Ahmadinejad: 'Wicked' Bush's term is at an end

Ahmadinejad's sabre rattling is no different from dubya's shrieking.

Two fundie's from different persuasions - and Ahmadinejad's time isn't far from up either, methinks.

Yup, gotta agree there Madverts. They both look like semi-intelligent apes from the Planet of...

PS Not wishing to defend or attack anyone, but Achmydinnerjad should remember that Bush never said that Iran for example "should be wiped off the face of the Earth". There's a difference between trying to get someone to change, and wanting to wipe out a whole race.

Life grows increasing difficult for Iranians living under this deranged wackjob's rule. If the average Iranian enjoyed the same rights Americans did, there is no doubt the polls would show they'd rather see Ahmadnejed vacating office instead of Bush.

The Iranian people deserve a better leader, a better government and freedom from religious persecution. Bush hasn't taken a single step to harm the Iranian people and Ahmadnejed relies on people stupid enough to believe his rhetoric to stay in power.

Too bad "wicked" Ahmadinejad is stil around....

"Bush hasn't taken a single step to harm the Iranian people"

Really?

Calling someone wicked is really calling them smart.

I would not call Bush Wicked, unless I have watched too many Narnia movies, he doesn't fit the profile. Besides, AJ here is in no position to call anyone anything.

at least Bush hasn't placed someone on death row for being gay..

"at least Bush hasn't placed someone on death row for being gay.."

True, but I'm sure many a latent still loyal to the Bush sect would be quite happy with him doing so...

i like how he stresses the word "god" on everything.

From the time that george bush was elected he planned to attack Iraq and Iran, both. he got into Iraq, but he didn't get into Iran.

It's not because he didn't work at it. he dreamed and plotted to attack Iran, but there was enough support within the administration to get the troops into Iran. Also we needed more troops and we didn't have them.

"Bush hasn't taken a single step to harm the Iranian people"

he took several steps, just didn't get to attack. < :-)

Ahmadinejad: 'Wicked' Bush's term is at an end'

No translation is necessary. The surge worked. This guy is in trouble. The Al-Sadr block has been neutralized. Iran's forces in Iraq are on the canvas.

Oh Adverts, very funny!

I thought this was as well when I encountered it in a debate over GWB's domestic record: "He ran government with all the enthusiasm and attention that a young child puts into pet care a year after he grows bored of his hamster."

"wicked Bush"

So Laura must be the wicked witch! Of the south! I'll get you my pretty - and your little dog, too! Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee!

Ahmadinejad is really a great guy I sure will be sorry when his time is up. We should never hav let the Shah fall. You listening Jimmy Carter, you dolt.

Good to know the Bush League's plan reshape the entire Mid East region has been such a resounding success.

Dan - Good to know Iran still doesn't have and probably won't ever have nukes, mainly due to "the Bush League."

Sarge

Uh, you really didn't address the point, now did you.

Uh, sarge;

Iran probably will get nukes, and thanks to dubya's abortion in Iraq, the threat of force is firmly off the table.

Bush Co's plan for the middle east has been an impressive failure. No wonder his supporters are losers.

Madverts

President Mohammad Khatami said on 23 December 2002 that Iran was committed to its obligations and had no intention to develop nuclear weapons. He said that Iran's willingness to send spent fuel back to Russia showed that it did not want to use it for weapons, since the nuclear waste from Bushire plant would be taken to Russia for safekeeping.

Taken to Russia for 'safekeeping.' I love it...Neocons now trusting the Ruskies to protect US interests in the mid-East and non-proliferation. Its a mad mad world.

According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal says is enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. See also Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Material, Harmon W.Hubbard, April 2003.

---- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

Good to know Iran "probably won't ever have nukes."

Probably won't ever....hmmmm, reminds me of

"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

If Bush had come out and said that you guys would be hitting him with both barrels and holding nothing back. It's kind of interesting to see people tiptoe around Ahmadinejad's words. Don't quite want to support the guy, but then again you don't want to pass up on the chance to criticize Bush. It's about as close to a free pass as one can get. :)

If you include me in "you guys" then you are wrong.

SuperLib, I said a long time ago that whatever Iran does is their business and not ours, especially when we have thousands of nukes and we're trying to tell others they can't have them.

I really have no desire for Iran to get nukes. I'd like to see them all destroyed all over the world. That means all that belong to the US, Isreal, China, Pakistan, India and anywhere else they are developing them. We hear all this crap about Iran can't have nukes....but we continue to develope bigger, smaller and more powerful nukes.

The US is actually run by a bunch of hypocrits. < :-)

adaydream

Your position may sound nice to you, but its a soothing fantasy that in the end offers nothing for a safer or more just world. In fact, it makes the world less safe and therfore less just.

Imagine if all nations were to supposedly ban the bomb. OK. Now what? How do we know that our neighbor and/or rival doesn't have a few. Y'know, just in case. How can we be sure? We can't. And what are the consequences if they do have nukes? Disastrous. The consequences of not taking counter-measures to the possibility that our neighbor and/or rival is not forthwright with their capability to inflict harm on you are too great to not counter-measures. Thus, nations build defensive capabilites. And any increase in defense on our part increases the threat to our neighbors and/or rivals. That is the nature of power. This is the classic "security dilemma," of power politics. So until we can figure out a way to take the power out of politics, that is until the whole world is ruled by one government, it would be incredibly irresponsible for our -- or any government -- not to take the necessary steps to protect us -- or their people.

