Blind Stance

[Mos]

President George Bush of America has openly denied the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Iran's president has also openly denied the recognition of the J E W I S H holocaust. It is also known how the world dislikes the Iranian president for his views but still tend to like Bush. I dont see what the difference is between both presidents. both deny a genocide that happened, so why is the Iranian president worse than Bush. He is "worse" in the eyes of the world because he denies the xxxish genocide, if it was the armenian genocide the world would then not show this dislike.

I see this as one of the sins that the human race has established in its existence and continually produces more sins and acts of evil turning this world into one unjust and full of evil.

[Sip]

Re: Blind Stance

Who likes Bush?

I've said this before and will say it again. They are both idiots.

[Virgil]

Re: Blind Stance

In my opinion both of them are not idiots. Let Americans be honest with themselves, the United States is heavly compromising its moral position by supporting Israel. Paying 5 billion annually to Israel so that settlements can be built is not really a olive branch towards peace and lets not forget the bulldozing of Christian and Muslim homes, spitting on Christian preists, and signing over 30 billion (Essentially, 30 billion equates to almost a fifth or 20% of Israeli GDP, do you know how much the United States spends? 5% or roughly 500 billion of their GDP) in military aid to Israel, none are signs of a peaceful settlement. The reality is that the Iranian president is not accusing George Bush of denying the Armenian Genocide, in his speeches he has not once referred to George Bush or the American people for that matter. Conversly, George Bush is arguing that we should invade Iran based on the fact that they are a "threat to Israel", why? "Because Ahmadinijad denied the Holocaust", so, by this logic we should invade Turkey, why? Because Turkey denys the Armenain Genocide, but we do not, so what does that tell you about President Bush? So yes, maybe the act of denial is the same, but they hold a different weight on the world stage.

[Sip]

Re: Blind Stance

So basically what you are saying is that it's ok for someone to be an idiot, as long as that person is against Israel

[Virgil]

Re: Blind Stance

So basically what you are saying is that it's ok for someone to be an idiot, as long as that person is against Israel

Do you think we should invade Iran because Ahmadinijad was misquoted or reported to have denied the holocaust? And if so, shouldn't this standard be universal, we should then invade Turkey, right? Right, so what does that tell you about the crediblity of the United States and do you agree with their foreign policy? Furthermore, should we bomb nuclear reseach facilities even though this is the will of the Iranian people, Iranians want nuclear technology, are we justified in denying them this right? Are we justified in denying this right when in fact we horde our own natural gas and petroleum resources for times of war? Americans have huge stockpiles of resource, every element on the periodic table has been stockpiled by the government, this is a fact. Again, furthermore, do you think the Iran will attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? And historically, which state is a threat to future of mankind, a nuclear Iran or a nuclear Turkey? Who has a incentive to expand? Iranians sitting on the richest oil and natural gas deposits or Turkey sitting on zero natural gas and oil deposits? Which one? One has some roots in a moral religious code, whiel the other is "secular", one has historically never commited genocide, on the other hand, Turkey has not only commited genoicide and violated numerous human rights violation, but is currently occupying half of Cyprus. Based on this assessment, do you think its fair that Iran is being osterized while we are selling weapons and arming Turkey? Do you think this is a fair foreign policy? Yes or no, if yes why, if no why.

[Sip]

Re: Blind Stance

Invading Iran would be the most idiotic thing ever. Iran is a very strong force and "invading" is simply not an option for anyone.

I don't entirely agree with the US foreign policy but that's such a complex question. When it comes to Iraq I think taking down Sadam was the right thing to do at the time. At the same time, the complete mis-management of what happened afterwards, the gung-ho way Bush went about doing it, and our continuing presence there disturb me greatly though.

I also think the world is VERY justified in being nervous about some towelhead bozos that are in charge in Iran having access to nuclear technology. Will of the "people" or not, the fact remains that those in charge in Iran can be extremely fanatical and thus very irrational forces which are not necessarily reflective of the Iranian "people". The US had it in WWII and you saw what happened there. Now do you really think Iran, Pakistan, or India are going to be somehow more responsible with their nukes than the US?

FYI, before you jump up and down and scream about Israel, I also don't think Israel should have nukes. But you take the nukes out of there and what's to stop about a few hundred million muslims from marching right in and wiping out the whole place?

As far as the US foreign policy towards turkey, it is entirely obvious why the US and Israel have to keep kissing Turkish ass. They are pretty much the only solid ally the west has in the region. So even though Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust due to his hatred of Israel, Bush HAS to brush the Genocide issue under the carpet since the Turks have such a tight control of his ballz in the region.

Also, in the big global picture, Armenians really aren't worth a damn so I can certainly understand why US administrations continually choose to ignore the little spec known as Armenia for somewhat bigger issues (like the entire span from eastern Europe all the way to India). I am not saying what they are doing is right ... but since you like to assign "weights" to what Ahmadinejad says vs what Bush says about the Genocide, let's be a bit more realistic about the relative importance of "Armenians" and their interests in the bigger picture.

[Virgil]

Re: Blind Stance

Invading Iran would be the most idiotic thing ever. Iran is a very strong force and "invading" is simply not an option for anyone.

I don't entirely agree with the US foreign policy but that's such a complex question. When it comes to Iraq I think taking down Sadam was the right thing to do at the time. At the same time, the complete mis-management of what happened afterwards, the gung-ho way Bush went about doing it, and our continuing presence there disturb me greatly though.

