-
Website
http://blog.sojo.net/ -
Original page
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=330 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
neuro_nurse
1054 comments · 347 points
-
hammerud
434 comments · 44 points
-
justintime
698 comments · 64 points
-
SisterMarie
783 comments · 179 points
-
WaveTossed
1015 comments · 108 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Preaching the Whole Magnificat
1 day ago · 61 comments
-
You Shall Know the Truth
1 day ago · 54 comments
-
Copenhagen: Done. Next Stop: The U.S. Senate
2 days ago · 36 comments
-
Irrational Exuberance? You Got That Right!
1 week ago · 128 comments
-
Climate Justice Clips: More of Tutu’s Message to Copenhagen, ‘Join the Winning Side’
1 week ago · 108 comments
-
Preaching the Whole Magnificat
When you come back to the US, then you can speak about the possible differences between the views being expressed by the president of Iran and the people of Iran. In saying this, I'm referring to your mention of the fact that the group will be speaking with a variety of persons in Iran: "...Our delegation... will be meeting with a variety of religious leaders (including Christians and Muslims), civil society leaders, a group of female members of parliament, former Iranian President Khatami, and current President Ahmadinejad...".
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," was written about he Papacy, but it could as easily be applied to the theocrats who govern Iran. Not because they are bad men, but because they are human.
(So perhaps part of my question could be directed to Khatami.) I am looking for a direct answer to my question, not an evasion. (Assuming, always, that you have the opportunity to ask it.) Cheers!
Perhaps it started when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president and reinstated the Shah. Why? Because the new president wanted to nationalize the country's oil reserves. I have one word for anyone who thinks the Shah was anything but a despot: Savak. The U.S. has a very long history of creating its own adversaries. Peace!
I think hearing from this man would give him a sense of honor that he may feel doesn't exist. And remember how culturally diverse the Middle East is to our own. So much is about honoring and respecting the leaders. Also, for a nation to have animosity towards another there is usually something that sparked it. These are not just psychotic Muslims bent on killing the world....let's hope!
This is great that you are going. I have all the confidence that it will be eye opening and hopefully a spring board for OUR leaders to follow... Let's hope! tracie
I would also ask if having the disgust and disagreement of the entire civilized world directed at Iran is worth being a public proponent of the historically discredited position of holocaust denial.
Is there any chance that Israel and Iran could become good neighbors? What would move them in that direction?
Conrad Steinhoff
But, George W. Bush's approach to Iran scares me to death, so I'm not sure what should be done. Perhaps, in this case, talking is better.
Anyway I always appreciate your honesty and weigh your disagreements with my posts, and certainly understand what you are saying on this one.
My sense is that this delegation is looking to build dialog, trust, respect, and peace, so the questions I offered would only be of use if they furthered those goals. Still, our good will must also realistically express our honest concerns and apprehensions. Th whole idea of demonstrating that we will not allow King George ( or any single big shot) or the mega-corporations to be the solo mediator of international communication is truly vital, and I wish them well. May there be many more like them.
For security reasons, as of right now, we don't know exactly which day during our visit next week we will be meeting with the President, but we are working on our thoughts and strategy for this meeting already. I look forward to updating you all as the trip unfolds. Blessings,
Looking forward to hearing how it went. Keith
I figured you knew that because you were willing to ask the question. I returned to the U.S. in 1979 after having lived in Iran for a year. You'd think that I would have experienced culture shock moving to a country like Iran, but the worst culture shock I've experience was when I returned from Iran and when I returned to the U.S. after living in Ethiopia for a year. Part of the shock came when I heard the utter hatred and/or contempt of Iranians expressed so readily by so many Americans who really knew very little about what was going on in that country. I have the same feeling now when I read some of the comments and questions (yours is not one of them) posted here. Peace!
I wonder how many people have ever asked him what he thinks of Jesus, how he is inspired by Jesus, and then listened." Why not start with how you are inspired by Muhammad (sp) and listen.
For instance, in the last four years, which nation has been responsible for more deaths of innocent civilians than anyone else? It s not Iran.
