Article

2006-11-15 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Ahmadinejad: World is caving in to our demands

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-11-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Iran's full nuclearization

He just may get his wish granted.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-11-15 00:22|| 2006-11-15 00:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Well,I Am glad that he thinks he is in charge of the world since everyone else has been useless at running the world. So glad anyone has stepped up to tell the world what to think and so glad that no one is left in the international "community" to challenge this.

And since you think he is a better lead on of the UN, I will expect you to face his Destiny, UN. ALL OF YOU.

Anyways, You want an attitude correction?
Fuck the entire world and iran FIRST.
Anything here, You be first.

It is amazing how mankind cannot recognize moral corruption at the highest level - yet still survive. If you do not know who the bad angels are, I dont care - follow that and follow them. No escape. You are running a death mill. Death is a Mankind entity.Never blame God for what you get.

Posted by closedanger@hotmail.com">closedanger@hotmail.com 2006-11-15 00:50|| 2006-11-15 00:50|| Front Page Top

#3 And not only are they caving in to our demands, brother islamists, but I am so bold as to tell the world to their faces what weaklings and cowards they are!

/Mahmoud A.

Posted by Bobby 2006-11-15 06:18|| 2006-11-15 06:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Unfortunately, he's right - the world has grabbed its ankles.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-11-15 08:24|| 2006-11-15 08:24|| Front Page Top

#5 The world, Spot? All of it? Sure about that?

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 08:26|| 2006-11-15 08:26|| Front Page Top

#6 well, Greece, for sure

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-11-15 08:30|| 2006-11-15 08:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Lol!

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 08:31|| 2006-11-15 08:31|| Front Page Top

#8 .com - so far yes. What have we done about it other than let the EUnucks take the lead? The only country with enough stones to do something is Israel because their backs are against the wall. No one else is feeling enough pain.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-11-15 09:03|| 2006-11-15 09:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Lessee, Spot. Proving negatives is always tricky business...

Perhaps it's a scheduling thingy. Perhaps your idea of the timeline differs from Bush's. I've been here in this precise position a dozen times with others - and I've heard folks say, more or less, that they get it and Bush doesn't. Funny, that. It implies you have more intel at your disposal than he does.

Sorry, I don't buy it. See the other story today about the Israeli Envoy to the US. See the tens of times Bush has made it plain, now - they will not be allowed to have nuke weapons.

Who to believe?

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 09:11|| 2006-11-15 09:11|| Front Page Top

#10 Who to believe?

Indeed, who to believe. Maybe Bush will do something maybe he won't. I don't trust him anymore. Besides, he is running out of time. Things have a way of going from "bad" to unrecoverable in the blink of an eye.

Posted by Mick Dundee 2006-11-15 10:14|| 2006-11-15 10:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Apparently, you know more than he does, please share.

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 10:26|| 2006-11-15 10:26|| Front Page Top

#12 That headline quote SHOULD make him known as the most arrogant leader of the world award. Will it?

Can anyone imagine reading such a quote as "The US president said, "the world is caving in to our demands?"

WHO needs the course in diplomacy?

Found this at the bottom link on the news page:

"Hamas won't recognize Israel even after a new national unity government takes power, the group said Tuesday, but suggested the emerging coalition would be free to stake out a more moderate position.

Hamas apparently hopes this ambiguity will allow it to preserve its anti-Israel ideology but open the door to an easing of crippling international sanctions, imposed to pressure the current, Hamas-led government to moderate."

And that comment is certainly the runner up for most arrogant comments from a political leader. Will we cave to such jihadi arrogance and trickery?

Can anyone imagine reading such a quote as "The US president said, "we won't recognize Palestine?"

Every American is watching what our government chooses to do. I pray they choose correctly.

Posted by Jules 2006-11-15 10:31|| 2006-11-15 10:31|| Front Page Top

#13 Lets start a fundraiser here at the burg for the family of the rogue sniper who decides to take this guy out.

Posted by bool 2006-11-15 11:09|| 2006-11-15 11:09|| Front Page Top

#14 Jules - I'm not sure that they will. Bush so far has refused to retaliate against Iran and Syria for blatant arming of the insurgency in Iraq. Barbara Lerner has an excellent article today in NRO. Well worth the read as she looks back on Rumsfeld's tenure as SecDef. He asked repeatedly to take action against Syria. Bush refused. Michael Ledeen has argued for years that this is a regional war, not a war in Iraq. I'm not sure that Bush has the guts to do what needs to be done, and now that congress will be openly hostile, he's not going to get approval to expand the war, as the dems have already said that they want out in 4-6 months.

