The story of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wanting to tour Ground Zero in New York, the former location of the World Trade Center, is exciting agitated comment in some sectors of the political blogosphere:
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested to visit Ground Zero during an upcoming trip to New York. That request was rejected Wednesday. But a source tells Eyewitness News that the decision may not stop him.
A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.
The source says regardless of the NYPD’s rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran’s president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States.
The Iranian mission to the United Nations made the initial request to the NYPD and the Secret Service, who will jointly oversee security during the president’s two-day visit.
Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly, as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment program.
There’s a famous witticism about a certain people “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity” and I’m beginning to wonder if we’ve contracted that disease. I certainly see this matter in a different light than many seem to.
Whenever I emphasize the need to engage in diplomacy with Iran, I’m asked “How?”. It seems to me that extending New York’s hospitality to Iran’s president, if only as a sign of respect and friendship for the Iranian people, could be a good and harmless start. Denying him access to the site or even organizing protests strikes me as churlish.
Denying him access to the site or even organizing protests strikes me as churlish.
Would that be more or less churlish than having “students” seize him and hold him hostage for 444 days? More or less churlish than members of his government saying that the CIA and Mossad pulled off the events of 9/11? (As if the CIA were that competent.) More or less churlish than his comments about wanting to see the US and Israel cease to exist?
And we owe the Iranian people no courtesy at all. If they want us to respect them, they need to get themselves a respectable government. in the meantime they deserve nothing but scorn and derision.
We have two alternatives: diplomacy or annihilating Iran with nuclear weapons. We don’t have the forces to invade and conventional bombing is unlikely to achieve any result we might want to accomplish.
I think diplomacy is the better choice and you’ve got to start somewhere. Truculence will get us nowhere.
You might want to recall one definition of diplomacy: diplomacy is saying “nice doggie!” while looking around for a stick.
Amusing little tantrum.
Owing respect has fuck all to do with anything. Looking after your own bloody interest (rather than behaving like an immature churlish teenager as suggested by the initial comment). Iranians have as many historical reasons for being peevish, if international relations were not a matter of national interest but privative emotive reaction, towards Americans as the inverse -if not more to be frank.
The Americans have a chance to make an impression, to convey 11 September and the impact – an opportunity to advance national interest.
Of course the semi-literate emotionalism of the first comment seems to have taken over in the US. Pity really; amazing as well how historical wisdom seems to be passing by the wayside in favour of self-injuring spite.
We’ve already got the stick in hand, and the dog seems to be rabid. Will we be saying “Nice doggie” to try and calm ourselves or the dog?
Further, it would appear we’re currently fighting a war with Iran, by proxy. (They’ve sent their proxy to the fight, while we’ve sent our military – advantage Iran.) For that matter, they’ve been fighting a proxy war with Israel, too.
Given all of that, I see no reason to play nice with them on this particular issue. Let him go spout his conspiracy theories about the Jews and the US at Columbia, but keep him the hell away from the WTC site. That’s roughly equivalent to letting a former Nazi, say Eichmann, go to the Arizona Memorial to tell us how FDR planned the Pearl Harbor attack for US gain. It’s an intentional effront made all the worse by use of location. It’s one thing to be polite to guest; it’s another thing to let them shit on your dining room table in the middle of a meal.
(Also, this demonstrates another benefit we would receive from kicking the UN out of the country: not having to let characters like Ahmadinejad or Chavez into the country. Let Paris, or Geneva, or better yet, Riyahd host the damned thing. Let’s see how the diplomatic corps likes strict Sharia law.)
As should be obvious from my post I think it’s in our best interests, too, Lounsbury. I gather that I’m in a minority here on the subject.
Lounsbury, 295 of my co-workers died in the attack on the WTC. Having someone there who thought 9/11/2001 was a great day doesn’t exactly, you know, appeal to me. Sorry if I can’t put that aside to create “an impression” on a man who thinks the bad thing about the Holocaust was that it didn’t succeed. I doubt the ghosts of 3,000 dead Americans will have much of an impact, you know?
We’ve already got the stick in hand, and the dog seems to be rabid.
No, neither do you have a proper stick, nor is the dog rabid – of course it isn’t your pet either, and seems disinclined to become one.
That’s hardly rabid. Not friendly, but not rabid. Pursuit of their own national interest is not the same as being mad.
Will we be saying “Nice doggie†to try and calm ourselves or the dog?
One should think calm Americans who have since one terror attack developed quite the habit of quivering in terror over nothing at all, and launching idiotic wars of aggression on that terror.
Further, it would appear we’re currently fighting a war with Iran, by proxy. (They’ve sent their proxy to the fight, while we’ve sent our military – advantage Iran.) For that matter, they’ve been fighting a proxy war with Israel, too.
