Is he really THIS crazy?

[Bayushi]

Ol' Mahmoud Amahdinejiadorhoweveryouspellit spoke at the UN yesterday. Again.

And, again, he went on a rant blaming everyone else for everything.

Does he honestly believe all the stupidity he spews?

See video here (BBC News site).

I'm hoping that one day people in the General Assembly chamber there will grow a pair and throw their shoes at him (probably won't happen, considering all of these "Ambassadors" are rich as hell). Maybe Am... ah screw it... I'll call him crazy-pants. Maybe Crazy-Pants will catch a hint and learn to stfu for once.

Seriously, "whine whine bitch piss and moan Israel! waaaa evil America! Bawwww!" Same shit, different speech. And yet, no one gives a shit.

*sigh*

[Beguile's Mistress]

aka Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket

[Oniya]

I'd say that a mass walk-out shows that people are 'giving a shit'.  The Iranian president (*isn't even going to try spelling it*) has been widely condemned for the speech, according to the link you provided.  Diplomats often have to swallow down the urge to smack someone around for being a jerk, and turning their backs on him is a pretty clear sign of disapproval.  It's the same reaction that is recommended when a child throws a tantrum - and that's about how you describe his speech.

[AndyZ]

This is the same guy who claims that there "are no homosexuals in Iran" and has them stoned to death.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/ for one source of many on that.

What do you think he's going to do when he gets nukes?

[Ramster]

Use them to punish traffic offenders?

[Callie Del Noire]

I consider it VERY telling that all his countries neighbors want him gone. It scares the hell out of Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait and the rest of them that he might get a nuke. It's fairly certain that he'd toss a nuke at Tel Aviv first chance he could get.. and I think it's even money the Isrealis have (at least) a nuke to throw back.

I also find it funny that the man who pretty much had his position bought for him going on about 'fair elections' in the US from time to time.

I'll say this.. he gets the nuke.. he'd use it. And I'm willing to bet that the folks in Tel Aviv will be filling most (if not all) of his 'favorite folks to nuke' list. After that jack-off Assanges leak of diplomatic traffic last year, he knows NO ONE in the region likes/respects him.

Personally? I will be surprised if the folks who helped him back into office will back him again. But when you got a frothing rabid dog pointed at everyone else, do you let go of his leash? After all he could turn on you. And I could totally see him putting bullets into anyone that 'betrays' him.

He's a loon, and a dangerous one. I give him even odds of being sent to meet Allah if the Isrealis think he's about to get a nuke.

[MasterMischief]

People on the left call the Tea Party terrorist and people on the right suggesting the Federal Reserve Chairman is treasonous.  Could it be hyperbole?  Probably not.  The sad thing is, way down underneath, he may have a point somewhere.  I am not suggesting the Holocaust was a hoax, but the US has done some pretty shitty things and we are a bit hypocritical at times.

The thing is, I do not think he is as dangerous as some might think.  He is not in power in Iran, the Supreme Leader is.  The clerics have already had to reign him in.  If he is not careful, they will drop kick his ass right out.

[Callie Del Noire]

People on the left call the Tea Party terrorist and people on the right suggesting the Federal Reserve Chairman is treasonous.  Could it be hyperbole?  Probably not.  The sad thing is, way down underneath, he may have a point somewhere.  I am not suggesting the Holocaust was a hoax, but the US has done some pretty shitty things and we are a bit hypocritical at times.

The thing is, I do not think he is as dangerous as some might think.  He is not in power in Iran, the Supreme Leader is.  The clerics have already had to reign him in.  If he is not careful, they will drop kick his ass right out.

Hence my question...

Who has more pull with the Revolutionary Guard? Him or the Clerics. I think if he is pushed or 'betrayed' by them, it will come down to whose side they (the guard) fall on when the dominos start falling. Iran has a history of hanging clerics in the past, and it wouldn't be too much for him to accuse them of 'betraying' the people if it means he gets to keep power.

