Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands

US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands 
 
by Charley Reese 
Ernest Hemingway explained the problem many years ago. The first thing
politicians do to hide their mismanagement, he said, is inflate the
currency; the second thing they do is go to war.
Our currency has been inflated and we are at war. The demonization of the
Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which you saw take place in New
York City and on American television, is just the first step in preparing
the country for a third war.
The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, disgraced himself. Instead of
introducing his invited guest speaker, he launched a tirade of abuse and
insults. Obviously, he was in hot water with some of Columbia's big donors
for inviting Ahmadinejad and chose that petty, shabby way of trying to
ingratiate himself to the school's angry sugar daddies. All Bollinger
succeeded in doing was making Ahmadinejad look good in comparison with him.
Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try
to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected
president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and
the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of
Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's
recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend
soccer games, the clerics overruled him.
The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the
destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is
something American politicians do every time they find a country whose
policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not
genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put
people in prison who question details of the official version, which is
what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to
pay for it? Both are good questions.
How American politicians can call Iran a dangerous country and claim that
it poses a threat to the U.S. is a mystery. On second thought, it is not a
mystery. It just tells you that the politicians think you and I are so
stupid that we will fall for the exact same parade of lies and
exaggerations that was used to justify the war against Iraq.
Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is
designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no
navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the
fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200
nuclear weapons and a superb air force.
Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It
has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no
desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against
nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is
pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: that Saddam Hussein was
pursuing a nuclear weapon; that he had enormous stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons. The only thing he really had was oil. That's why we
went to war, and that's why the administration wants to go to war with
Iran.
I've heard some politicians say that Ahmadinejad has "blood on his hands."
Well, our $40 billion worth of intelligence cannot even determine if he
was involved in the taking of the American embassy back in 1979. As for
blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We
overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his
secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded
Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign
policy.
We truly have a corrupt and incompetent government in Washington. 
 
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 cosi' sarebbe uno dei titoli piu' squallidi che hai postato.
lamentati con chi l'ha scritto. Ma non credo che sia proprio squallido
visto che grazie a Blair e Bush in Iraq muoiono ogni giorno centinaia di
iracheni ANCHE per mano della soldataglia d'occupazione angloamericana
(contractor inclusi).


Am.
I fanatici islamici sono razzisti quando affermano di voler sterminare
gli ebrei e gli altri infedeli. E' curioso che della gente di sinistra
che si definisce democratica finisca sempre per stare dalla parte
delle dittature e dei regimi fascisti.

 gli ebrei e gli altri infedeli. 
e quelli non fanatici? 


 sangue, Wanna Marchi dei Lumpen?  
touche' , eh nipotino di oswald mosley?


 ammazzare qualcuno.
tu in Iraq e Afghanistan e in Palestina ti sei sfogato abbastanza
ammazzando qualcuno? o ancora no?


e quelli non fanatici? 
Quelli non fanatici possono abbracciare la democrazia ed integrarsi
nelle società occidentali, ma possono anche venire esaltati da
predicazioni fondamentaliste e mobilitati contro di noi in una folle
guerra religiosa per la conquista del mondo. Quale di questi due esiti
sarà quello vincente dipende dalla nostra capacità di convincerli dei
vantaggi della ns organizzazione sociale o dalla capacità dei
fondamentalisti di spargere odio contro di noi.
Purtroppo, in questo delicato equilibrio, la sinistra troglodita ha
scelto di stare dalla parte degli islamici trogloditi (quelli
fanatici, tanto per intenderci). Come ho già detto altre volte, la
sinistra troglodita non ha mai perso l'occasione per schierarsi dalla
parte delle dittature, contro la democrazia.