This bizarre Americano-Israelo pretension that Iran is fighting a proxy war – perhaps a skirmish or two is almost amusing were it not so bloody dangerous.
Iran hasn’t sent any proxy to fight in Iraq – their proxy is the current bloody Iraqi government, whatever dimwitted hysterics would have otherwise, Maliki’s factions are Iranian cat’s paws, not the bloody Mahdi army.
As for Israel… well they have their own national interests to look after eh? Less invading of Lebanon would probably be helpful of course.
Given all of that, I see no reason to play nice with them on this particular issue.
So for a fit of ill-informed and immature peak, you would give an effectively cost-free opportunity to potentially favourably impact the other side a miss?
Yes, very much the cost-benefit analysis of the spiteful teenager.
That’s roughly equivalent to letting a former Nazi, say Eichmann, go to the Arizona Memorial to tell us how FDR planned the Pearl Harbor attack for US gain.
No, not at all. Not even by strained analogy.
Iran had no part in the Takfiri al-Qaeda organisation, nor the 11 September – nor any direct connexion to the said conflict with the Sunni Takfir groups that are al-Qaeda.
Your weak skills in reasoning and emotive logic sadly though seem to be the byword among your policy makers. Pity that.
(Also, this demonstrates another benefit we would receive from kicking the UN out of the country: not having to let characters like Ahmadinejad or Chavez into the country. Let Paris, or Geneva, or better yet, Riyahd host the damned thing. Let’s see how the diplomatic corps likes strict Sharia law.)
Again, the teenager logic. If everyone is part of me clique, why they don’t get to play with me.
Regardless, the diplo compound / district of Riyadh is extraterritorial and oddly the Ibn Saud for all their repulsiveness seem to understand diplomatic things better than you – no ‘strict Sharia law’ in the diplomatic district.
Indeed, actually, in the residential compounds, diplo or not, no Saudi strictness at all.
However, if the US is going to engage in a short-sighted bit of immature spite and kick out the UN because all the kids don’t play in the clique, well you should at least be smart enough to militate for a relocation to London; financial services are heading there due to American idiocies, may as well make the package complete.
Okay, Dave, why is it in our interests to let Ahmadinejad spit on us in this particular manner? Perhaps we should let him give a speech denying the Holocaust ever took place, too, but I can’t decide on the better venue: under the gates of Auschwitz (makes more sense in this context), or at the National Holocaust Museum in DC (which has the advantage of proximaty for a US audience)?
Lounsbury, 295 of my co-workers died in the attack on the WTC.
Cry me a bloody river.
People I was close to died as well in the Twins on 11 Sep.
And in terror bombings elsewhere in the world. I won’t bother the faux counting of bodies and ghosts.
Special pleading for stupidity and immature emotive logic doesn’t cut it.
Having someone there who thought 9/11/2001 was a great day doesn’t exactly, you know, appeal to me.
Interest of state trumps personal immaturities and weak mindedness, regardless of whether Ahmadijad think (or not – I never saw such a claim) 11 Sep was a ‘great day.’
Ahmadinejad spit on us
You Americans are becoming quite weak minded sisters if the mere visit of the Iranian to the site is “spitting on you.” Grow some bloody spines, strong minded nations and adults keep a straight back and show some bloody character.
No, not at all. Not even by strained analogy.
Iran had no part in the Takfiri al-Qaeda organisation, nor the 11 September – nor any direct connexion to the said conflict with the Sunni Takfir groups that are al-Qaeda.
Your weak skills in reasoning and emotive logic sadly though seem to be the byword among your policy makers. Pity that.
No, the fact that you can’t see the analogy is a product of your own desire to quiver in rage at “stupid Americans” instead of reading what was written.
Try this: Iran had no part in 9/11 or al Qaeda. Similarly, Nazi Germany had no part in the attack on Pearl Harbor, or (in any substantial way) the Japanese Imperial Government. The Nazis were, however, quite willing to make common cause with the Japanese to see a rival power brought low. So the Eichmann reference is spot on: not a perpetrator of the act, but someone who liked the result none-the-less, comes to the spot of the attack to praise it and mis-lay blame.
Do you understand the analogy NOW, or are you too stupid to understand it even after its been explained to you?
Lounsbury, do you have anytihng to say that ISN’T a direct insult to me?
My first post pointed out that Ahmadinejad has, on repeated occasions thoughout his adult life, made clear that he wants nothing to do with DIPLOMACY with the US, much less with exchanging diplomatic (or other) courtesies. You replied by calling me peevish and immature BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY POINTING OUT HOW I WAS WRONG. Since then you have done nothing but insult me, insult my country, and tell me what a fantastic bore you are.
