TEHRAN, Iran - President Bush isn't the only leaderMust everything real happen in the world relate to what is happening
facing serious economic woes. Icy weather is causing big
political trouble for Iran's hard-line president, who is under
attack for mismanaging the economy as the country runs
perilously low on gas for heat.
More than 60 people have died in the cold, some because of gas
shortages in remote and mountainous villages, and even Iran's
supreme leader has implicitly rebuked his one-time protege.
in the United States. The article continues:
As with Bush, the economic troubles and growing discontentYou can not compare what is going on the United States to what is happening
come ahead of crucial elections that could affect the future
of Ahmadinejad's political party.
in Iran. You can not compare our "economic woes" to that of Iran. This is why
journalism has deteriorated Helen Thomas. It's an utter lack of responsible
reporting.
Heh. It seems like the responsible reporting continues with the Associated
Press. Very sad. Media organizations willing to throw integrity out the
door to make a political point. But really where in world do conservatives
get the idea that the mainstream media is biased?
11 comments:
Why can't you compare the US and Iran? It seems the article gave MANY examples as to why a comparison is merited, and you gave zero.
Even if you did manage to come up with reasons why you can't compare them (spelled differently? GPS coordinates?) you still can't go as far as to say it's not responsible. If comparing Iran and the US is not responsible, who is it responsible to compare the US to? Iran to?
Just because you like America better than Iran doesn't mean they can't appear in print together.
Our country is not running so low in gas in heat that people are freezing to death. President Bush is not a tyrannical leader like Ahmadinejad.
So no I don't see any comparison to the United States and Iran.
And what in the world does our election and possible recession have anything to do with a shortage of gas in Iran. Why can't American news wires write about what is going on in a foreign without inserting the U.S. into it? Honestly.
Oh boy. So, first off, we'll set aside the whole fuel shortage thing, since I think you know that MORE than 60 people die in the US from exposure every year.
Second, Ahmadinejad has about the same constitutional authority as your local Ombudsman. He has absolutely ZERO control over ANY law enforcement, military, or judicial functions of the Iranian government. Let's also not forget that he is elected by popular vote, with provisions for instant run-offs and referendums. No electoral college, no judicial involvement. That makes George W Bush, DE FACTO, more of a tyrant than Ahmadinejad could ever wish to be.
Next, our recession has A LOT to do with gas shortages in Iran. I'm assuming you may have heard about currency reserves, sovereign wealth funds, and the international system of petrodollars.
Just a teensy bit of research would send you a LONG way, BUT, let's just see if we can find any actual comparisons that may satisfy you. How about these...
1. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both believers in fundamentalist, messianic (zionist) sects of their respective religions.
2. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both very distrustful of negotiations and diplomacy, seeing them as weakness and preferring harsh rhetoric and hawkish maneuvering.
3. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both state sponsors of terrorism, with Bush sponsoring the PKK, Baluchi seperatists, and latin contras, and Ahmadinejad supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
4. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both extremely weak in domestic polling, owing much of their failure to popular discontent with militarist and aggressive policies.
5. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both very pro-nuclear, with Ahmadinejad aggressively pursuing a weapons program and Bush instating a US first-strike policy, as well as massive funding for weapons upgrades and advances.
Does that work for you, or shall I keep going...?
uj,
On point number one:
1) Bush is not a religious fundamentalist. If you think he is you really need to look that word up.
Ahmadinejad is the one who is anti-semitic and homophobic. They hang gays in Iran, did you know that? They have honor killing in Iran, did you know that?
HOW IN THE WORLD IS OUR AMERICAN SOCIETY ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT!
2) Bush is not a state sponsor or terror. Our military is KILLING terrorists. Quite the opposite.
3) I can care less about polling.
4) "Bush instating a US first-strike policy.."
We were the ones hit on 9/11. Have you forgotten that?