Posted by ET 2006-11-15 11:17|| 2006-11-15 11:17|| Front Page Top

#15 "I'm not sure that Bush has the guts to do what needs to be done..."

But you're implying he doesn't.

Y'know, though he'd be strung up for it, Bush could whack Iran, as has been described here numerous, no make that countless, times on his National Security Authority alone. There'd be hell to pay, but he could do it. And you know what" He's said as much on many occasions.

Damn! Back to that "Who to believe?" thingy.

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 11:32|| 2006-11-15 11:32|| Front Page Top

#16 The point, .com, is that the US hasn't attached Iran and Lord knows we've had enough provocation for the last 27 years or so. When we do I will cheer, but until then I remain skeptical. As for Bush knowing more than us, I sure as hell hope so.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-11-15 11:35|| 2006-11-15 11:35|| Front Page Top

#17 .com:

Y'know, though he'd be strung up for it, Bush could whack Iran, as has been described here numerous, no make that countless, times on his National Security Authority alone.

What's the downside? I say - GO FOR BROKE.

Posted by ET 2006-11-15 11:41|| 2006-11-15 11:41|| Front Page Top

#18 I've signed off on the topic, but you've been a rock-solid Rantburger forever, so I'll respond...

Cool, bro. I hear you, honest. Yes, from my shoes, I wanted more. From my reality, I expected more. I dunno what he knows. That's his gig. If he blows it, the world will never be the same - it will devolve into shit. I have to believe that he knows this - cuz it really really obvious and, well hell, he's said it. So I think he'll do the heavy lifting and everyone will be surprised... for a minute or two. Then they'll say he shoulda done it sooner. And he shoulda done it this way, not that way. And he shoulda done some other shit, too. And what about my hangnail, eh? Why haven't you fixed that, slacker?

Etc.

I'm off this topic. No one is listening, anyway.

Later, bro.

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 11:47|| 2006-11-15 11:47|| Front Page Top

#19 ET - Indeed.

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 11:48|| 2006-11-15 11:48|| Front Page Top

#20 if you don't do it, who will?

Posted by anon 2006-11-15 11:48|| 2006-11-15 11:48|| Front Page Top

#21 Be my guest, but settle in - it is an all-day affair.

Posted by .com 2006-11-15 11:51|| 2006-11-15 11:51|| Front Page Top

#22 Spot on, when Bush attacks Iran, I will cheer too, but that's the problem. We are in the minority. Most Americans will be agast and the media will screem that Bush is starting another unilateral war without and provocation.
Bush knows he is president of all the people, so will he ever attack ?
Only time will tell, but I am certain that it will not be a popular move. I suspect most would pull the ~~borders~~ covers up over their heads and pretend its not happening.

Posted by wxjames 2006-11-15 11:55|| 2006-11-15 11:55|| Front Page Top

#23 no thanks, I spend too much time at this already.

Maybe if we all chip in together? You've done such a fine job of it, we couldn't compete. :-)

Posted by anon 2006-11-15 11:56|| 2006-11-15 11:56|| Front Page Top

#24 regarding #18 - that's my thoughts exactly. What worries me is that Bush is just a man. If you think this irritates you and me, then think how he feels. I imagine he just shakes his head sometimes and wonders why he puts up with it.

I'm hoping that not having to coddle the fat, bloated, Republicans in the house and senate will actually be a release for him that allows him more flexability than less. But then I know that I'm probably dreaming.

He's a good guy and I don't think he will just back off and let us down. He's got that cowboy in him. I hope he doesn't let us down - but he's all we got now. We might as well cheer for him.

Posted by anon 2006-11-15 12:03|| 2006-11-15 12:03|| Front Page Top

#25 Like many here I think that Bush should have told Syria and Iran in no uncertain terms to butt out of Iraq or else. When they ignored that threat, as the president knew they would, he should have bombed military installations in these countries as an escalated warning to their further involvement. This would be fighting the war seriously. Again, I am stating the obvious to many here.

But does this past inaction presuppose inaction when Iran goes fully nuclear? Perhaps not. At that point Iran does become a direct threat to the US, Europe and obviously Israel. I think /hope that force will be used at that point and all of Achmadinnerjacket's arrogant bloviating will be used as the justification.