I also think the world is VERY justified in being nervous about some towelhead bozos that are in charge in Iran having access to nuclear technology. Will of the "people" or not, the fact remains that those in charge in Iran can be extremely fanatical and thus very irrational forces which are not necessarily reflective of the Iranian "people". The US had it in WWII and you saw what happened there. Now do you really think Iran, Pakistan, or India are going to be somehow more responsible with their nukes than the US?

FYI, before you jump up and down and scream about Israel, I also don't think Israel should have nukes. But you take the nukes out of there and what's to stop about a few hundred million muslims from marching right in and wiping out the whole place?

As far as the US foreign policy towards turkey, it is entirely obvious why the US and Israel have to keep kissing Turkish ass. They are pretty much the only solid ally the west has in the region. So even though Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust due to his hatred of Israel, Bush HAS to brush the Genocide issue under the carpet since the Turks have such a tight control of his ballz in the region.

Also, in the big global picture, Armenians really aren't worth a damn so I can certainly understand why US administrations continually choose to ignore the little spec known as Armenia for somewhat bigger issues (like the entire span from eastern Europe all the way to India). I am not saying what they are doing is right ... but since you like to assign "weights" to what Ahmadinejad says vs what Bush says about the Genocide, let's be a bit more realistic about the relative importance of "Armenians" and their interests in the bigger picture.

Sip, I sent you a PM with my reply.

[crusader1492]

Re: Blind Stance

Good article on Bush's how other world leaders ignore Bush these days'

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg211562.html

BUSH'S STATURE ON WORLD STAGE TAKES A BEATING
By Stephen Winn

Kansas City Star, MO
Nov 21 2007

President Bush has played his macho shtick for so long that it can
be hard for some Americans to realize what a weak and ineffectual
figure he now actually cuts on the world stage.

He is often ignored not just by our nation's enemies but by our
allies - a particularly dangerous situation in and around the Mideast
tinderbox.

Consider Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf. Despite repeated pleas
from the White House, he went ahead with plans to suspend his country's
constitution, purge its high court and arrest political opponents.

This was a terrible setback in the war on terror and a huge propaganda
opportunity for al-Qaida. It was also a high-profile embarrassment
for Bush, who has long presented himself as a champion of democracy
in the Muslim world.

Yet the White House objections to Musharraf's actions were watery
affairs, filled with qualifications. And when Musharraf announced
plans to hold elections while the country remained under martial law,
the Bush administration fatuously hailed this scheme as moving back
toward the "democratic path."

Musharraf, in other words, had read his man correctly.

"Musharraf thinks that Bush has certain weaknesses that can be
manipulated," explained Kamran Bokhari, an analyst for a private
intelligence company who was quoted by The New York Times on Sunday.

When Bokhari met with Musharraf earlier this year, the Pakistani
leader apparently didn't even bother to conceal his disdain for the
U.S. president.

Bush, meanwhile, has lavished support and extravagant praise on
Musharraf, who originally came to power in a coup. Bush declared
him to be not just a great personal friend but a visionary seeker
of democracy.

When it really counted, though, this great friend chose to simply
ignore Bush. And he is hardly alone in doing so.

A few other cases:

~U Turkey is not a country that should be causing us much trouble. It
is a NATO ally that wants desperately to win greater acceptance in
the West, so we should have a lot of leverage there.

Yet Turkey has been shelling Kurdish areas in Iraq and even threatening
a large-scale invasion of northern Iraq.

Bush has failed to stand up to such irresponsible behavior. On the
contrary, he has tried to placate Ankara with an embarrassing effort
to help it downplay old Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians.

~UAttempting to curry favor with Arab regimes, the White House has
been pushing forward on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks next week
that are without any realistic hope of success.

This could create far more problems than it would solve. And countries
like Saudi Arabia - which Bush naively hopes to impress - are scarcely
even pretending to support his efforts.

~UIn Iraq, political leaders have ignored Bush's calls for approval
of critical measures aimed at national reconciliation. Even Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki - "a good guy, good man," according to Bush -
has often been unhelpful.

And now the Iraqis appear to be cozying up to the terrorist regime
in Iran.

How has the president of the most powerful nation in the world
squandered his international clout, even among our "friends"?

He and his advisers tend to view the world in black-and-white terms,
leaving them constantly baffled by nuances and surprised by events
that have been widely predicted by others.

Bush takes almost comic pride in the mistaken belief that he can read
other people well - as if Machiavellis like Vladimir Putin were no
better at concealing their emotions and motivations than Bush is.

Despite all the lessons they should have learned in Iraq, Bush and
Vice President Cheney continue to screen out information they don't
want to hear. Why, surely the Turks won't do anything reckless . . .

Finally, the president eagerly accepts soothing words from people like
Pervez Musharraf even when their actions tell a very different story.

Bush has got it exactly backward. It is far more useful to focus not
on what people say but on what they actually do.

[Alexzan]

Re: Blind Stance

I think.. it is time to form a new Empire
It seems the Ottoman empire is already forming =]
WHOS WITH ME *high five*

[Virgil]

Re: Blind Stance

I think.. it is time to form a new Empire
It seems the Ottoman empire is already forming =]

What do you mean by this?