Iran has not been aggressive outside its borders for at least 250 years and Bush calls them part of the axis of evil for what reason. Unless Bush didn t appreciate Iran s help in Afghanistan with the Taliban. A rule; "if it doesn't make sense then there is a piece of the puzzle missing", when you know all the pieces it will make sense.
Iran has not been aggressive outside its borders for at least 250 years and Bush calls them part of the axis of evil for what reason. Unless Bush didn t appreciate Iran s help in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Exhibit #1: occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Embassies are considered territory of the country whose interests are housed there. Exhibit #2: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID;=2&subContrassID;=1&sbSubContrassID;=0
Since you seem to be one of those unable to accept "Zionist" sources, here's a source you may believe http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1405510 Exhibit #3: do you really believe that Iran has no proxies in Lebanon? Exhibit #4: Afghanistan is outside Iran's borders. Therefore, you're rebutted by your own words.
Example #3 of course Iran has proxies in Lebanon as does Syria, Israel, etc and particularly the US Government.
Example #4 the way Iran helped was not to attack Afghanistan but to not give safe haven for the Taleban. All of your thinking is egocentric leading to one view which is both right and wrong but leads to serious errors because you can t see your own errors or compromises which lead to solutions. So, I repeat the effect of your ignorance is both dangerous and evil to its logical conclusion.
I have also met Americans who are largely ignorant of what's going on inside our borders. What does that prove?
love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:27 That s a tall order. I suspect there are those reading this who might feel that I am na ve to suggest that this verse is relevant to our relationship with Iran. I agree that we need to deal with Iran and the Muslim world in a way that promotes self-preservation, but our present course of action is pouring gasoline on that fire. We are only giving our enemies more reasons to hate us.
love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:35-36 I d rather take Christ at his word that try to rationalize my way out of being obedient to it.
However, there was plenty of dissent to this war in 2003. You saw it in editorial pages, political blogs, street conversations. Your whitewashing narrative just doesn't hold water.
It seems to me that the U.S. cannot point its finger at Iran and make that claim without appearing to be hypocritical to many people. There isn't a country in existence of which that couldn't be said to one extent or another, unfortunately. I'm not sure if that is something that any country should allow to constrain them from acting in their interests, though. What should we do when an aggressive country has no qualms about appearing hypocritical, as long as its objectives are achieved? Iran, for example, doesn't seem to care that it is hypocritical for them to be supporting the murder of both Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and elsewhere. I was shocked when I returned to the U.S. in January of 03 after having only the BBC on shortwave as my only source of news for a year. Shocked, because from what I had been hearing, there was no valid case made to support the invasion of Iraq. In the U.S. media, I heard little to no dissent on going to war with Iraq. My response then was as it is now, we were lied to. I'm not sure I follow you: you were overseas with only one source of information, but when you returned to the states you were shocked to find out there was different information than what you had been hearing? I was on the road a lot during the run up to the Iraq invasion, so I spent lots time in airports and hotel rooms. With nothing better to do, I read a lot of newspapers and watched a lot of news. My memory is that there was no shortage of either pro or con opinions at that time. If you felt lied to, are you sure the BBC wasn't lying to you? Even though I felt the case for the Iraq War was insufficent and opposed it at the time, I felt like plenty of information was available to whoever wanted to find it.
What I am concerned about is their insistence on developing nuclear technology and their threats to exterminate Israel. Whether or not we created this situation 55 years ago (and that is far from established) we must deal with it now. A nuclear bomb dropped on Israel is not an acceptable outcome.
Newspaper editorials were all over the board with different ones having a point of view, if one searched you could find good information. Fox was just simply a GOP mouthpiece. The only place I felt I received accurate information was public television and public radio. We might get better information from commercial news if they didn t have to deliver something titillating every night. Things like Frontline work on stories for weeks before they present them which makes it easier to get the story somewhat straight.
What about wanting to eliminate a nation? What about an established history of despising a race of people? Meaningless as well?
you're wasting your time. butch is an anti-semite. He thinks killing doesn't count as threatening action, as long as it's only Jews who are being threatened and killed. Iran is a non-aggressive nation. I don't know if you followed this link or not. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID;=2&subContrassID;=1&sbSubContrassID;=0
Obviously butch did not or if he did, he finds nothing wrong with it.