But it is all pure speculation. President Busha has tried, in perhaps an overly sensitive manner, to bring freedom and opportunity to 25 million people. That is a noble effort and he is a noble man. Will that nobility be combined with grit to forestall a nuclear Iran. I believe it will.

Posted by remoteman 2006-11-15 13:58|| 2006-11-15 13:58|| Front Page Top

#26 How many people here who are bashing Bush for inaction on Iran have gone out into the public and begun spreading support for such an attack?

I've made my commitment here to defend Bush, even if I have to demonstrate in the streets to protest any impeachment attempts for him nailing Iran. I've also carried this message to my friends and people I meet on the street. How many of you have worked to spread a similar message?

Imagine how hogtied the man must feel. I could hardly blame him if he initiated any attack on Iran five minutes before he left office so that the democrats could not impeach him for it.

I have to go with .com on this one. Unlike any president for the last several decades, Bush has pointed out what he thinks are active sources of evil in this world and then acted against them. That's a hell of a lot better than any of his predecessors. In light of that proactive posture, we need to take Bush at his word that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Do not forget that history will judge Bush very harshly if he should fail to act against Iran on his watch. He knows and we know that should a democrat be seated in the Oval Office next time around, there will be no action at all. Bush cannot possibly be unaware of the massive obligation that rests upon his shoulders with respect to this crisis. I do not envy the man.

I may not like other aspects of Bush's policies, especially here at home but, impatient as I might be myself, I refuse to horsewhip him just because he's not meeting my own timetable.

If all of you are serious about wanting Iran to be taken off line, GET OUT AND START SHIFTING PUBLIC OPINION.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-15 13:59|| 2006-11-15 13:59|| Front Page Top

#27 I'm listening, .com. Persuade me to your point of view. Tell me why and how later is better, or how it is even seen as the point? For me, it isn't so much 'timing' as 'what'. Bloggers' inquiries about this deadly serious matter aren't parallel to complaining about hangnails. I think our hashing it out could be useful.

I am not one of those who sees Bush as the embodiment of evil, though I disagree with him on a number of issues. Nor do I fail to appreciate the incredible amount of pressure Bush is dealing with, and the very poor options left. The world is slacking off on carrying its weight of human responsibility, and Iran is just one example of that.

Nor am I proposing that lurching to nukes rather than other options is best. Maybe something else is possible.

Would love to know about the Putin visit.

Posted by Jules 2006-11-15 14:03|| 2006-11-15 14:03|| Front Page Top

#28 As one of the lighter weight 'burgers around here, I'll back up .com on this one. Thus far (at least in the War on ~~Terror~~ Islamofascism), Bush has backed up every one of his threats with action. He's said NUMEROUS times that Iran can NOT be allowed to have nukes. I believe he'll back that up. How? I have no clue; When? It's not my timeline to produce. But, in this aspect (again WoIF), he's been 100% up front and honest with what he's gonna do (which is what drives the beltway Donks mad...can't stand a straight-shootin' plain-English speaker).

Posted by BA 2006-11-15 14:50|| 2006-11-15 14:50|| Front Page Top

#29 I'm with .com here, too. Personally I wish Bush had done more visible stuff against Syria and Iran, but, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE KNOWS!!

This is the perfect example of why you have to vote for character NOT issues, except as they represent character.

You can neve know what issues are going to become critical at the time of your vote. You just have to vote for the one that you feel can deal the best with whatever comes up.

If I believed in such stuff I would pray for Bush. I can't imagine the pressure he is under but I'm sure that it's incredible. This situation is far more fraught, complex and dangerous than anything Saint Ronnie faced. The only thing I can think to compare it to is Truman and Korea and the nuke or no nuke, McArthur or no McArthur questions.

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2006-11-15 15:43|| 2006-11-15 15:43|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:54 closedanger@hotmail.com
23:50 anonymous2u
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:28 closedanger@hotmail.com
23:13 Skidmark
23:10 closedanger@hotmail.com
23:09 phil_b
22:48 trailing wife
22:48 OldSpook
22:41 OldSpook
22:40 trailing wife
22:38 Eric Jablow
22:38 trailing wife
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:30 closedanger@hotmail.com
22:27 trailing wife
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:17 trailing wife
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:09 trailing wife
21:57 JosephMendiola
21:53 trailing wife