Have you? By your own argument that we should listen to words more than deeds (if that what your saying i agree with that), then we should look to modern Irans history of invading nations (or thier lack of doing so), rather than thier inflamatory rhetoric.

Not sure why you even mention Irans involvement with Hezbollah, etc, anyone who isnt naive knows just about every country with any degree of power funds groups who engage in asymetrical proxy wars to further thier interests. By your argument israels support of lebanese christian militias who sometimes acted very brutally and committed warcrimes during lebanons civil war would logically lead us to beleive that israel is some sort of threat just like iran is, correct?

Thanks for your thoughts but your one way thinking doesnt past the smell test..

Great post as usual. Thanks for your many knowledgeable, logical, and pertinent comments especially those that debunk common (but destructive and dangerous) myths and dis-Info propaganda talking points.

JK

Ahmadinejad has consistently said he wants peace with all nations and has not threatened to attack any nation (other than in self-defense). It should be noted that, unlike almost virtually all western nations, Iran has not attacked another country in two centuries.

To Bilbo Hussein Baggins #31:
Your comment is not quite accurate. You are right in one way; Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. But neither did he ever say he wanted to wipe the rulers of Israel off the map. In the speech Ahmadinejad never mentioned the words Israel, wipe, OR map. (In fact there are no words or phrases in Farsi that resemble the phrase “wipe off the map”.) He listed several murderous tyrannical governments that had (peacefully, by the way) “disappeared from the pages of time”. He was giving hope that there would someday be regime change relieving Jerusalem from brutal tyranny.
Again, Ahmadinejad has consistently said he wants peace with all nations.

Peace, JK

Obama, like many presidential candidates, has no military experience. As a first-term U.S. senator, he also has little formal experience in foreign policy.

ok – sounds a bit like george bush – no military experience and clueless on foreign policy.

Its up to the Venezuelan people to decide if they want their oil nationalized. They obviously support it because they elected Hugo Chavez. Many countries nationalize their oil. It’s none of our business what they do with their oil. Chavez is using the profits to rebuild his country and help the poor.

We overthrew the Democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 because they were planning on nationalizing their oil. That brought the Shah into power. And it led to the hostage crisis of 1979. Once again, in 2008, Iran wants even more control over their oil. They opened up their own trading “bourse” that no longer accepts American dollars. Not surprisingly the U.S. is planning to attack Iran. To any logical observer Iran is not the problem, Nationalizing Oil is not the problem. The problem is US!

——————-
I’m not one for arguing with trolls. But I must dispute the claim that Hugo Chavez is a dictator. I apologize for this long post but it is necessary.

…President Hugo Chávez and his government have won multiple elections that were characterized as free and fair by international observers.

For example, this is what the Carter Center delegation said about the 2004 presidential recall referendum:

“On Aug. 15, 2004, Venezuelans came out in record numbers to participate in the first popularly mandated presidential recall referendum ever to be held. In doing so, the Venezuelan people voted not to recall President Chávez from office, with 59 percent of the population voting for Chávez and 41 percent voting against him. It is the opinion of The Carter Center that the Aug. 15 vote clearly expressed the will of the Venezuelan electorate.”

Indeed, here’s what the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs wrote last October about the elections in 1998 and 1999 – this is on the State Department’s web page:

“In December 1998, Hugo Chávez Frias won the presidency on a campaign for broad reform, constitutional change, and a crackdown on corruption…Chávez’s argument that the existing political system had become isolated from the people won broad acceptance, particularly among Venezuela’s poorest classes, who had seen a significant decline in their living standards over the previous decade and a half. The National Constituent Assembly (ANC), consisting of 131 elected individuals, convened in August 1999 to begin rewriting the Constitution. In free elections, voters gave all but six seats to persons associated with the Chávez movement. Venezuelans approved the ANC’s draft in a national referendum on December 15, 1999.”

On January 31 of this year, the Miami Herald reported,

“Human Rights Watch on Thursday said Venezuela does not belong to a group of nations like Pakistan and Russia that use the veneer of democracy to mask autocratic rule…’We did not include Venezuela in the list of closed countries because it is not,’ Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said, unveiling the organization’s 2008 World Report, which highlighted leaders who claim to be democratic but take autocratic measures…’There are serious problems in Venezuela, but we shouldn’t pretend that Venezuela is a closed society,’ he said. ‘There still is significant political competition, and indeed the best evidence of that was the fact that Chávez just lost his referendum.’ “

“Hell, we probably would have allied with the Germans!!!”
– Which didn’t happen. We fought against the Germans. We won, along with the other Allied nations. And this was with one of “us” at the helm. You are so anxious to blame every ill in the world on progressives that you are willing to rewrite history to do so. When our leaders rewrite history, they look like fools. It’s the same for blog posters.

“3985 families of Soldiers who volunteered to join the military…”
– Actually, not all were volunteers. Those who had been ’stop-loss’ed certainly weren’t, even if they did volunteer when they first joined up. However, when the U.S. wouldn’t let them go after the term for which they volunteered was up, they were no longer volunteers, they were draftees.

“…knowing full well that they were putting themselves in harms way…”
– not all of them “knew” what they were getting into. Those who were already in the service before the invasion (especially those who joined up immediately after 9/11) trusted the government to ask them to fight only battles that were just, and causes that directly had to do with defending our country. Yes, they knew they could die fighting for a righteous cause. But it’s a stretch to imagine they all knew they would wind up being sitting ducks in a lost cause quagmire with no end in sight. This is especially true of the National Guard, most of whom thought their service would consist of fighting disasters back home.

“…to protect the freedom of an ungrateful slug like yourself to call their sacrifices useless.”
– The gratuitous insult doesn’t enhance your post, but that’s a small point. The bigger point here is the myth that dying in Iraq has something to do with our freedom. It doesn’t. As much as the warmongers and fear squad try to make us believe that terrorists will come marching down Main Street USA if we don’t continue to occupy Iraq, it’s not convincing. There are plenty of terrorists in the world (and our occupation of Iraq is effectively recruiting more and more of them every day). If they wanted to march down Main Street right now, the conflict in Iraq wouldn’t stop them. In fact, since our National Guard is over there, we would be hard pressed to deal with a significant terrorist attack here. And just because we recognize that Iraq is not a cause worth dying for doesn’t mean we don’t weep for every soldier that has been killed there.

“You are a truly ugly and pathetic being.”
– Name calling and personal attacks generally indicate that you’ve run out of debate that’s to the point.

Only a New Yorker would say that…..am I right?
But I smell what you’re stepping in.

Wrong ………………..Jersey represent !!!!!!!!

Only a New Yorker would say that…..am I right?
But I smell what you’re stepping in.