[MasterMischief]

A couple years ago he backed down after he suggested he knew the will of Allah.  The Clerics were all 'What 'cho talkin' 'bout Willis?'

[Callie Del Noire]

A couple years ago he backed down after he suggested he knew the will of Allah.  The Clerics were all 'What 'cho talkin' 'bout Willis?'

Yeah.. but I doubt he wouldn't try it again if he the thought he could get away with it. I could see him quite happily having the guard line up his 'backers' against a wall and shooting them if he could leverage this into something he could manage. I think he sees himself as 'The Man' and anyone that speaks against him goes on a list.

If he could get out from the Ayatollahs.. he will. He's already shown he's in denial.


Look at what he said about homosexuality in Iraq. Says there is no such thing even as he endorses their stonings.

[Ironwolf85]

honestly I think even the RG's aren't going to back this loon whould it come to that.
were iran prepare to launch a nuke at isreal, they would strike pre-emptively at the facility, they have a record of doing so, if the nuke were to go off in iranian lands by accident or being intercepted the entire region would breathe a sigh of relief.
funny thing is that a war between israel and iran would probably push public opinion towards israel if they conducted their army right, we all know iran's forces would loot, sack, and pillage their enemies.

[MasterMischief]

Israel could use something to distract people from their settlement building.

[Roxy Rocket]

(removed for now)

[Callie Del Noire]

Israel could use something to distract people from their settlement building.

They really need to stop doing that.

Just saying.. it's an aside.. but they need to do this to show they can be trusted.

[errantwandering]

Ahmadinejad and his rhetoric is going to get a lot of people killed and destabilize a region already devastated by decades of exploitation by foreign governments and strong-arm dictators.  Israel is very, very twitchy, and tends to react with overwhelming force whenever they feel threatened.  Everyone in their immediate area hates them and wants them gone, not without cause, and Ahmadinejad has called for their destruction more than once.  How do you think Israel will react if they think that Iran is about to obtain or has obtained nuclear weaponry, given all the things Ahmadinejad tends to go on about?

[Oniya]

How do you think Israel will react if they think that Iran is about to obtain or has obtained nuclear weaponry, given all the things Ahmadinejad tends to go on about?

To quote Tom Lehrer:

So Israel's get-ting tense
Wants one in self-defense
'The Lord is our shepherd,' says the Psalm
'But just in case - we better get a bomb.'
[noembed]Who's next?[/noembed] (Song is a bit dated in the political sense.)

[gaggedLouise]

MasterMischief is probably right: although A-jad is very confrontational he isn't the actual leader and his influence on Iranian foreign policy (or military planning) seems quite limited. Having a high seat doesn't always equal having the power to go ahead and do things.

[MarissaSeraphOfInsanity]

Ahmadinejad is a monster but it's important to understand that he and the theocratic government of Iran are American made monsters. During the 50's Iran attempted to transition itself into a democracy and held a general election in which Mosadegh, a socialist, won on a campaigh of nationalising foreign oil companies. America intervened and assisted a coup which saw the Shah of Iran returned to power, a brutal and oppressive regime with a CIA-trained secret police force that arrested, tortured and executed thousands. This regime collapsed during the 70's and Iran has been virulently anti-West ever since. This event, along with America's foreign policy of propping up dictators in the Middle East all the way up to now is part of the reason Ahmadinejad is so convinced that every time a sandstorm picks up somewhere that America was behind it.

Now, I assure you this isn't a defence of that madman. I also assure you that the thought of him possessing a nuke does make me somewhat uncomfortable. However I sincerely doubt that he would use it. We live in an unfortunate time where anti-American states without nuclear weapons end up being invaded and those with them are negotiated with. It is also important to note that Israel and America are both progressively surrounding Iran with military bases, with many leading politicians advocating stopping Iran going nuclear by "any means necessary." Israel is estimated to have anywhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads and is more than capable of retaliating with devastating effect against any Iranian attack. The argument that most countries in the region can own multiple nuclear devices but it is outrageous for Iran to acquire is a fallacy that is unfortunately very mainstream. If Iran ever managed to go nuclear I honestly believe that the device would be used as a defensive deterent against any potential invasion of their country.

