Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SpidermanTuba said:I assume you mean Iran. And yes. By the right wing method of thinking, if you aren't invading a nation run by an evil dictator, you support that evil dictator being in power. In fact you even sympathize with him and hate America.
By the left wing method of thinking you are just sticking your head in the sand trying to ignore their crimes against humanity and/or existence.
And I would argue that you leftist morons who don't have enough balls to even defend your Nation nor its interests and are willing to selectively ignore genocide/homicidal maniacs as they suit your agenda are the ones who hate the Nation that allows you the freedom to be the represhensible punk that you are.
Obviously, we can't invade all these nations at once. But its been quite a while since the mission was accomplished in Iraq, about two years in fact, and Bush has done absolutely nothing to move towards taking out other potential threats to world safety.
Iranians Rally Against Israel, U.S.
Friday, October 28, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran Tens of thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel demonstrations across the country Friday, repeating calls by their ultraconservative president for the destruction of the Jewish state.
World leaders have condemned Wednesday's remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search), who repeated the words of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (search), leader of the Islamic revolution, by saying: "Israel must be wiped off the map."
On Friday the Iranian Embassy in Moscow tried to soften the impact of Ahmadinejad's comment.
"Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict," the embassy said in a statement following the international criticism.
It added that Ahmadinejad "underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories."
The embassy statement came after Russia, a key Iranian ally, joined criticism of Ahmadinejad's statement and summoned the Iranian ambassador to ask for an explanation.
Ahmadinejad joined thousands of Iranians in one of several rallies in Tehran. State-run television showed Ahmadinejad surrounded by demonstrators, many holding banners with anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian slogans. "Death to Israel, death to America," read many of the placards.
Rallies also took place in other cities such as Mashad in Iran's east.
The state-organized demonstrations are part of the annual al-Quds Day (search) or Jerusalem Day protests, which were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have attended previous rallies.
Late Thursday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki (search) said the massive demonstrations would illustrate the anger of the Islamic world over the Jewish state's existence.
"The comments expressed by the president is the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mottaki told state-run television. "We don't recognize the Zionist regime and don't consider it legitimate."
Countries from Britain to Russia denounced Ahmadinejad's comments. The United States said the Iranian leader's hostility underscored Washington's concern over Iran's nuclear program. Israel said Iran should be suspended from the United Nations.
The comments were even criticized by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat (search).
"We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran," Erekat said. "This is unacceptable."
Iran's seven state-run TV stations devoted coverage Friday to programs condemning the Jewish state and praising the Palestinian resistance since the 1948 creation of Israel.
Three stations also showed live coverage of crowds of people gathering early Friday in streets throughout Tehran. One man who appeared to be in his 30s carried a placard saying: "The late Khomeini said Israel should be wiped off the map."
After Khomeini toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (search) in 1979, he declared the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (search) as an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem.
The Iranian government organizes a central demonstration annually in Tehran, while other rallies demanding Israel's destruction are held around the world.
Annan: 'Dismay' over Iranian comments on Israel
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Posted: 2:33 p.m. EDT (18:33 GMT)
(CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel.
Annan, in a statement issued Thursday, reminded "all member states that Israel is a long-standing member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other member."
It added that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday lambasted Israel and Zionism and quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Israel to be "wiped out from the map."
In response, Israel's prime minister has suggested that Tehran should be expelled from the United Nations.
Ariel Sharon, in remarks issued Thursday by the Israeli government press office, said he believes any country that calls for the destruction of another cannot be a member of the United Nations.
The U.N. statement didn't address that contention.
But it said Annan "had already decided to visit Iran during the next few weeks, to discuss other issues.
"He now intends to place the Middle East peace process, and the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, at the top of his agenda for that visit."
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday called comments by Iran's president "completely and totally unacceptable."
"I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks," said Blair, who spoke at a press briefing after a European Union summit near London.
"There has been a long time in which I've been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me 'tell us you're not going to do anything about Iran,'" he said.
"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is, 'When are you going to do something about this,' because you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon."
Ahmadinejad comments were made during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry.
He quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency.
The remarks by Ahmadinejad coincided with a month-long protest against Israel called "World Without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.
In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Ahmadinejad's views "underscores our concern and the international community's concerns about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Ottawa also issued a strong rebuke, with Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew saying: "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. These comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions."
'Completely unacceptable'
Across Europe, the reaction was equally strong.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Thursday he condemned the Iranian statement "absolutely."