Our behavior is the self-fulfilling prophecy, we keep up the drumbeat to war against Iran and they do things to help defend themselves. Kevin the PR man; if I were Iran I would make those crazy statements about Israel to drum up support from every Islamic extremist, many or most of which have a quarrel with Israel. They cannot keep our air power from devastating their country, so how will they retaliate if we attack them. It will be with terrorist attacks in the US. Keep up this escalation of rhetoric against Iran; scare them and they will hurt us out of fear not desire. We have no ability to change Iranian direction unless they chose a different course so we need to talk them into changing or suffer the consequences.
What peaceful co-existence with Israel does he see as Iran's preference. Does he acknowledge the ancient gegraphical claims on the region that the children of Abraham and Israel have?
What is his advice to America in resolving the Shia - Sunni - Kurdish conflicts currently engulfing neighboring Iraq? Iran fought a bitter war with Iraq in the 1980's. Now with Saddam gone, but now with general civil war within Iraq and American troops on the ground caught in the middle, what is Iran's thoughts towards both Iraq and America's role there. Ted K.
First, I am hopeful that the Security Council's threat of sanctions against Iran is effective. If that is tantamount to bullying, then I would argue that Iran has begun the bullying by supporting attacks against the U.S. and Israel.
The trouble with negotiating with Iran is that the things we are trying to negotiate away are the very things that are bringing us to the table. We must tread lightly, lest we set the example for other nations that the way to draw concessions from the U.S. is to develop nuclear technology. Thus, i support the administration's viewpoint that the nuclear bomb must be off the table before we will come to it. If those who believe that Ahmadinejad is all bark and no bite are correct, this is precisely how it will play out, and no military effort will be necessary.
But if Ahmadinejad is immune to sanctions that disrupt his own economy, and continues to pursue nuclear technology while perpetuating a proxy war against Israel (and, as seems likely, the U.S.) then, yes, we might have to play the bully.
So that's my persepctive. Now, let me ask a question. If Ahmadinejad acquires a nuclear bomb, what is the appropriate course of action from the U.S.?
to Butch - "The only place I felt I received accurate information was public television and public radio." accurate possibly, but heavily slanted to their agenda, the way trial lawyers spin black into white.
The Iranian government, despite butch's ignorant ravings, is a government that has already shown it is perfectly willing to attack Jews no matter where they are. One hundred and thirty were killed in Argentina 15 years ago by Iranian agents. They are arming and funding Hezbollah militias/armies in Lebanon and encroaching on Israeli territory. They are cynically sponsoring the murder of women and children in Iraq of both Sunnis and Shiites. I haven't even addressed the abysmal record of how they treat their own citizens, particularly Christians. I'd be surprised if there are any Jews left in Iran, but I'm sure their life isn't exactly a bed of roses if there are. Why anyone would go over to Iran without bearing all this in mind escapes me.
(Mark 8:23, Mark 7:33 says he spit and touched the man s tongue but doesn t say where he spat.)
heavily slanted to their agenda Show me a news organization that doesn t spin the news to suit their agenda. Selling advertising and making a profit is the agenda of most news outlets.
If we're going to insist that Iran put its nuclear weapons program out of business, I would prefer to see it done with positive incentives rather than with threats and, God forbid, bombs. Would that be rewarding Iran for bad behavior, or rewarding them for good behavior? That is, what will it get Iran to play ball and be a productive world citizen as opposed to a perpetual nuisance?
How do we change the wind, with talk to our friends and enemies?
"If we're going to insist that Iran put its nuclear weapons program out of business, I would prefer to see it done with positive incentives rather than with threats and, God forbid, bombs." How would you respond to the argument that positive incentives provide, well, incentive for other dictators to pursue nuclear technologies. Woudl you agree that the weapons program must go out of business?
Yes, if possible, we have lost our ability to stop Iran short of war. If that is true then it must be with incentives. Promising not to invade is a hollow promise so that won't work. We have always done what we thought was in our best interest therefore we can change any promise. I can find no other way except peaceful non-threatening peaceful measures.
Mark
2. Do you really believe that the holocaust never happened? 3. What do you think the Prophet Mohammed would say about your words and actions?
"Don't you remember CHERNOBYL?????" Salaam/Shalom/Peace to you all