In short, no I don't like Ahmadinejad and no I don't want him getting a nuke but I'm more concerned about us getting into another unwinnable war in the middle of the desert than I am with him getting a weapon.

[Zakharra]

Ahmadinejad is a monster but it's important to understand that he and the theocratic government of Iran are American made monsters. During the 50's Iran attempted to transition itself into a democracy and held a general election in which Mosadegh, a socialist, won on a campaigh of nationalising foreign oil companies. America intervened and assisted a coup which saw the Shah of Iran returned to power, a brutal and oppressive regime with a CIA-trained secret police force that arrested, tortured and executed thousands. This regime collapsed during the 70's and Iran has been virulently anti-West ever since. This event, along with America's foreign policy of propping up dictators in the Middle East all the way up to now is part of the reason Ahmadinejad is so convinced that every time a sandstorm picks up somewhere that America was behind it.

Now, I assure you this isn't a defence of that madman. I also assure you that the thought of him possessing a nuke does make me somewhat uncomfortable. However I sincerely doubt that he would use it. We live in an unfortunate time where anti-American states without nuclear weapons end up being invaded and those with them are negotiated with. It is also important to note that Israel and America are both progressively surrounding Iran with military bases, with many leading politicians advocating stopping Iran going nuclear by "any means necessary." Israel is estimated to have anywhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads and is more than capable of retaliating with devastating effect against any Iranian attack. The argument that most countries in the region can own multiple nuclear devices but it is outrageous for Iran to acquire is a fallacy that is unfortunately very mainstream. If Iran ever managed to go nuclear I honestly believe that the device would be used as a defensive deterent against any potential invasion of their country.

In short, no I don't like Ahmadinejad and no I don't want him getting a nuke but I'm more concerned about us getting into another unwinnable war in the middle of the desert than I am with him getting a weapon.

Unfortunately that is a kind of naive way of thinking. NO one in the Middle East wants Iran to get a nuke. No one. They'd be the ones most likely to use it and they are known to actively support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (I do not know if I got the name right), who actively attack Israel. Iran is also trying to become the dominate nation in the Middle East and given their politics and foreign policy, they would be much more likely to use the nuke as a club to threaten the nations around them. They are aggressive and greedy.

If it was announced that they got a nuke, everyone in the region will breath a sigh of relief when they facilities are taken out.

You also cannot separate out Ahmadinejad either;

MasterMischief is probably right: although A-jad is very confrontational he isn't the actual leader and his influence on Iranian foreign policy (or military planning) seems quite limited. Having a high seat doesn't always equal having the power to go ahead and do things.

It cannot be ignored that he is the president and elected leader of his nation. He speaks for Iran on the international stage, not the council of clerics. Like it or not, he does have a lot of power and influence there and will use it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Zakharra is right.. one of the most damaging elements of the Wikileaks release of diplomatic traffic last year was the release of DOZENS of messages from all around the Gulf. Gulf leadership all saying the same thing. Ahmadinejad scared the piss out of them. Completely and totally. They ALL want him gone. He is a destabilizing element in the region. The council of clerics are the 'kingmakers' BUT they also recall what happened when things were pushed back in the day, and that several of their forebears were hung by their own turbans from street lights, not to mention what the Shah did to their numbers when he was in power.

Hence they give him the 'role' and let him lead. Now, if he pushes things too far, they speak up..and he knows without their support, particularly after the LAST election, he's got a snowballs chance in Hell of getting re-elected. But don't doubt for a moment if he could drop a nice satchel charge under their table and kill them all and blame radicals/students/US/Isreal/The Boogie Man, he would. They would definitely make nice Martyrs for him to assume a lasting position on.