Can you suggest to me how Ahmadinejad has shown that he wants diplomatic relations with the US? Can you show me where he has extended any courtesy to the US or its citizens? You certainly haven’t done that so far.
Ahmadinejad has not given us any reason to think he wants anything to do with us in any real sense. He has occassionally mouthed platitudes about regional talks, but usually follows them up with a pronouncement that the US and Israel will suffer Allah’s Wrath and be destroyed. Letting him use our soil for his own publicity purposes would be incredibly stupid, and I fail to see how Schuler doesn’t see that. I understand why YOU want to see it happen because you love telling Americans how stupid we are, and no doubt after it happens you will claim we should have never let him in the country.
Regardless, the diplo compound / district of Riyadh is extraterritorial and oddly the Ibn Saud for all their repulsiveness seem to understand diplomatic things better than you – no ’strict Sharia law’ in the diplomatic district.
Indeed, actually, in the residential compounds, diplo or not, no Saudi strictness at all.
I’m not talking about the diplomatic compounds. I’m talking about the rest of the city. Do you really see no differences between NYC and Riyahd?
9/11 Report:
“After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11. We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S.government.”
However, if the US is going to engage in a short-sighted bit of immature spite and kick out the UN because all the kids don’t play in the clique, well you should at least be smart enough to militate for a relocation to London; financial services are heading there due to American idiocies, may as well make the package complete.
You are more than welcome to the UN. And it has nothing to do with who’s one our side. We are the last super-power. As such, everyone wants a piece of us. That’s fine, and that’s expected. But there’s no reason that we have to host all of our enemies, much less give them primie real estate in one of most expensive cities.
Additionally, the bother isn’t even with everyone who is working against us. The Chinese, for example, aren’t our friends or allies, and yet they are at least courteous. But leaders such as the President of Iran and the President of Venezuela make a point of coming here to be rude to us. There’s no reason to invite these fools into our country, and it’s appalling that we need to let them come because of some Cold War relic that serves little actual purpose.
As for your great London Financial Center, I will simply laugh. It’s not one of OUR banks that’s been run on in the last few days. And the fact that the bank is trying to say its a victim of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis just means you savvy Englishmen are too stupid to avoid one of our American financial scandals. No wonder you lost your Empire and needed us Yanks to bail your sorry asses out twice in the 20th Century. Your days are over, mate. Ours may be waning, but yours shall never wax again.
Also, Lounsbury, I find it funny that you keep going on about how stupid we are for not extending this coutesy to the President of Iran, and yet you refuse to hold him to the same standard, and refuse to practice any courtesy of your own. Do you actually have ANYTHING other than insults hurled at Americans? (I’d even take an insult about Canadians or Mexicans at this point, just to see if your programming can vary even a tiny little bit. You started strong, but now you’re definitely failing the Turing Test.)
I guess I’m of two minds about it.
On one hand, I agree with Dave’s basic argument.
On the other hand, the thing that worries me is Ahmedinejad’s tendency to shoot his mouth off. There are already serious war drums here in America – can you imagine how those might increase should he spout something stupid creating a reaction? So, it might be better to prevent Ahmedinejad from going to protect him from himself. Alternatively, arrangements could be made to ensure can’t do or say something stupid.
So I guess I support allowing him to go, but the visit itself should be carefully stage-managed and restricted.
Rather hopeless to make a dent in the denseness but:
Try this: Iran had no part in 9/11 or al Qaeda. Similarly, Nazi Germany had no part in the attack on Pearl Harbor, or (in any substantial way) the Japanese Imperial Government.
It was, however a formal ally and declared war in a fit of stupidity (rather like yours I would suspect) in support. Ergo, direct connexion entre Japan and the Nazi regime.
,i>So the Eichmann reference is spot on: not a perpetrator of the act, but someone who liked the result none-the-less, comes to the spot of the attack to praise it and mis-lay blame.
Well, insofar as Iran was at one point, before you bloody fools pissed away the opportunity, quite willing to make common cause against al Qaeda (and remains so), your weak-minded faux analogy grows weaker.
Do you understand the analogy NOW, or are you too stupid to understand it even after its been explained to you?
Oh, I understood your brilliant combination of emotive non-logic, poor grasp of history and bad analogy making from the very start. Your confusion, which you amplified on, was evident from start.
Now, as to my expression of contempt for the stupidity of emotional weak-minded arguments about Amhedijad, well, I am not a state, but the courtesy is a bit of honest reflexion of your weak-mindedness.
(PS: re the financial issues, my dear fellow, let me refer you to your mortgage lending industry and its issues, notably whole swaths being shut down. Again, weak minded emotional reaction is not a great way to analyze).
