NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This guy is certifiable, but he is, unfortunately, not the only one who feels this way.


Iran's President Clarifies Stand on Holocaust:
It's a European Myth (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?th&emc=th)


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 15, 2005
TEHRAN, Dec. 14 (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israeli comments on Wednesday, calling the Holocaust a myth used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.

His remarks drew swift condemnations from the White House, Israel, Germany, France and the European Commission. Germany said the remarks would affect coming negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said that Iranians "do not have the president, or the regime, they deserve."

Last week Mr. Ahmadinejad questioned whether the Nazi killings of six million European Jews during World War II occurred and said Israel should be moved to Europe. He also provoked an international outcry in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

But Wednesday was the first time he publicly denied the Holocaust. Touring southeastern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insisted that the Holocaust had happened, then they were responsible and should pay the price.

"Today they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," he said, speaking to an audience of thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan. "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?"

"This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing the theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.

The White House denounced the comments. "All responsible leaders in the international community recognize how outrageous" the comments are, said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, adding that the comments "only underscore why it is so important that the international community continue to work together to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, called the remarks "shocking and unacceptable."

"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process," he said, referring to European talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said: "The repeated outrageous remarks of the Iranian president show clearly the mind-set of the ruling clique in Tehran and indicate clearly the extremist policy goals of the regime.

"The combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and nuclear weapons is a combination that no one in the international community can accept."

I wonder if he is trying to provoke the West into taking some direct action against him. He sounds crazy enough to want to try to spark more unrest in the Middle East.

The Iranian "governmen" KNOWS they will be gone in 20 - 30 years so they probabbly think: we might as well go out with a bang. And take anyone who we can with us.


Pricks!



Rich

the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said that Iranians "do not have the president, or the regime, they deserve."

So, is the EU President invoking pre-emptive regime change as a matter of EU foreign policy?

Perish forbid!

So, is the EU President invoking pre-emptive regime change as a matter of EU foreign policy?

Perish forbid!

Heh! That's reading wayyy too much cojones into that statement! He's advocating 'love the people, hate the govt.' is all, and fine well you know it!:p

yup. I completely agree.

So, is the EU President invoking pre-emptive regime change as a matter of EU foreign policy?
The president of The Commission... and he may invoke whatever he will - the commission is the body intended to be independent of member states. The CFSP is a joke at best, so Barroso can keep on talking.

I thought this guy had some brains in his head. Figured maybe he was using some type of strategy. I think this guy is nuts... Even the hardliners should be worried in Iran. This guy could get them all killed.

iran's president is a complete asshole, he was even one of the captors in the Hostage crisis. Who the hell elects that kind of guy who is so rude.:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Elgesh']Heh! That's reading wayyy too much cojones into that statement! He's advocating 'love the people, hate the govt.' is all, and fine well you know it!:p
Actually, European governments have made it pretty clear that if the negotiations fail, they'll go along with the US when it comes to taking further actions.
And France was the country which used the strongest language.

This whole thing might end up being what Iraq could have been, had the US Government been a little more patient: First we try a peaceful method, and then, if that doesn't work, we'll get out the stick.

he was even one of the captors in the Hostage crisis.

That's what gets my goat about the way the world responds to this maniac. Europeans gibber about arresting Rumsfeld for the heinous crime of reducing French oil revenues from Iraq, but no one suggests holding this lunatic for actually participating in a terrorist act.

iran's president is a complete asshole, he was even one of the captors in the Hostage crisis. Great! At last! You are going to provide us proof he was one of the captors! Hallelujah!


...No, didn't think so.

I'm not too concerned. The Iranian government is dying, and they know it. I think that in less than a decade, we will see a different government in power, one more democratic, secular, and concilatory.

First we try a peaceful method, and then, if that doesn't work, we'll get out the stick.


I always thought of getting out the stick first. Then talk peacefully afterward. Maybe that's the military training talking.;)

Great! At last! You are going to provide us proof he was one of the captors! Hallelujah!


...No, didn't think so.


Yeah it is just speculation. I know only a couple of the hostages said it was so. But who know's? I think he would been good for the position considering his recent ramblings.

This whole thing might end up being what Iraq could have been, had the US Government been a little more patient: First we try a peaceful method, and then, if that doesn't work, we'll get out the stick.

okay dont start bringing iraq into the situation....its a whole different topic

Yeah it is just speculation. I know only a couple of the hostages said it was so. But who know's? I think he would been good for the position considering his recent ramblings.
Right. The way he talks embarrasses even his master Khamenei. He IS a douche. But to which I reacted is yet another case of 'he had the Niger yellow cake on him, that's why we didn't identify him'. Doesn't cut it with me anymore (that's why I posted - prove he was one of the captors or keep that out of this).