No one in Iran is safe from his desire for office. I don't see him happily, or quietly, leaving office without trying something. That means bodies on the ground.

Back to his neighbors. I know he'd LOVE to add a chunk (or all) of Iraq to his country. One of the big goals of a LOT of the leadership of Iran, Iraq (back when Saddam ruled) and places like Libya and Syria is there a LOT of folks who would LOVE to be a modern Saladin and create a UNITED Islamic State. Saddam wanted to, I'm willing to bet Ahmadinejad would be happy to do it, and many others think about it in the quiet moments of the day.

[gaggedLouise]

It cannot be ignored that he is the president and elected leader of his nation. He speaks for Iran on the international stage, not the council of clerics. Like it or not, he does have a lot of power and influence there and will use it.

I understand he is about as powerful, by himself, as the German president  - who is essentially a figurehead, although head of state, and who is not on tv anywhere near as often as Mrs.Merkel. Iran may not be a fully functioning democracy but it is a parliamentary state and in most places where the parliament sets the foundation for the cabinet, the office of president is not the one invested with real, hardcore power.

He's not part of the central circle of government. It's unusual to have a president who is doing more tough talk, and taking more daring positions, than the real, actual "leader", but that's probably a consequence of Iran having had fraught relations with its neighbouring states ever since the seventies, of some traditions of glitzy middle-eastern rethoric, and of their sense of being a nation that wants to assert itself a bit. They're a nation wishing for political, economic and cultural recognition as a major player and an old power in the region, and which senses that they now have the clout to make that happen - but this doesn't actually imply longing to nuke the surrounding countries at first notice.

[Zakharra]

I understand he is about as powerful, by himself, as the German president  - who is essentially a figurehead, although head of state, and who is not on tv anywhere near as often as Mrs.Merkel. Iran may not be a fully functioning democracy but it is a parliamentary state and in most places where the parliament sets the foundation for the cabinet, the office of president is not the one invested with real, hardcore power.

He's not part of the central circle of government. It's unusual to have a president who is doing more tough talk, and taking more daring positions, than the real, actual "leader", but that's probably a consequence of Iran having had fraught relations with its neighbouring states ever since the seventies, of some traditions of glitzy middle-eastern rethoric, and of their sense of being a nation that wants to assert itself a bit. They're a nation wishing for political, economic and cultural recognition as a major player and an old power in the region, and which senses that they now have the clout to make that happen - but this doesn't actually imply longing to nuke the surrounding countries at first notice.

He's more than just a figurehead. He has actual power, Or he wouldn't be so dangerous. If he was just a figurehead, he could be ignored. Unfortunately he isn't and as the leader of Iran, he speaks for the nation's foreign policy and directs it. He's being very open about what he does want.  Iran as the dominating power in the region. Large chunks of it's neighbors annexed into Iran's borders, heavy influence in the other countries in the Middle East and Israel's complete destruction. Up to and including nuclear strikes if need be.

If he had the means, he would destroy Israel in a heartbeat. Do not doubt that. And if Iran gets a nuke, no one will trust them at all because they have been saying for years, 'We only want the nuclear material for civilian purposes. We are -not- seeking nuclear weapons'. If they announce nukes, they will have shown on the world stage in a big way that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about much of anything.

[gaggedLouise]

As far as I know, "leaders" are billed as such by the headlines of the media. There is no such title as leader in most constitutions, excepting places like North Korea. Actually I think we should retire that word (which is Führer in German, though present-day Germans use other words for reference to political or economic strong men) from political talk, as long as we're not discussing those countries that really use it in a legal sense. It undermines the notion that the guys we elect, or which another people have elected for their country, are to answer to us the citizens, and not just in some election a couple of years away but over time, all through their mandate.