"It is a completely unacceptable statement, of course. We should respect borders and respect the integrity of Israel, and we want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors," he told BBC radio.
Asked whether he believed that Iran should be expelled from the U.N., Barroso said: "I condemn absolutely that statement, but I will not make any concrete proposal now."
In Paris, Ahmadinejad's comments prompted the French foreign minister to summon the Iranian ambassador for an explanation. France, along with Germany and Britain, has been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he learned about Ahmadinejad's comments from news reports.
"If these comments are correct, they are unacceptable. I greatly condemn them and have asked for the Iranian ambassador in Paris to be summoned to the Foreign Ministry to demand explanations," Douste-Blazy said.
"For France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested. This state was created by a decision of the U.N. General Assembly. International law applies to all. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist."
Foreign ministries in Berlin, Madrid and Rome also made their opposition to Ahmadinejad's remarks known to Iran's representatives in their countries, AP reported.
Spain summoned the Iranian ambassador in Madrid to protest the comments, while the German Foreign Ministry summoned a representative of the Iranian Embassy to underline Berlin's opposition to the remarks.
Italy said the remarks confirmed concerns over Tehran's nuclear program, and that the Foreign Ministry had expressed "discomfort and concern to the Iranian ambassador in Rome."
"The contents and tone of such unacceptable statements confirm worries over the political positions pursued by the new Iranian leadership, especially concerning the nuclear dossier," a statement from Rome said.
Journalist Shirzad Bozorghmehr contributed to this report
SpidermanTuba said:I assume you mean Iran. And yes. By the right wing method of thinking, if you aren't invading a nation run by an evil dictator, you support that evil dictator being in power.
manu1959 said:or carter? how far back does sadam go anyway
GunnyL said:The mission in Iraq will be accomplished when the Gov't of Iraq can stand on its own against its enemies.
Your first and second paragraphs are a perfect example of my previous statement. Whether or not he acts, he can't win with the likes of you.
rtwngAvngr said:That's not the reasoning at all. The reasoning is: when a dictator has been deposed and you say it was a mistake THEN you support the dictator. Nice try, bugfucker.
theHawk said:Where are all of our anti-war folks? What do they have to say about this? I'm just waiting to hear how this is all Bush's fault.
:ali:
SpidermanTuba said:So if it wouldn't be a mistake to take out the Iranian dictator, why aren't we doing it? Was the invasion of Iraq only a mistake until the point where Hussein was captured, and thereafter it was not a mistake? If the war was justified in Iraq because Hussein was an evil man with WMD - uhh, so are the leaders of Iran and N Korea. Do you honestly want to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear over NYC before taking out these dangerous men?
rtwngAvngr said:If someone took out Kim il jong, I wouldn't complain, like you libs have about Saddam being taken out.
The invasion of Iraq was never a mistake, at any point in time.
SpidermanTuba said:Yet you don't support an invasion of North Korea? So you don't really care what happens, either way? The decision of whether or not to go to war, just, really, isn't that big of a deal to you, is it?
How many dead Americans would be worth taking out Kim Jong Il and saving the horribly oppressed people of N Korea?
I find it hilarious that right wingers claim to care about the Iraqi people considering they dind't give a damn about them when Hussein was gassing the Kurds and murdering Iranian women and children in the 80's.
rtwngAvngr said:I would support it. You're making shit up now, dumbass. Keep on laughing, chuckles.
SpidermanTuba said:You "would" support it, or you "do" support it?
You just mean you "would" support anything the President does, right? Do you have any actual opinions of your own other than "I support what the President does."
rtwngAvngr said:I would support it if war were declared or even if we just did it without declaring it.
Getting anal about 'would' and 'do' serves no purpose but to allow you to stroke your chomsky like ego.
SpidermanTuba said:"Do" it present tense, "would" is future. If you think that's splitting hairs, you must not have done very well in English class.
I'll explain.
If you "do" support an invasion of N. Korea. that means you support it right now, at this very moment.
If you "would" support an invasion of N Korea, that means you do not neccessarily support it now, but in the future you would, subject to the qualficiation that we actually engage in a war with N Korea.
Which is it. Got your own opinion on this or do you just go with whatever your government decides?
rtwngAvngr said:Don't be a condescending prick. I can't support something in the present that isn't happening. If it were to occur in the future I would support it. Why is this hard for you?
And I have my own opinions.
SpidermanTuba said:I'll make it simple for you.
Do you think we should invade North Korea? Yes, or no.
