An Interesting Lunch

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
I had a very intersting lunch this weekend with some good friends/ex-coworkers of mine:
An Israeli couple and a quasi republican - pro Israel at all costs guy. I'll preface this by saying these are reasonable people, otherwise, whom I love dearly. I do think they have an extremely warped understanding of politics after this morning. The quasi republican guy started off about Mike Wallace on Sean Hannity. When he said, he was listening to Sean Hannity, I knew I was in for a treat. Well, I guess Hannity had interviewed Mike Wallace who'd interviewed Ahmadinejad (Iranian president). Anyway, Wallace simply stated that he isn't a "madman" and that his pov was not that he hated jewish people, but he disagreed with zionism. Wallace didn't even imply that he agreed with him, he just stated his opinion of the man and Ahmad's POV. Nothing more. Well, my friend was livid at this, "an AMERICAN JOURNALIST who says that this guy isn't mad?". But, is this the level of discourse that we have come to? That if you don't dismiss Islamic leaders as madmen, you're somehow a bad person? Will dismissing these leaders as madmen rather than smart men with an agenda really going to get us anywhere? How do you reason or negotiate with someone you think is crazy or that thinks you are crazy?
Anyway, onto the Isreali friend. I'm convinced now more than ever that we should give a piece of a flyover state or get out of the region all together. Both sides, even rational and politically informed people are have selective memories about current events when it comes to who innitiates the latest series of attacks. Her memory is consistent with the Bush admin's: it all started when hebollah out of nowhere attacked northern Israel an arbitrary starting in my opinion. When I asked her about the picnickers on teh beach in gaza that were killed, she had no idea about what I was talking about. She said it was a story that the otherside must have made up. I would have surely thought that someone like her would have at least known about them, whether or not she believed they were Israeli shells that killed teh people or not is debatable, but to loose sight of it all together in the latest series of violence is unfair in my opinion.

Here's an interesting article on arbitrary timelines:

http://makedemocracywork.org/archives/category/foreign-affairs/israel/

I disagree with author in that I think the killing of the family is really what sparked the latest - at least in hte eyes of the public anyway.
 
well its obvious you think you are so much haughtier than your friends and I am really surprised that you talk to them at all, what with their point of view.

Your also a Jew hater so why do you hang out with Jewish people?

The killing of the family in gaza had nothing to do with hezbollah. It was a rocket that misfired or was accidentally set off. And it involved hamas. The attacks in the north were designed to distract attention from iran's nuclear ambitions and to gain pr for hezbollah. Which is a puppet of iran. hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and are still holding them. I know this means nothing to you. But you will probably get to see their beheading on the internet soon.

iran's president, and I use the title lightly here, Imalittlehitler is mad as a hatter inspite of your beloved wallace's deductions. This is the man that calls for the total destruction of Israel. who wants to control the entire middle east and start a nuclear war with the US and europe. Nothing crazy about those plans huh?

If iran gets its way and strikes the US it will be on the east coast. Those fly over states that you look down on will be just fine.
 
While I agree with you that we need to start seriously pulling out of the region if only to rethink what the hell our role is!
As I have said before ..... Iraq is a cluster fuck ..and Iran is playing with Apocalyptic Fire.
But... to even go where Mike Wallce is going by stating that Ahmadinejad is anything but a "madman" ...well Im sorry ... the guy is one can short of a six pack, has a missin spark plug, .. he of the "blow Israel off the map" quotes ...
C'mon Lady T... if any Western Leader were to utter words anywhere close to that? Shit... Bush says "You are either with us or against us" and the left in this Country immediately respond by drawing Hitler mustaches on him.
 
Yes, I'm an anti-semite, because I acknowledge that Hamas' ceasefire and Hezbollah's subsequent involvement stemmed from an an actual event that a lot of commentators on the mideast violence tend to leave out..

Here's a free history lesson you jack@$$:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html

"The explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people last Friday was caused by explosives planted there by Palestinian militants, not artillery fire from an Israeli navy gunboat, Israeli military sources said Tuesday. "

"However, in Gaza, the group Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has been able to gather suggests that a 155 mm artillery shell, like the type used by the Israeli military, was responsible."

"The deaths of seven people -- all members of a Palestinian family having a beach picnic -- prompted the military wing of Hamas to resume rocket strikes against Israel after a hiatus of more than a year."

__________________________________-

Furthermore, my displeasure in a nations actions has nothing to do with my viewpoints on religion nor does it insinuate in ANY way shape or form that I hate anyone based on said religion. Its idiots like you that are making honest and rational discourse obsolete in this country.
 
klaatu said:
While I agree with you that we need to start seriously pulling out of the region if only to rethink what the hell our role is!
As I have said before ..... Iraq is a cluster fuck ..and Iran is playing with Apocalyptic Fire.
But... to even go where Mike Wallce is going by stating that Ahmadinejad is anything but a "madman" ...well Im sorry ... the guy is one can short of a six pack, has a missin spark plug, .. he of the "blow Israel off the map" quotes ...
C'mon Lady T... if any Western Leader were to utter words anywhere close to that? Shit... Bush says "You are either with us or against us" and the left in this Country immediately respond by drawing Hitler mustaches on him.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with Wallace or Hannity. I'm saying that we are bashing people for merely stating that a supposed madman may have a point of view we should consider. Its not matter of agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but we have to be smart about how we engage the middle east as to concide with our allies and our economic interests as well. If our strategy doesn't reach beyond, "he's just a madman", then I think in the long run, we are going to be fvcked. However, if we can take his alleged view point and some how exploit it in the future to our advantage, then we will be better off. Dismissing anything other than what you believe to be true, won't help us one iota.
 
