HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... 54 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 36,547

Journal Archives

Iran, Israel, and Existential Threats

Somebody bothered to ask the president of Iran what the hell he meant by that Israel "wiped off the map" comment a few years back. His answer is in the excerpt below.

It is also worth noting that when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran with chemical weapons, Iran did not respond in kind, and their religious leaders have said nuclear weapons are a sin. They also haven't invaded any countries for over a hundred years, and have a military budget that's a fraction of ours.

The truly ironic thing the author of this article pointed out is that while Obama was telling the Muslim world that we don't kill people over offensive words and images, our government and Israel are contemplating killing a lot of Iranians over that "wiped off the map" comment and the possibility that they MIGHT get nuclear weapons and MIGHT use them on Israel or the United States, and action that would be self-inflicted genocide since Israel has hundreds of nukes and we have thousands, more than enough to wipe Iran off the map and have plenty left over for every other possible enemy.

I don't like many aspects of their religious government, but is not justification to kill thousands or start a war that could escalate to a World War since China and Russia might not look too kindly on our military occupation of the top three oil reserve countries in the world.

There is a lot of scare-mongering here on DU about Iran and I think most people are too smart to fall for it. We need to convince our friends and neighbors too, so politicians might at least think twice before doing this.


The Wall Street Journal follows that paragraph with this: "Note that word -- 'eliminated.' When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel 'must be wiped off the map.' Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel 'has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.'"

But in fact, when pressed on this, what Ahmadinejad has said is: "Our proposal is for everyone to allow people to freely hold elections and choose their governors. It's been 6 to 7 decades during which the people of Palestine have been dislodged from their homes. And their territories are under occupation, and an occupying regime has been bullying them and forcing them into the current conditions. If such a fate would have come into the lives of ordinary Americans, what proposal would you have had for them? I am sure you would propose for their elimination of international bullying and occupation. Imagine in your mind that the occupation of Palestine has come to an end. What would there remain? So this is the essence of what we are saying."

In other words, were Palestine freed of apartheid and occupation, were all of its people permitted to freely determine their future, that future would not include a government that gives superior status to Jews. Such a future could be horrible, or it could be more democratic and respectful of individual rights than Israel is, or than Iran is, or than the United States is.


Talking about the nuclear question, Ahmadinejad told us, has grown tiresome and repetitive. Iran is in compliance with the law and has put the IAEA in charge of inspections. The root cause of U.S. aggression toward Iran, he said, has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Why did the United States back Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran? Because the Iranian people had overthrown a U.S.-backed dictatorship. Why has the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran in the past, he asked, when nuclear enrichment was not an issue? In the past year, he noted, the United States has sold over $70 billion in weapons to nations in the Persian Gulf, while Iran spends less one-fifth that amount. How, he asked, is Iran the aggressor?


Why do so many Dem Party leaders support groups who support GOP & destroy lives of Dem voters?

In election season, we at DU are not supposed to advocate for voting for other than Democratic candidates (which makes sense given the name of the site), but when we are asked to give our dollars, time, and votes to Democratic candidates, it's worth asking why many top party leaders support GOP groups and ideas that are harming Democratic voters and all Americans--and those groups give money to Republican candidates.

While I am grateful that Obama has given NCLB waivers and funding to prevent teachers from being fired due to budget cuts, he still supports the conservative education agenda of repetitive standardized testing, replacing real public schools with for profit charter schools that siphon off tax payer money into profits, and the like.

Likewise, he rolls Social Security into deficit reduction talks as if it contributed to the deficit rather than running a surplus for a couple of decades to prepare for the Baby Boomers retirement so the program can still be roughly pay as you go, and the rest of the budget has borrowed that surplus.The only way Social Security contributes to the deficit is if Washington has no intention of paying back what they borrowed from the SS trust fund. Why treat a debt to American workers any less seriously than a debt to an investor, bank, or foreign country?

We need to light a fire under those at the top of the party and let them know they need to put more daylight between themselves and corporate compliant Republicans. The Chicago teacher's strike should have been their wake up call--don't let them hit snooze.

I do not understand how Democrats and progressives put up with self-proclaimed liberals and liberal groups such as Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, StudentsFirst, Stand for Children, and Democrats for Education Reform.


I do not understand how Democrats and progressives put up with self-proclaimed liberals and liberal groups such as Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, StudentsFirst, Stand for Children, and Democrats for Education Reform.
(note: links to support at FULL TEXT below).


