Ahmadinejad and the Erratic Mind of the Democrat Voter

Great article!!

Apparently you didn't get the memo...Obama is the reincarnation of MLK, JFK, and RFK all rolled into one messianic figure. The upside is that his wife might whisper her hate into his ears enough to guarantee a movement towards reparations for the slavery of blacks in America...and we will finally have a wide enough forum to slap everyone in the world with the truth of the matter - Islam is responsible for the slavery in America. Perhaps then, we can force Islam to pay reparations to blacks here in America. 57 countries, 57 class action lawsuits. That sounds just as reasonable as forgetting the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein.

Miguel Guanipa writes: "The problem is not that Ahmadinejad is merely pandering to the majority of Bush hating liberals residing in this country -- although there is a distinct possibility he has them in mind when he gives his by-monthly anti-American address -- but that what he says must enjoy the fervent support of a sizable number of the population in the country that he governs; otherwise, one would have to question how he ever became their leader."

I have met several Iranians who have told me most Iranians love America. They hope we will help them become a democracy.

The reason Ahmadinejad was elected was because it was all rigged by the Mullahs, who can veto anything in Iran.

Ahmadinejad doesn't need hugs or drugs. What he needs is a nuclear weapon parked up his behind with the caution that the next time he passes some gas Tehran is going to disappear. Unfortunately if BHO is elected the possibility of a nuclear war in the Middle East will seem less like a video game and more like a reality show.

I am imagining the thought of how the world would react if an Isreali government made the kind of threats to her neighbors that Iran does so profusly. Given the accepted assumption that they do actually have a nuclear arsenal would the world just sit by and let THEM provoke their neighbors with threats to their existance,I think not! Yet here a leader of a nation of 75 million can spout such threats with impunity and no one says Boo about it. I swear I woke up in bizarro world!!

The Left thinks it can have rational discourse with people like Ahmadinejad because they cannot grasp that there is evil in the world. They are always looking for "root causes" of bad behavior instead. And, of course, they never fail to blame America for what other people do. Bush rightly called Iran a part of the "axis of evil" because he understands the concept of evil. The Left just thinks that people like Ahmadinejad are "misunderstood". All we need to do is talk to them and make them feel good about themselves and everything will be okay.

There's going to be a lot more death and destruction in America before the Left is finally disabused of that notion.

As I recall Columbia University invited him to speak there so obviously some people in this country think he has something of value to say in the name of diversity! Pretty scary to live in this country with this kind of mindset so pervasive today! We certainly have a major problem with common sense today. It seems that many people in this country are totally bankrupt of any common sense and unfortunatley we may well find this out in November.

Being that delivering a dose of medicines into the mouth of A-jad is a difficult process, I say simply take him out. And I would think do it with an "agent" air attack, the perpetrators being veiled, then declare ignorance.

Our friends on the liberal side of this country have chosen to abandon any and all prescient thoughts or actions based on what has gone before. This self-loathing will only continue regardless of who is in the White house. America has reached an apex with nothing left to struggle against expect itself.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of morals and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight and nothing that he cares more about than his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John S. Mills (1806-1873) English philosopher and economist

A sad beginning -- as the sun sets 10/23/01
When the American Constitution was being signed at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin remarked that he had often wondered whether the rays of the sun painted in the chair of the president of the convention signified a sunrise or sunset for the new country.
There are no sides of right or wrong to be had in this great effort on which we as American's have had thrust upon us. Perhaps some would say, in our misunderstanding of other cultures, we asked for it. Others intone, we should have been ready. The crisis is clear, it is not the words, meaning or lack there of at which you battle with. Death. Death has come, for that is the crisis. The pen it is said may be mightier than the sword and yet those who do not life by the sword can still die by it. No, not a threat just a sad irony of the age we have awaken. Continue your protests, your marches and by all means express your constitutional rights. Death will wait for both the hawk and the dove. I have just nearly spent all my tears on the fallen. So many are gone and such a loss of our innocence. I gape at the void left behind. My attention averted only by the disillusionment of a civilization grasping for a solution.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency,
from dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler 1747-1813 most commonly attributed to
"The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee (1748-1813) (Scottish judge and historian at Edinburgh University)
However, this has also been attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Alexis de Tocqueville, R. G.
LeTourneau and others.

Ahmadinejad is not crazy. He is not mentally ill. He is telling you what is in his heart. He is a true believer in fundamental Islam. The number one requirement for a devout Muslim is Jihad. His Jihad is the destruction or submission of the infidel, that means you. He is required to use all means possible including lying. He is laughing at you because you don't believe him when he tells the truth. And sadly, he has a right to laugh. Western ignorance and denial is totally frightening.

The ranting mouthpiece
of Iran is nothing more than what I just called him.

He is absolutely powerless as the "president" of Iran.

This is why the current administration will not give him the time of day.

Follow this link and take a look at the real Iranian government.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

The real threat works quietly behind the scenes as a state sponsor of terror.