Damocles said:
Not just "technically"... The whole "anti-semitic" thing only being about Jews is a little tired and simply wrong.
Click to expand...

You are correct. But when its said in the media, the general understanding is that people are refering to Jewish people, not all semites. Its a generally accepted misnomer like, "African-American".
 
I don't think a journalist should "say" whether a leader of another country is a MADMAN, or not MAD.... a journalist should do neither because they are there to report the news and not give their own opine and it would be severing any further interviews or any opportunity to get further news from this country as easily.
 
Care4all said:
I don't think a journalist should "say" whether a leader of another country is a MADMAN, or not MAD.... a journalist should do neither because they are there to report the news and not give their own opine and it would be severing any further interviews or any opportunity to get further news from this country as easily.
Click to expand...

during the interview yes, but if someone is doing an interview on the journalist, they should be more than free to give you their personal ideas.
 
Anyway, Wallace simply stated that he isn't a "madman" and that his pov was not that he hated jewish people, but he disagreed with zionism. Wallace didn't even imply that he agreed with him, he just stated his opinion of the man and Ahmad's POV. Nothing more. Well, my friend was livid at this, "an AMERICAN JOURNALIST who says that this guy isn't mad?". But, is this the level of discourse that we have come to?

Dismissing him as a "madman", does nothing to inform us of how to deal with this guy and Iran. And it causes us to underestimate him. Its simply propaganda put out for slack-jawed yokels to lap up. Red meat for the base.

Its similar to the crap bush shovel's about OBL wanting to attack us because "he hates our freedoms". This is a diservice to the american people to either lie about OBL, and mislead the american people about the real goals and motivation of OBL.

Understanding the enemies true goals and motivations - understanding "nuance", if you will - is the first step in taking actions to mitigate the threat from that enemy.
 
LadyT said:
I'm not saying I agree with Wallace or Hannity. I'm saying that we are bashing people for merely stating that a supposed madman may have a point of view we should consider. Its not matter of agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but we have to be smart about how we engage the middle east as to concide with our allies and our economic interests as well. If our strategy doesn't reach beyond, "he's just a madman", then I think in the long run, we are going to be fvcked. However, if we can take his alleged view point and some how exploit it in the future to our advantage, then we will be better off. Dismissing anything other than what you believe to be true, won't help us one iota.
Click to expand...

And just how do you intend to exploit his "alleged view point". He has stated that he intends to wipe Israel off the map. He intends to spread his version of islam across the world through terror and military means. He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. So just what do you intend to exploit here? And how?

The usual liberal response, maybe somewhere down the road something will happen in our favor or they will have a change of heart. You live in a dream world.
 
Cypress said:
Dismissing him as a "madman", does nothing to inform us of how to deal with this guy and Iran. And it causes us to underestimate him. Its simply propaganda put out for slack-jawed yokels to lap up. Red meat for the base......Understanding the enemies true goals and motivations - understanding "nuance", if you will - is the first step in taking actions to mitigate the threat from that enemy.
Click to expand...

As usual, very well said.
 
Its easy to call people like this madmen. It marginalizes them as we attribute their beliefs to simply be the result of chemical imbalances or misformed cerebral structure. However Ahmadinejad is not an insane man he is a politician like any other who knows what to say to help himself gain power.

Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden aren't crazy either. They knew what to do to elevate their position. And although the quest for absolute power is despicable it is hardly insane.

As a young man I myself desired power so that I could craft the world to the way I liked it. I was not crazy then just pissed off.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Its easy to call people like this madmen. It marginalizes them as we attribute their beliefs to simply be the result of chemical imbalances or misformed cerebral structure. However Ahmadinejad is not an insane man he is a politician like any other who knows what to say to help himself gain power.

Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden aren't crazy either. They knew what to do to elevate their position. And although the quest for absolute power is despicable it is hardly insane.

As a young man I myself desired power so that I could craft the world to the way I liked it. I was not crazy then just pissed off.
Click to expand...


Not only does it marginalize them, it minimizes our ability to approach a solution.
 
LadyT said:
Not only does it marginalize them, it minimizes our ability to approach a solution.
Click to expand...
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?
 
Damocles said:
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?
Click to expand...

Let me know when Iran invades and occupies dozens of countries, and sends its navy to blockade our eastern seaboard and sink our shipping.

Until then, the Hitler analogy won't work. To my knowledge, Iran has never invaded its neighbors in all of its modern history. Iran is a problem, but I don't see any evidence of the Hitler analogy.

Ronnie Reagan used diplomacy and negotiation with the evil empire, and iranian theocrats.
 
Cypress said:
Let me know when Iran invades and occupies dozens of countries, and sends its navy to blockade our eastern seaboard and sink our shipping.

Until then, the Hitler analogy won't work. To my knowledge, Iran has never invaded its neighbors in all of its modern history. Iran is a problem, but I don't see any evidence of the Hitler analogy.

Ronnie Reagan used diplomacy and negotiation with the evil empire, and iranian theocrats.
Click to expand...
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top