1. Uhhh...Bush isn't an Evangelical? Are you just THAT uninformed, or purposefully mincing words?
Also, stop using Ahmadinejad's name as a stand-in for the Iranian government. I don't know how else to explain it to you that he is not a dictator, but is actually ELECTED. How can I be clearer, please tell me?
Please note that NOWHERE was I defending, justifying, or even REFERENCING the punitive measures of Islamic Sharia Law (honor killings, etc). Stay on topic.
2. Do your research. The PKK, Baluchi separatists, MEK, the Contras, ALL are recognized as terrorist organizations, ALL are supported by the US Government. I didn't say anything about Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, or al-Qaeda. Stay on topic.
3. Good for you that you don't care about polling, but I believe we were talking about comparisons between Iran and the US, not your likes and dislikes. Stay on topic.
4. 9/11 was not a nuclear attack. Furthermore, Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. I was talking about nuclear policy. STAY ON TOPIC.
Yes, Bush is an evangelical. So what? Because he's an evangelical that means it's ok to compare him to a religious nut who oppresses his people. They are both religious therefore they are both terrorist.
Is that your logic?
Where did I say that religion = terrorism? Point it out and I'll take it back, I assure you.
And again, Ahmadinejad oppresses NO ONE. What will it take for you to understand that the Iranian President is a ceremonial coordination, NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE, position? How can you attack the media with such vitriol but still buy into the dumbass myth of an Iranian dictator? This is not a difference of semantics, it's a difference of FACTS.
Please read slower and more carefully before responding. If you want to talk about the inherent oppressive nature of Sharia law, or the human rights violations under the current Iranian legal regime, or even the fine pointed differences between Islam and Christianity, that's fine, but it isn't at all what I was talking about.
What were talking about then with the "Bush instating a U.S. first strike policy." Then you said you were talking abut nukes. Bush hasn't nuked anyone.
5. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both very pro-nuclear, with Ahmadinejad aggressively pursuing a weapons program and Bush instating a US first-strike policy, as well as massive funding for weapons upgrades and advances.
What does First Strike mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike
For more on Bush's nuclear policy, here's the first thing off Google (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22227), I trust you can find more.
Ok, thanks for link. I now know what are talking about.
By the way your link states this,
"In the April 17 2006 issue of The New Yorker,[3] Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported on the Bush Administration's purported plans for an air strike within Iran."
What is wrong with drawing up a plan for air strikes that will get rid of enriched uranium facilities in Iran? Shouldn't we be prepared and consider different options for such terrible possibilities? I don't think anyone wants to see Iran with a nuke.
"What is wrong with drawing up a plan for air strikes that will get rid of enriched uranium facilities in Iran? Shouldn't we be prepared and consider different options for such terrible possibilities? I don't think anyone wants to see Iran with a nuke."
Well, first off, air strikes on Iranian soil would be an act of military aggression, patently ILLEGAL, both under international law and US Domestic Constitutional Authority.
Second, yes I agree that we should be prepared for various outcomes, however, a Nuclear first strike on a half-hazardly armed third world country would be ridiculous overkill for all parties, first and foremost the people of Iran as well as the entire climate and environmental system of Central Asia. Conventional Airstrikes and Nuclear First Strike are two radically different concepts, and should be considered exclusively.
I'm sure most Americans, even some Europeans wouldn't like to see a nuclear armed Iran, but that is by no means a majority. It's important to understand the specific fundamentals of Nuclear Strategy, as opposed to defensive armament. The Iranian regime, while brutal and hard-headed, have also proven themselves over decades to be prudent and pragmatic strategists, ESPECIALLY with regards to military engagements. A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world, but it is the end of overt Western aggression against Iran.
It's a safety/survival measure. The closest analog I would recommend studying would be Pakistan and India. Nuclear for defensive purposes only. See also: Israel, North Korea.
Please don't bother with the "but Iran wants to nuke Israel" line as I think we both know how desperately naive that is. Israel has more nuclear warheads than China, not to mention the backing of both NATO and Russian(!!!) mutual defense treaties. Concerning conventional warfare, Israel is next to invincible.
Post a Comment