Michael Cuttler -- you are 100% on, but it takes years to come up with such simple, yet adequate explanation. The same point was made over 2 years ago at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com/blog.shtml#2006-04-15 but in our age of over-sophistication we just cannot comprehend that politicians can just speak their mind. We are so used to hearing spin from our own politicians that it became inconceivable to us that anything but spin can come out of a politician's mouth. This is a mistake as Mr. Hitler showed, and as Mr. Ahmadinejud is about to demonstrate again -- unless he is stopped...

The tendency to make your enemies objects of psychiatrists' attention so widespread in this country always amazes me. Hitler was a maniac, Stalin was the same, Lenin and Mao were saints but with a coo-coo strains interwoven. So liberal thinking goes. You were right on money with your statement "... what he [A-jad] says must enjoy the fervent support of a sizable number of the population in the country that he governs; otherwise, one would have to question how he ever became their leader." Believe it or not, but many people in totalitarian countries make a career out of it (or at least they dream about it before being defeated). Unfortunately most Germans and Japanese who fought in WWII are either dead or too old to spread out their pre-war thinking and young generation in many countries start from square one.

You are also right by stating that "This means that a good portion of Iranians are possibly somewhat disordered in their thinking as to how the world operates, to put it mildly." To be honest you cannot even blame these people for having so disordered thinking. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine what will be your thinking if all your life you were taught and learned only one really true doctrine from one book.

By saying this I do not imply that we really need to spend our time trying to understand their thinking. We just need to draw a line in sand, and say "Remember Alamos". We need to persuade them that, be they deranged or very rational, we are deadly serious and do not hesitate a minute to teach them a lesson not in words but in deeds.

When I finished writing of the paragraphs above I've read other comments and I was just amazed by the fact that all of us are saying the same with slightly different words. It really scares me. So many people see the death threat in front of us and unable to do anything other than sit and wait the death by sword if we as a Nation, make a wrong choice in November.

To Roxanna ~ your point about evil explains many of the decisions those on the left make when dealing with dictators, terrorists, and criminals. Liberalism is based on Humanism, and for them to admit that there is pure evil would betray their belief that there is no other higher power than man since evil's sole existence is dependent upon there being a source of evil, and a source of good. Many Americans, both religious, and non-religious, would call such sources God and Satan. Humanists cannot profess this; so they see anyone such as a Hitler or a Charles Manson as someone that could be treated, as you said Roxanna, if only we could find the root cause - the physiological source of the problem. I wish liberals would just realize that sometimes things just are what they are - sometimes evil is just evil.

Edward,
You have pinpointed our demise, but the masses are crying for bread (or gas). What are we to do?

Anyone who thinks like a dem/lib, and thinks they're going to negotiate with Ahma-dinner-jacket(?) would be better off teasing a cobra with a short stick. Anyone stupid enough to think they are going to negotiate with Dinnerjacket in good faith is a fool. They are using negotiations to buy time. Time is what they need right now and they're getting it. All of us Americans must remember that they do not see the world as we do. We must not fall into a trap of projecting our attitudes and psyche on these people. Obama says we can talk with these people like JFK talked with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What you may not know there, Barry, is that JFK positioned warships and put the entire military on alert with full intention of using them. That's what got the Soviet's attention knuckle-head. That's why people who lived through that time tell us youngsters that they were on the verge of nuclear war, because they were!!!

Michael Murry:

I am a conservative, I am also an atheist. I dont need a God over me to tell me right from wrong or prove to me the existence of evil.

Anyone being a member of one of the more foul, radical, intolerant and hatful sects of any religion that would strap their children in explosive laden vests so that they can martyr themselves along with other peoples children, you are evil and deserve what ever means at hand necessary, including torture in order to stop the abomination.

I dont play the moral equivalency game with anybody.

So many people see the death threat in front of us and unable to do anything other than sit and wait the death by sword if we as a Nation, make a wrong choice in November.

You are right, Leon. It's like watching your mother or father slowly dying from cancer or some other wasting disease. You feel anger, helplessness, pity, and fear. Always fear. Other people, not Americans, are always making fun of us because after 9/11, we toughened our laws on immigration and espionage. They say we have nothing to be afraid of. Maybe from the outside looking in, it may appear this way. But I can't help but reflect on the news today, where our own Supreme Court is going to overturn the tribunal laws for the terrorists at Guantamo Bay President Bush had set in place. Gee, isn't it comforting folks, to think these men who would behead you without blinking have the same civil rights as an American citizen? You bet I'm afraid.

Harry Truman thought he could talk to Stalin and get him to follow through on the agreements he made at Yalta. If he could just get the man in a room and the two of them had a nice chat then all would be right with the world. It's a quality most American leaders have. It seems Obama is no different than HST.
Truman learned the error of his ways. We have to assume Barack would, too.
As for the Iranians, they're a nationalistic bunch. Anything that pumps them up is fine by them. They love their nuclear program. They figure Ahmadinejad is just a whacko, and that he doesn't need to be taken seriously.
Privately, many Iranians say they yearn to come to the US and live in freedom. Publicly, they proclaim their loyalty to Allah and to the mullahs. They try to tell us that the crowds that scream death to America are just hired hooligans and that the rest of them don't think like that. They think they can have it both ways. Time will tell.

