. I also believe his whole administration is doing an exponentially better job than a Clinton/Gore-esque democratic one would have done. Maybe he's just a sobered up rube, but he's spot on in his criticisms here. Actually, his actions have been spot on so far.
<strong>A few things. I'm not American, but I think the nation has a pretty good set of ideas running it. I don't think of myself as republican or democrat, or conservative or liberal. I don't think GW Bush really won the election, and that a detailed unbiased study would eventually reveal he is not the fairly elected president of the USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea they finished that. Bush won.
"Evil Axis" - stay tuned
Oh! Stop reading the NYT. It's bias.
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
What? A newspaper that's biased?
How can this be?
And you don't happen to agree with it.
Does the book-burning start here?
<strong>
Yea they finished that. Bush won.</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHA!!!
No he didn't, so there
Scott, I thought it didn't matter where an article was published, merely the facts of the article?
All major news publications are biased in one way or another, but overall the depth of the Times' coverage and the quality of their writing eclipses most major news sources I can think of. In short, the NYT is not one of those papers where you can say "Aw common, look at the source." This ain't the Register we're talking about.
That said, I don't think it has been proven sufficiently that Iran - as a state - is a sponsor of terrorism. At least not the most recent bouts we've seen. In fact Time Magazine noted their disdain for the Taliban and their brand of Islam, especially given that the Taliban apparently destroyed one of their religious shrines in Iran recently. So to say they are behind the Taliban or are Taliban sympathizers is - at a minimum - way off. Let's not just lump all arabs together because they are muslim and don't like Israel, ya know?
I think the reason Bush is lumping them in with Iraq is because of the shipment of arms to the PLO (or wherever that contraband was originally going). However this to me is not state-sponsored terrorism either. In addition to being able to make the argument that BOTH sides of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict behave in an abhorrent way towards each other (and hence neither is anymore "terrorist" than the other), you can also make the argument that there are factions inside some of these counties that operate independantly from their governments. Hence you can't by default blame said governments for weapons shipments, suicide bombers or what have you.
Further, I don't know that George and his boys have looked into this Iran thing thoroughly enough. It seems to me there were many positive signs [in recent years] that Iran could be more cooperative than not during this war (if not a constant ally), but he threw the whole thing out the window because it is more convenient for him to do so while waging this war. Gives him carte blanche to attack them too if he wishes, because of all the chest-thumping patriots in congress and in America who want to make sure they get behind everything George does in this war (?).
Look at places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia -there are factions there who burn our flag and aid terrorists, but we don't label their country as part of this "axis". Why not? It just doesn't make sense to antagonize Iran and its people the way he did. There are a lot of good people in that country - people who in fact LIKE western culture. He just made enemies of them all by associating them with the arseholes who would just as soon nuke all of us into oblivion.
He spoke about them as if their actions as a nation were unequivocally evil or underhanded. That's just false and anyone who stays up on current events even a little knows this to be true. Iran had promise as a point of strength in the region for us, now it is just another enemy we have to fight. That's all I'm saying....
(Sorry for all the edits. I can't type worth crap today).
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<a href="http://www.smartertimes.com/"; target="_blank">SmarterTimes</a>
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
<strong>Scott so when something agrees with your point of view we should just accept the facts, but when an article is in disagreement with your world view we should consider the scource. Is that what your saying?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um yea. Make it up as you go along.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001673"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>
[quote]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/opinion/_12TUE2.html"; target="_blank">Staged but Spontaneous?</a>
The New York Times editorial board is even more confused than usual today, on the subject of Iran. Here's how the editorial (link requires registration) begins:
Millions of Iranians marched with unusual vigor and anti-American defiance yesterday to mark the 23rd anniversary of their Islamic revolution. Staged rallies on official anniversaries are not an accurate measure of the mood of a country, but in this case the turnout partly reflects a genuine popular backlash against President Bush's description of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil." His comment has clearly strengthened the hand of the hard-liners and forced reformers to prove their patriotism by denouncing the United States.
So let's see if we have this straight: "Staged rallies on official anniversaries," in the Times' view, "are not an accurate measure of the mood of a country"--except when it suits the purposes of the Times to say they are. Writing in National Review Online, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/ledeen021202.shtml"; target="_blank">Michael Ledeen</a>, whose expertise on Iran we trust more than that of the Times editorial board, says the Times vastly overstates the degree of anti-American sentiment among Iranians:
The largest estimate I can find of the crowd in Tehran is about 300,000, and while that may seem like a huge number to a Western journalist, it is appallingly small by historical standards. Over the years, the regime could generally count on a million or so enthusiasts, but the last time a million people demonstrated in Tehran it was to demand an end to the regime, just a few months ago. Yesterday's mob was an insult to the regime, a further demonstration of its weakening grip on the Iranian people.
By the way, the Times' <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/international/middleeast/12IRAN.html"; target="_blank">news story</a> on the rally includes this charming reference to "moderate" president Mohammad Khatami: " 'Our policy is a policy of détente,' Mr. Khatami told the throng clogging all avenues to Freedom Square in Tehran. 'We intend to have ties and peaceful relations with all nations in the world,' except Israel."<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/ledeen021202.shtml"; target="_blank">The Great Iranian Hoax</a>
Monday's mob was an insult to the regime, a further demonstration of its weakening grip on the Iranian people.
By Michael Ledeen, NRO contributing editor & resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute. He is author, most recently, of Tocqueville on American Character
January 12, 2002 9:20 a.m.
Today's New York Times carries an amazing account of yesterday's rallies in celebration of the 23rd anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. The account, which runs along the same lines as an earlier piece by the BBC, is so full of revolutionary zeal and enthusiasm that one wonders - Really! - what possesses these people. The journalists, that is, not the demonstrators. We know what possesses them, all too well.
The largest estimate I can find of the crowd in Tehran is about 300,000, and while that may seem like a huge number to a Western journalist, it is appallingly small by historical standards. Over the years, the regime could generally count on a million or so enthusiasts, but the last time a million people demonstrated in Tehran it was to demand an end to the regime, just a few months ago. Yesterday's mob was an insult to the regime, a further demonstration of its weakening grip on the Iranian people.
The story is even clearer when you realize that the regime knew in advance that it would have to work hard to fill the available space, and it pulled out all the stops to get bodies in place. The secret police, the Basiji, went around threatening students and teachers, warning of dire consequences if they didn't show up. All government employees, and all members of the armed forces were ordered to participate. The poor were told that if they didn't celebrate, their welfare would be cut off. Thousands of buses dragged people from the countryside to the city.
And still the best they could come up with was about a third of the usual turnout. That should have been the headline, and that is a big story.
But the Times and the BBC played it as a triumph for the regime, and a humiliation for the United States, as if the people of Iran had spontaneously rallied to their ayatollahs and mullahs in the face of George W. Bush's dreadful definition of the Islamic Republic as a country ruled by an unelected elite that represses the desire for freedom of the Iranian people. But Bush's definition is perfect, and yesterday's events verified it.
If the Times and the BBC wanted some really interesting aspect of the rally, all they had to do was listen to Radio France Internationale, which found a grim spectacle: a signup table for would-be martyrs. I suppose there was a big banner over it, "anyone who wants to blow himself up, sign here."
But not even the French could tell us how many volunteers they got.
Hehehe
Ya, its true, he won out of the votes that werent "dimpled", and not counting the people who werent allowed to vote, and a few other things...
Oh and dont complain about the Times of all things being biased... what was that sticker? Rich Country, Poor Media.
At least its not as censored as most.