Here's more on this from AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DAD8914A-7833-4B0B-88EB-EF4CC4CF6F4C.htm

okay dont start bringing iraq into the situation....its a whole different topic
Is it?
The thing anyone will get Iran for is its nuclear program. A leader of a sovereign nation is, strictly speaking, free to say whatever his constituency wants to hear.

So Nukes it is...and nukes is where the US and the EU are pulling on the same string.

And you guys might like this story:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html

Wow. If they keep going on like this, we could probably get the UN to take them down; no US intervention needed. That'd be good, 'cause we're still busy messing around in Iraq.

Is it?
The thing anyone will get Iran for is its nuclear program. A leader of a sovereign nation is, strictly speaking, free to say whatever his constituency wants to hear.

So Nukes it is...and nukes is where the US and the EU are pulling on the same string.

And you guys might like this story:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html


Interesting perspective. So it sounds to me that the fuse has been lit. When do you think this powder keg is going to blow?

Wow. If they keep going on like this, we could probably get the UN to take them down; no US intervention needed. That'd be good, 'cause we're still busy messing around in Iraq.


The UN uses US forces in any major action. In fact outside of the US and its close allies such as the UK the UN doesn't really have any real muscle.

I thought this guy had some brains in his head. Figured maybe he was using some type of strategy. I think this guy is nuts... Even the hardliners should be worried in Iran. This guy could get them all killed.

The hardliners are worried. From what I gather, he's very much not getting his way in terms of government appointments. It's important to remember that the President is not the highest authority in Iran - witness the struggles of his reformist predecessor.

But the hardliners are either not so worried that they're trying to muzzle him, or they're unable to completely muzzle him. Either one is cause for concern.

And there's no proof he was one of the hostage takers. I suppose it can't be ruled out, but at present this is hearsay rather than established fact.

Is it?
The thing anyone will get Iran for is its nuclear program. A leader of a sovereign nation is, strictly speaking, free to say whatever his constituency wants to hear.

So Nukes it is...and nukes is where the US and the EU are pulling on the same string.

And you guys might like this story:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html
I particularly like this line: "An Iranian official told me that even if Israel and the United States had spent 'a billion dollars in propaganda against us,' they could not have done a better job."

Perhaps we should thank him for saving the American taxpayers a bit of money? Ya think? :D

Interesting perspective. So it sounds to me that the fuse has been lit. When do you think this powder keg is going to blow?
I'd give it a year, maybe two. The talk about nukes sounds very urgent, but El-Baradei reckons it'll be at least two to three years until they'll have one if they started now.
By then we'll know whether the negotiations are doing anything at all. Chances are that China won't be happy, so it's not going to go through the UN.
Sounds like a case for NATO...which puts Germany into an interesting situation. Merkel said she wouldn't send troops to Iran, but if NATO asks her she'll have to do it, even if it is only for AWACS and SEAD missions.

I'd give it a year, maybe two. The talk about nukes sounds very urgent, but El-Baradei reckons it'll be at least two to three years until they'll have one if they started now.
By then we'll know whether the negotiations are doing anything at all. Chances are that China won't be happy, so it's not going to go through the UN.
Sounds like a case for NATO...which puts Germany into an interesting situation. Merkel said she wouldn't send troops to Iran, but if NATO asks her she'll have to do it, even if it is only for AWACS and SEAD missions.


Yes, I agree. Say Neu didn't you say that you were thinking of the German armed forces?

The UN uses US forces in any major action. In fact outside of the US and its close allies such as the UK the UN doesn't really have any real muscle.

Pffft. It wouldn't take much to knock the Iran military over. Remember, they fought the Iraq army to a standstill, and we all know how pathetic that was. The insurgency would be the thing to worry about.

Yes, I agree. Say Neu didn't you say that you were thinking of the German armed forces?
That all depends on what happens to my family here. If we move back to Germany soon, and I go with them, I'll do my service, if not, then not.

But Conscripts can't go into combat in Germany. You do the three months of basic training, then six months with your unit.
After that, you get the choice to stay an extra 14 months longer, with huge pay increases and other boons. If you do that, they can send you overseas, although they usually try not to.
And when you're done with that service, you can join for good, which gives you more training and so on, and then you'll be likely to be sent somewhere at some point.

So either way, I won't be going to Iran anytime soon. :p

That all depends on what happens to my family here. If we move back to Germany soon, and I go with them, I'll do my service, if not, then not.

But Conscripts can't go into combat in Germany. You do the three months of basic training, then six months with your unit.
After that, you get the choice to stay an extra 14 months longer, with huge pay increases and other boons. If you do that, they can send you overseas, although they usually try not to.
And when you're done with that service, you can join for good, which gives you more training and so on, and then you'll be likely to be sent somewhere at some point.