So Campbell Brown wants to help protect students from teachers who are sexual predators and who are protected by unions (just for the record, I believe that is anti-union propaganda). Okay. But what if a teacher has sexual intercourse with a student (which I agree is a fireable if not criminal offense) or if a student is raped by a teacher and then gets pregnant? Campbell Brown's husband (Romney adviser Dan Senor) and Michelle Rhee (who Scott supports) give money to or want to elect some people who belong to the party that would force the targeted/raped student who got pregnant to have the teacher offender's baby.

On what planet does it make sense for the DNC and high-profile Democrats, such as Barack Obama, to support these groups and people? How is it that they get to call themselves Democratic allies and liberals when they are actively supporting people who want to destroy the Democratic Party and dis-empower their supporters?


TOM TOMORROW TOON: further gaffes from the Romney video

Source http://comics.dailykos.com/

Lincoln trailer: a reminder of what we expected of Obama and what he could still be

Watching this trailer, it's hard not to think of the short-sighted political and moral pygmies Obama has surrounded himself (i.e. Rahm, Arne Duncan, Geithner, and most of his economic advisors) with and compromises he has made in contrast to our hopes after the lowest point of our democracy.

Most politicians are creatures of their times and seem to have no ambition beyond the approval of and compensation from the handful of very wealthy who can put them in office or remove them it (walking on their own two feet or otherwise).

As naive at it may be, I still have a glimmer of hope that Obama is Lincoln, waiting for his Antietam, that will give him the opportunity to change history as profoundly as Lincoln did at that moment.

PIC: another way Romney could still win...

Romney has an ace in the hole he hasn't played yet...

"Vote for me, and I'll show you how to get rich bankrupting businesses! It's quick, easy, and all it takes to get started is borrowing a couple of million dollars from your parents!"

He could do a late night infomercial and sew up the whole race.

PIC: Thomas Jefferson on Obama vs. Romney

I posted a version of this before with Bush, that people somehow mistook as an insult to Obama (I guess by just have his photo next to Bush's).

I hope this one is more clear.

transcript: Romney revives Bush "nuclear blackmail" lie

Baby Bush 2002:

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. ...He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.


Mitt 2012:

If I were Iran, and a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong or if America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what, unless you stand down, why we're gonna let off a dirty bomb." This is where we head, where American can be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.


If Saddam then or Iran now threatened us with a nuclear attack, it would deserve about the same response we give North Korea, which is not much, for the same reason: what do they think would happen NEXT if they pulled the trigger?

We have enough nukes to burn Iraq, Iran, AND North Korea off the map AND do the same to the rest of the world.

Several times over.

We are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation.

The leaders of every country in the world know this, which is why they would never launch a nuclear attack against us or give a nuke to terrorists to detonate here: before one mushroom cloud cleared here, their country would no longer exist. If we couldn't find a return address on it, we would simply go down our list of countries we don't like and pick one.

I wish Democrats would have to balls to just say this. It would also have the practical advantage of making Romney and other fearmongers look like liars AND cowards.

RAVITCH: Conservative think tank praises Obama for standing up to teachers' unions

Is this really the amount of choice we deserve in a democracy? A candidate who backs endless standardized testing to prove public schools are failing, and uses that as an excuse to privatize the schools even though those private FOR PROFIT charter schools do worse more often than better than regular public schools?

And the other candidate is a REPUBLICAN whose only difference is he will spend less money on schools in any case?

What will it take to get Obama and the leaders of the Democratic Party to listen educators and academics instead of Wall Street sociopaths looking to make a buck off our kids like so many barrels of oil or pork bellies?

Did President Obama Embrace the GOP Agenda?

by dianerav

The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has published a paper commending President Obama for standing up to teachers' unions.

The paper compares President Obama's support for school choice and evaluation of teachers by test scores as a "Nixon-to-China" paradigm shift.

In other words, the paper suggests, Obama's education policy has done a full pivot, aligning it with the traditional GOP agenda.

Can anyone explain this

dianerav | September 19, 2012 at 10:34 am | Categories: Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democrats, Education Industry, For-Profit, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Obama, Privatization, Race to the Top, Unions | URL: http://wp.me/p2odLa-1YA

If people reject Romney for his 47% remark, shouldn't that free Dems from GOP ideas?

Seriously, from the stimulus on down, Obama and "centrist" Dems have felt the need to water down good policy proposals with half Republican tax cut and "feed the rich and hope that something of nutritional value trickles down on us after they digest it" bullshit.

Why don't they finally say "Enough is enough. Vote enough real Democrats into office and we'll show you what we can do when we don't have to placate these sociopaths"?

And then actually do it.

Whether they will do this is something else, but at long last, isn't it time for Democrats to stop propping up the corpse of conservatism as if we all agree those are the best ideas?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... 54 Next »