I Don't think Ahmadinejad is crazy at all. Evil intentions are evil, not mental illness. It's surprising to me how many folks, particularly on the left will think of his comments as insane, or childish, and therefore not take him seriously. It's also surprising and disheartening how many on the left think of President Bush as mad and evil, while Ahmadinejad gets a free pass for wanting genocide.
By the way, what did Israel ever do to Iran, anyway?

The USA (and, wow, Europe) needs a cabinet level "Department of Islamic Education", showing the impetus of the Quran, Ahadith, and Sira, whereby Democrats might actually be able to fathom Ahmadenijad's motivations. OF COURSE Robert Spencer would be the head. Just don't expect it to happen in either a McCain or Obama presidency.

Ahmadinejad is without a doubt certifiably insane.

He claimed that he was surrounded by a green halo when he addressed the U.N. General Assembly. He claims to be in communication with the hidden 12th Imam.

Seeing things that aren't there, talking to people who don't exist--these are the things of hallucination. The man is literally out of his mind.

Otherwise the man is a compulsive liar. Either way, he's not someone you can negotiate with.

'It's one thing if you are a foreign dictator constantly issuing empty threats against this country.'

But Soviet dictators never issued 'empty threats', they had enough nukes to endanger the US. In 1991, the Soviet Union admitted that at the time it had 45000 nuclear warheads.

The DPRK already has nukes and TD-2 ICBMs. Iran has been confirmed by the IAEA to have a 15-page manual which tells how to produce a uranium warhead. And an American spy satellite has discovered an Iranian missile factory which is developing ICBMs of the 6,000 km range. Iran is a threat to the entire humanity, not just to the Israelis. So, together with the Israelis, we must present a unified front. All for one, one for all.

A little context, widely known, frequently ignored:

Iran was a fledgling but vital democracy and an economic and cultural ally of the US when the we and Britain orchestrated a coup to overthrow their immensely popular leader in 1953, and reinstated theocracy. (Just to make this perfectly clear: The US, under two-term Republican president and former war general Dwight D. Eisenhower, intentionally converted a democracy into a MUSLIM theocracy.) And why? Because after decades of being bamboozled by the Brits, Iran wanted direct control over its own natural resources. This didn't serve our economic interests. So we put our interests above those of a sovereign, democratic nation.

SOME people might view that as imperialism - and by SOME people, I mean everybody who understands the meaning of the word.

However f***ed up their situation is now -- and I fully agree that it is -- we bear a large part of the responsibility for it. We helped sow the seeds we are now reaping in the Middle East. The US went off course 55 years ago, and now the entire world, including we, must deal with the blowback.

Now, whether we need to intervene in Iran or not is a worthwhile discussion, but even if the answer is yes, we can't afford to be as ham-fisted as we have been in Iraq, because just like in 1953, we are sowing seeds which will bear fruit in the future.

Take an honest look at how that worked out for us last time.

Perspicio,
"Theocracy" was not implemented in Iran until the 1979 overthrow of the Shah by the revolutionary group led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a secret Communist even more secretly backed by the USSR, and who had previously hidden himself in France under the protection of the French communist party at the direction of the KGB.

The 1953 events to which you refer was the firing of an elected president of Iran by saidsame Shah, who, as king, had the constitutional authority to do so. This president in 1953 intended to make Iran into a satellite nation of the USSR.

Your confusion is understandable. This story from 1953 is usually attributed as a "CIA coup" that "overthrew a democratically elected leader" and "installed" a despot, the Shah, when in fact the Iranian constitution kept the Shah as king all along.

Read some history, take your medications. What happened in 1979, however, did have powerful Amercian backers-- Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, who is currently an adviser to the Obama campaign.

Among the Shah's crimes to the socialist Revolutionary Islamic government of Iran-- he recognized Israel and gave citizenship and legal status to Jews inside of Iran, and was a devoted friend of the United States.

Dementia,

You are correct: Upon review I see that, in failing to verify my rusty recollection of Iranian history, I did, in fact, misspeak about when theocracy came to Iran. So I ignored your unnecessarily insulting tone (perhaps some Sarcasma for you?), took your suggestion, and boned up on it.

Having done so, I see that you are confused about the facts as well. You claim that the events of 1953 were not an orchestrated coup d'état, but the historical record states otherwise, unequivocally, in the words of the planners themselves. This report was written in the immediate aftermath of the coup, and reflects the political reasoning used to justify it at the time.

A particularly good retrospective analysis of major events in world history involving Iran since World War II, which neither demonizes nor lauds any party, is available in text or audio form here. I highly recommend it.

My overall point remains the same. Lack of foresight has led to serious, difficult, and unintended consequences in US-Iran relations in the past. We should be very careful how we proceed from here.