You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #62: Look, we've had Prince Bandar lallygagging on White House sofas, and peering [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-21-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
62. Look, we've had Prince Bandar lallygagging on White House sofas, and peering
over Bush's shoulders at U.S./Bushite war plans. We've had Defense Department employees passing secrets to Israel. We've had oil corporations meeting secretly with Cheney and carving up Iraq's oil fields among them, a full two years before the invasion of Iraq. We've had every manner of skulduggery and treason in this country. And Ahmadinejad approaches us on honest ground--in a public forum--and we won't even listen?

I might hate the guy. I really don't have enough information, due to war profiteering corporate monopoly of the news, to properly judge his words, behavior or policies, or those of his countrymen. There are many things that I HEAR ABOUT the Iranian politicians and mullahs, in the "news," that I don't like at all. Hell, if I were in New York, I might even picket his speech, on the matter of women's rights in Iran. But protesting, picketing, countering, arguing--these are not the same thing as SUPPRESSING. Trying to influence Iran to change a bad policy is not the same as refusing them a public forum, in a potential war situation, caused entirely by our own illegitimate, despicable, fascist government. Of all the Islamic countries in the Middle East, Iran seems to be to have the MOST potential for change, and for progress in human rights. It is probably the Islamic country most WORTH listening to, and trying to understand. And if it is truly our "enemy"--which Dick Cheney would have us believe--that is all the more reason to hear what they have to say BEFORE we come to blows, and hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dead.

And we must never forget that you cannot end a war, or prevent one, by talking to your friends. You MUST talk to your "enemies," real or perceived. You must LISTEN to your "enemies," real or perceived--and listen well. How else is there to prevent unnecessary harm and death? By turning your country into an armed, medieval fortress, like Israel has? Is that tolerable? Is that even affordable? Or by stuffing your fingers in your ears, like Bush and Cheney--and the Betrayus Congress?

In this country, theoretically, and Constitutionally, WE are the deciders. As much as the White House and Congress have damaged our rightful power, it is still our right, and always will be, to decide who is a threat to us, who our "enemies" are, who we should be allied with, and for what purpose, and what OUR YOUNG PEOPLES' LIVES should be put at risk for, and what our OUR TAX DOLLARS should spent upon. And to make those decisions, we need free and open information, and discussion and dialogue, both internally, and with every country in the world, every leader, and every people. We need to hear all of their ideas, as well as we can. And if a leader like Ahmadinejad--with whom we don't agree on many things, but who has been demonized by the warmongers--has the courage to come speak to us, what fools are we to deny him a forum? Should we foreclose a possible avenue toward peace in this way?

I'm old enough to remember Nikita Krushchev's visit to the U.S. in 1959, in an era when mutual annihilation was never closer, and I will never forget how revealing it was, in so many ways. It was brilliant of our government not to forbid Krushchev free travel here and an open news media mike to the American people. The thing that most impressed me about Krushchev, at that time (I was 14), was his childlike temper tantrum at being denied a visit to Disneyland (because of security concerns, so the story went), and his odd reaction to the "Can Can" dancers on a Hollywood movie set. He was this little bear of a man, who thought the can-can dancers were "disgraceful," but was likely just still pissed off that this had been substituted for Sleeping Beauty's Castle and the Pirates of the Caribbean.

What I learned was that, a) the people of the Soviet Union were deprived--starved of entertainment and fun, symptom of their economic hardship--they had no Disneyland, or anything comparable; b) they possess childlike wonder, like anyone else, even their leaders; c) Soviet communism had puritanical and repressive tendencies. (I realize now, but didn't then, that Krushchev's reaction to the "can-can" dancers was probably hypocritical, something he felt obliged to say for the folks back home, and to emphasize American "decadence"--as well as being an expression of his irritation at being denied Disneyland.) These, my youthful perceptions of Krushchev, HUMANIZED my understanding of the Soviet Union, and helped form my opinion that the Soviet Union was not a place I would want to live, but also it kindled compassion for the vast poor population of that country and its satellites. I could better understand their revolution. I did not want them to be nuked. I wanted them to become more democratic and more prosperous.

And I was proud of our democracy, that we could let an "enemy" leader speak freely, and travel fairly freely (except for Disneyland) inside our own country, with no fear of what he had to say.

I also remember when Krushchev banged his shoe on the table at the UN and said, "We will bury you!" It did not make me fearful--I just thought he was kind of silly--a peasant, an uneducated man--and I felt sorry for the Russians having to put up with such a leader.

Wikipedia has an interesting post on that incident:

"Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as 'We will bury you!' ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow in November, 1956.<1> The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: 'Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you'a meaning more akin to 'we will attend your funeral' than 'we shall cause your funeral'.

"Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. <2> (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)

"Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, 'I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you', <3> a nod to the popular Marxist saying, 'The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism.' Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would replace capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism."


It seems as if our war profiteering corporate news monopolies have done something similar to Ahmadinejad, regarding his remark about destroying Israel. I've read reports that he DIDN'T say that, but rather that Israel will be destroyed by its own alliance with western powers. And IF that is what he really said, I would tend to agree. Israel is not forging its own path in the Middle East. It is relying on Bush Junta aggression, and massive U.S. military aid. It seems to be controlled by war profiteers, just as we are. Thus diplomacy and positive action, and Israel finding its own way, are stunted--and the armaments and the tensions escalate, making Israel--a tiny country surrounded by unfriendly or hostile neighbors--all the more vulnerable, for its association with a very hostile, aggressive and ill-intentioned U.S. In this circumstance, it is a fair prediction that Israel will not survive. If the U.S. attacks Iran, Israel could be the first casualty (after many Iranian victims). But even short of that catastrophe, Israel's militarism and isolation, and its oppression of the Palestinians, do not bode well for improving relations with neighbor countries, and undertaking the kinds of diplomatic initiatives that a tiny country like Israel MUST undertake, in its own neighborhood, to create optimum conditions for its survival.

Is Ahmadinejad's bluster REAL, or is it part mistranslation, or political pandering? We need to know, and the best way to find out is to let him speak freely on our own soil. Is Iran a threat, or is it just scared? Listening to its fieriest leader may clue us in. What are Iran's internal problems? How better to understand them, than having their leader come here, and speak? Why NOT humanize the situation, the way Krushchev's visit did? What have we to lose? Absolutely nothing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC