Why Is Ahmadinejad Smiling?
The intellectual sources of his apocalyptic vision
"He does not represent all political forces in Iran, not even all radical forces. Doubtless, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is, for many Iranians, a question of traditional national pride or a bid for great power status. But as long as he is president, Ahmadinejad represents an important dimension of the Iranian revolution we cannot afford to ignore. As long as Iranian policy is dominated by Ahmadinejad and his allies among the senior clerics of the Islamic Republic, Iran cannot be negotiated with. Their commitment to the destruction of the Jews is a matter of principle, just as the implementation of the Holocaust was for the Nazis and the liquidation of the kulaks was for the Bolsheviks. Genocide through nuclear weapons is designed to bring about the happiness of the Year One for all of us. I believe that is why Ahmadinejad is almost always smiling."
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don
I'm too serious
Tell me, tell, me, if you think you know
Labels
- About Me (15)
- aminals (25)
- architecture (3)
- burningman (41)
- ceaseless self-examination (19)
- history (17)
- inchoate entrepreneurialism (2)
- kid stuff (24)
- long unedited essays (22)
- music (4)
- NaNoWriMo (29)
- nanowrimocrastination (3)
- oh my godless (2)
- OMG IM OCD (4)
- people are strange (2)
- people are stupid (11)
- people what matter (18)
- perpetual picture-taking (24)
- politics (67)
- random life events (59)
- random whining (14)
- reading (4)
- San Francisco (11)
- shameless sexism (1)
- short fiction (3)
- short unedited essays (10)
- society (14)
- sports (2)
- thinking too much (9)
- Thursday Thirteen (6)
- travel (53)
- wha-a-atever (25)
- wordless wednesday (6)
- work (34)
- writing (15)
- xmas (13)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(57)
-
▼
October
(17)
- Long Commute
- Battle of Fresno
- Thursday Thirteen Blogging Meme
- While We're Waiting
- Family Day in Lambtown
- But I thought of it already!
- How to write like a slumming angel
- And another thing!
- Get your cotton-pickin' fingers off my taxes
- Jenner
- Face of Evil
- Polo
- I Am Too Extreme For California
- While I'm At It
- Hold Your Horses
- Bloke on the Water
- I can't believe I'm doing this shit again
-
▼
October
(17)
3 comments:
Lately it seems as if we're really not going to do anything about Iran (or North Korea), except yap about how "intolerable" this or that would be. We won't bomb one fucking mosque full of terrorists--are we really going to take out entire cities cuz some dickwad went and built a nuke? Our current administration is total shit, not that the Dems would have been any better.
we're really not going to do anything about Iran (or North Korea)
Of course we aren't. Because we're letting the UN take the lead, and the UN doesn't ever do squat. There were an awful lot of complaints about the US acting unilaterally in Iraq. So now we're not acting unilaterally and... this is what we get.
Agreed the current admin is shit. I just think waiting around for the freaking UN to get anything done ever is a waste of time. The UN sucks. It's not working, and it's full of at least as many corrupt assholes as Congress.
No solution to propose, just being a no-help-complainer.
On the question of Ahmedinajad, he's hard to read. The stuff about Israel plays well to a big constituency in Iran. He's quite aware of that. I don't know. I don't like Iran with a nuclear weapon but I do know that rhetoric sometimes run a bit harder than practice.
As for the UN, nobody, your comments are typical knownothing bullshit. The UN does do a great deal. It is often hamstrung by American (and other) obstructionism. When you read in your papers that the UN won't act, it means it won't act in the way the US wants. That's usually a good thing. What the US wants usually isn't all that great for anyone else and often involves a lot of people dying.
As for acting unilaterally, you are not not attacking N Korea or Iran because you are worried that you were slagged off for acting unilaterally. You are not attacking Iran because it hasn't actually come to that and because you have troops too close to Iran, whom the Iranians would gladly kill. They wouldn't be the same pushovers the Iraqis were. As for N Korea, you are paralysed by there not being a simple solution and by your not really taking them very seriously. After all, they don't pose any threat to the US and its interests. Much more so to China, who you've been expecting to deal with it. Probably China will. It won't be pretty if it does.
Post a Comment