And since the only possible defense against nukes are other nukes (MAD), we must have a nuclear stockpile.

Indeed, were the US and the other nations pretend to disarm their nuclear arsenal, the world would become a much more dangerous place. The hightened uncertainty of all nations military potential is a profound destabalizer. What's more: nukes prevent the kind of knock-down, drag out battle for world dominance that was WWII. MAD kept the Cold War from going hot. Nukes have kept the international system more stable, more secure, and ultimately more just.

In times of great instability and insecurity - such as WWI through WWII -- matters of justice become less important. 50 million dead in Europe alone.

To offer soothing fantasies about the way the world should work, and attempt to take the moral highground from that essentially indefensible position that only increases instability, war, and injustice. Now that's hypocrisy.

DanManjt, Under your thinking everybody should build nukes, just to protect themselves by the fact that I have a weapon or weapons that can out kill you.

Under this train of thought, every country that feels any kind of threat from anybody should be building bigger and more powerful nukes. Than it's perfectly justifiable that Iran build nukes. They are only practicing what you are explaining.

Then you have the United States who says, I'll kill you if you try to get a weapon bigger and/or more powerful than mine. Even if a country is trying to level the playground, ever so minute.

Yes, I live in a world where I wish there were no nukes. But the world I open my eyes to isn't that world. So when I see the United States continueing to build up their arsenal and screaming and threatening Iran, without saying crap to India and Pakistan, I get touqued at the hypocracy of it all. < :-)

oops...."torqued at the hypocracy of it all."

adaydream

Under that thinking, to protect themselves all nations either build nukes, cut a deal with a nuclear power, counter-balance nuclear states. Or suffer. Which is exactly what goes on.

And yes, it makes perfect sense from Iran's perspective to build nukes. Consider her current security environment: The US has invaded and 'regime changed' two of her neighbors, and another of her neighbors, Pakistan, has been flexing her nuclear muscle. They are justified from a realpolitik point of view. Which is what chagrins me so much about all the nonsense about how Iran is run by a bunch of madmen. They are behaving almost text book realists, whereas the Bush League has allowed their conceit and ideology to blind them into blunders that have only decreased US interests and increased Iran's position.

But back to your point: yes, Iran is behaving as one would expect. And by the same logic of realism that supports Iran's attempt to go nuke, it is in the interests of the US to try to block Iran, or any non-nuclear state, from joining the nuclear club. The US wants to limit the numbers of players on the nuclear playground.

I suppose given all this that you in the end you, as an American, feel about whether the US's pursuit of power also brings with it a spreading of US values and institutions. And what the alternative to US dominance would look like. Personally, I think the US acts like a typical top dog, does a lot of crappy and harmful things. And beyond that has been and is a force for good in the world beyond simply providing stability and public goods in the international system.

You are not the first to suggest that all nations should get nukes, because there detterent value would make war a thing of the past. I am not so sure about that. I do know that the current situation where a few powerful nations, and a few not so powerfull nations maintain a nuclear monopoly has meant no hegemonic wars and no nuclear attacks. This is a very good thing. This in historically unprecedented on both counts.

woops

I suppose given all this that you in the end you, as an American, must decide how you feel about whether the US's pursuit of power also brings with it a spreading of US values and institutions.

Poor daydream....he's outsmarted himself....

"torqued at the hypocracy of it all."

Hypocrisy is like alcohol. A little serves as an important social lubricant; too much makes you an unbearable blowhard."

And I think safer and more just world is well worth a little moral discomfit.

Huh SuperLib, you want to elaborate? < :-)

usaexpat,

We should never hav let the Shah fall. You listening Jimmy Carter, you dolt.

How exactly do you think Carter should have propped up a terminally ill autocrat? The Shah died the year after he fled. And his heir was a teenager making it highly unlikely he could have held on to power for long. The Shash had a well equipped army that had not been depleted by fighting. And an extensive police force and he still couldn't hold on to power in the face of a broad-based opposition movement.

That opposition consisted of both those who wished to see genuine democracy in Iran as well as religious fanatics. They coalesced to oppose the Shah but afterwards Khomenei outmaneuvered his secular rivals for power. The US recognized the government established after the Shah fled but the President, who had returned from exile in France, resigned after he failed to free the hostages.

If Ahmadinejad is succeeded by a moderate I think there will be much more interest in engaging the person that was the case with his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

Look who's calling the kettle black. What a loser.

How many "NUKES" do the Americans, Russians, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, British, French, Japanese(NONE)etc. have? WHO ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE USED THEM? The Americans!!! So why shouldn't the Iranians have them? Because Israel NO!!

somewhat agree with you about US run by a bunch of hypocrits... but you tell us what country isn't? when other countries need help, who is there most of time? yes, I agree the US should stay out of some of the affairs in other countries. US is too busy helping others they've negelected themselves.

racid I agree that I live in the greatest country on the face of the earth.

But just because we're that great country there is, doesn't mean that other countries have to bow down to us or we have the right to dictate to them how we want them to develope as a country.

We need to bring our troops home, shut our damn mouths. < :-)

Bush was a loser! Both battlefield, Iraq and afghanistan were humilations for the US military. A total failure nothing victory,NEVER!

So you say!!!!