So either way, I won't be going to Iran anytime soon. :p


Hehe ok. Guess I would be there before you then....;)

Pffft. It wouldn't take much to knock the Iran military over. Remember, they fought the Iraq army to a standstill, and we all know how pathetic that was. The insurgency would be the thing to worry about.


Well I think that the insurgency in Iraq would all but disappear. We would just be fighting it out in Iran. Now control over Iran's neighbor's would have a benefit to smashing an insurgency. There would be no where for them to base from that we couldn't bomb to hell. Would be an interesting show that's for sure.

I'd give it a year, maybe two. The talk about nukes sounds very urgent, but El-Baradei reckons it'll be at least two to three years until they'll have one if they started now.
By then we'll know whether the negotiations are doing anything at all. Chances are that China won't be happy, so it's not going to go through the UN.
Sounds like a case for NATO...which puts Germany into an interesting situation. Merkel said she wouldn't send troops to Iran, but if NATO asks her she'll have to do it, even if it is only for AWACS and SEAD missions.

I think that this time, in order to placate those who think that the intel is always faulty and not to be believed, that the US will wait until there's a definite mushroom cloud somewhere before asking anyone to do anything.

When that happens, no matter who is in charge of any NATO country, they won't have any choice at all, no matter how many people in their own country don't want to get involved at that point.

I think that this time, in order to placate those who think that the intel is always faulty and not to be believed, that the US will wait until there's a definite mushroom cloud somewhere before asking anyone to do anything.

When that happens, no matter who is in charge of any NATO country, they won't have any choice at all, no matter how many people in their own country don't want to get involved at that point.
Perhaps, but at what a cost! :(

Well I think that the insurgency in Iraq would all but disappear. We would just be fighting it out in Iran. Now control over Iran's neighbor's would have a benefit to smashing an insurgency. There would be no where for them to base from that we couldn't bomb to hell. Would be an interesting show that's for sure.

It would, wouldn't it...

*strokes imaginary beard thoughtfullly*

Perhaps, but at what a cost! :(
Well, when it all goes into the crapper, and the Iranians throw a nuke somewhere (Israel, or maybe even into Europe), we can get on NS and taunt our European fellows - "Great job that, waiting until we were absolutely certain and avoiding that nasty pre-emptive stuff. Glad we could play along this time - oooh, that's got to hurt."

It would, wouldn't it...
I doubt it to be honest. The majority of insurgents are Sunnis, often attacking Shi'ites.
Destroying Iran wouldn't interest Al-Zarqawi & co. at all I don't think.

But if we were to attack Iran, I'd want to see a clear plan (and not one relying on some sort of Exile-Association) for what happens next. I don't want Iranians to suffer for the stupidity of their government any more than they have to.

And if they wanted to keep the Theocratic Bits of their government, they should be allowed to.

In fact, I think that this bit from pointlesswasteoftime.com sums up our relationship with Europe.

1. I want a war sim where I spend two hours pushing across a map to destroy a "nuclear missile silo," only to find out after the fact that it was just a missile-themed orphanage.

I want little celebrities to show up on the scene and do interviews over video of charred teddy bears, decrying my unilateral attack. I want congressional hearings demanding answers to these atrocities.

2. On the very next level I want to lose half of my units because another "orphanage" turned out to be a NOD ambush site. I want another round of hearings asking why I didn't level that orphanage as soon as I saw it, including tearful testimony from a slain soldier's daughter who is now, ironically, an orphan.

That's what gets my goat about the way the world responds to this maniac. Europeans gibber about arresting Rumsfeld for the heinous crime of reducing French oil revenues from Iraq, but no one suggests holding this lunatic for actually participating in a terrorist act.

Saying stupid shit is not a war-crime. Otherwise half of NS would be in the Hauge.

Well, when it all goes into the crapper, and the Iranians throw a nuke somewhere (Israel, or maybe even into Europe), we can get on NS and taunt our European fellows - "Great job that, waiting until we were absolutely certain and avoiding that nasty pre-emptive stuff. Glad we could play along this time - oooh, that's got to hurt."
:rolleyes:

Actually, I'd rather take the chance of being wrong than take the chance of tens of thousands of people dying.

Saying stupid shit is not a war-crime. Otherwise half of NS would be in the Hauge.
ROFLMAO!! True, true! :D

In fact, I think that this bit from pointlesswasteoftime.com sums up our relationship with Europe.
Are you realising that I decided not to bite today?

:rolleyes:

Actually, I'd rather take the chance of being wrong than take the chance of tens of thousands of people dying.

Equally, go preemptive, and guarantee 10s of 1000s of people dying. International politics is lose/lose, you just have to figure out which'll hurt you the least.

...or maybe even into Europe..

Why? That doesn't make sense. Europe doesn't sabre rattle half as much against Iran as the United States does.