[MarissaSeraphOfInsanity]

Unfortunately that is a kind of naive way of thinking. NO one in the Middle East wants Iran to get a nuke. No one. They'd be the ones most likely to use it and they are known to actively support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (I do not know if I got the name right), who actively attack Israel. Iran is also trying to become the dominate nation in the Middle East and given their politics and foreign policy, they would be much more likely to use the nuke as a club to threaten the nations around them. They are aggressive and greedy.

If it was announced that they got a nuke, everyone in the region will breath a sigh of relief when they facilities are taken out.

I wouldn't call it naive and if anything this just reinforces what I'm saying about him using the weapon as a deterrent. Israel has AT LEAST an estimated 75 nukes and we're fretting about them getting one? Even if they were as audacious to fire it off at Israel or anywhere else they'd be absolutely levelled in the retaliatory response. The fact that he is universally despised by his neighbours who condemn his actions also shows he is in a tenuous position and requires a deterrent to make people back away. After all, many of our allies in the first Gulf War were Middle Eastern states who contributed forces to deal with what they saw as a destabilising influence in their own region.

America negotiated with Gaddafi, another anti-Western maniac, over his nuclear weapons program and managed to talk him out of it. They'd openly talked of wanting to get rid of the "maverick statesman" and the second an opportunity struck they did. And yet America always seems to deal peacefully with nuclear countries. Iran doesn't have an airforce that can come over here and bomb us, they don't have an army that can hold out effectively against an assault and they could NOT withstand an invasion. If they used a nuke for offensive purposes they'd be wiped off the face of the Earth. If they acquire a nuke it would be for the purpose of threatening other countries to stay away because frankly put, this constant notion of making this militarily weak backwater out as a genuine military threat is making people accepting of and even demanding a war which Ahmadinejad knows for a fact he cannot win.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wouldn't call it naive and if anything this just reinforces what I'm saying about him using the weapon as a deterrent. Israel has AT LEAST an estimated 75 nukes and we're fretting about them getting one? Even if they were as audacious to fire it off at Israel or anywhere else they'd be absolutely levelled in the retaliatory response. The fact that he is universally despised by his neighbours who condemn his actions also shows he is in a tenuous position and requires a deterrent to make people back away. After all, many of our allies in the first Gulf War were Middle Eastern states who contributed forces to deal with what they saw as a destabilising influence in their own region.

America negotiated with Gaddafi, another anti-Western maniac, over his nuclear weapons program and managed to talk him out of it. They'd openly talked of wanting to get rid of the "maverick statesman" and the second an opportunity struck they did. And yet America always seems to deal peacefully with nuclear countries. Iran doesn't have an airforce that can come over here and bomb us, they don't have an army that can hold out effectively against an assault and they could NOT withstand an invasion. If they used a nuke for offensive purposes they'd be wiped off the face of the Earth. If they acquire a nuke it would be for the purpose of threatening other countries to stay away because frankly put, this constant notion of making this militarily weak backwater out as a genuine military threat is making people accepting of and even demanding a war which Ahmadinejad knows for a fact he cannot win.

Gaddafi only negotiated AFTER the US bombed one of the buildings he used when he was in a tent not too far away. That wasn't an accident. Up to that point, he had snatched political rivals (and family members) overseas. He had killed, kidnapped and assassinated people that were political rivals throughout Europe, even after the bombing he sponsored acts of terrorism in Europe (like Lockerby) and would have done more in the US but we convinced him we were willing to put a 2000 pound laser guided bomb ANYWHERE in Libya we wanted.

Also consider, geographically it is a LOT easier for us to park a Carrier off his shores and proceed to bomb him back into the stone age. Most of his infrastructure was close to the beaches. Iran has a lot greater depth, a better defense structure and we don't have that many allies close by.

Not to mention Gaddafi is willing to negotiate since he was looking to get something. Iraq isnt' looking to negotiate. They want the bombs, and feel that they can get away with it.  Their leadership doesn't have Gaddafi's finally tuned 'how far can I push it' barometer.