Ahmadinejad should be allowed to visit Ground Zero, if he wishes. If anything we should be contrasting his behavior with the gravity of our own by stage managing the atmospherics of his visit.
If by some chance, Ahmadinejad acts in a respectful manner, it does us no harm and creates little news. If instead, he uses the occasion to launch into a trademark, anti-semitic, lunatic, tirade, well, the faces that will be cringing the most will be in Teheran, not New York city and he will only serve to stir up disgust and anger, further isolating his regime.
Something we should be instantly ready to capitalize on .
These anti-American stunts -recall Khrushchev belligerently pounding his shoe in the UN and physically threatening an elderly and slightly built Spanish UN official – do not always play out back home the way we imagine. Even Gromyko was aghast at Khrushchev’s antics, which damaged the Soviet Union’s image. I imagine that factions in the Iranian leadership that already dislikes Ahmadinejad as loose cannon and would rather not go to open war with the U.S. will be grinding their teeth if he poisons the well still further.
But instead the narrative will be muddied by Ahmadinejad, the undersized crank, “heroically” defying the American authorities, visiting Ground Zero anyway as we back down gracelessly and sheepishly. That will be the story.
Lounsbury:
Any point you are trying to make is clouded by the emotive, and above all, insulting language that you yourself are using.
Lounsbury’s statement . . .
“Iran had no part in the Takfiri al-Qaeda organisation, nor the 11 September . . . ”
. . . is flat out false. If he had read the 9/11 Commission Report, he would know that Iran allowed free access in and out of their country to many of the 9/11 highjackers. Iran is a country that is notorious for very strict border controls, but for those terrorists, Iranian border control was abscent.
Iran was very definitely part of the 9/11 conspiracy!
Not to turn this thread into a discussion of AQ, but here are some relevant quotes from the 9/11 commission report:
Having posted that, Doug is incorrect on a few points. First, the reason Iran was a popular transit point is because Iran doesn’t stamp passports with visas – so it allowed AQ and others, particularly those from Saudi Arabia, to travel more freely.
Finally, there is no definitive proof that Iran was part of 9/11 – in fact the evidence suggests that it was not. Not even everyone in AQ knew of the plot and even the hijackers themselves were only told the details when finally necessary. Still, that does not mean that, in general, there was some level of cooperation there on limited (anti-American and anti-Israeli) interests.
If I wanted a belligerent policy against Iran, I’d want Ahmadinejad to visit the 9/11 site. There is probably a 33% chance he will say something incendiary while in NYC. The chances double if he’s on a tourist trip with the media. Photos with the 9/11 site as a backdrop (whether the statement is actually made there or not) = priceless.
I have to say, it’s funny and sad to see Icepick and Lounsbury going at it in this way.
If you guys would take a breather and take a look at each other’s blogs, you might notice that you have some commonalities – in terms of style as well as substance. Though not on this particular topic, of course.
This is really, really sad. What the ‘be nice’ side doesn’t seem to understand is that Ahmadinejad’s backers are the looniest of the loons in Iran, the Hojjatieh. Ahmadinejad’s also the lamest of lame ducks which means that any deal cut with him isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Ahmadinejad doesn’t have parliament. He doesn’t have the Supreme Leader on his side. He doesn’t have the Assembly of Experts (think Iranian version of the College of Cardinals). All Ahmadinejad has is his mouth. There is no opportunity there because this guy can’t deliver.
Were Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at ground zero I would seriously question which side of the affair was he honoring, the victims in the buildings and planes, or the hijackers? That’s at the heart of why it was such a bad idea for him to go. It serves nobody for such an event to take place.
how’s this for churlish. you’re an idiot.
Perhaps he should be allowed in – and not given any police or Secret Service protection whatsoever, and the event heavily publicised.
I’m not opposed to diplomacy with Iran, and acknowledge that it must start somewhere. Somewhere ought to be through traditional diplomatic channels. It ought not to be grandstanding at Ground Zero.
It seems to me that if tensions between great nations are high, it’s important to strip off some of those emotions via mind-numbing diplomatic channels. That’s not to say that great diplomacy can’t begin with a smile and a pat on the back, ala Reagan and Gorbechev. But historically strained US-Iranian relations aren’t going to start in a movie moment; we shouldn’t have such expectations.
I have to say, it’s funny and sad to see Icepick and Lounsbury going at it in this way.
If you guys would take a breather and take a look at each other’s blogs, you might notice that you have some commonalities – in terms of style as well as substance. Though not on this particular topic, of course.
That’s right, Lounsbury hates Americans, and I’m American. He has no use for me, and I have none for him. He has no respect for people who haven’t lived in the MENA (as he puts it) having opinions about it, and I hate listening to the opinions about America and Americans of people who know fuck-all about America, of which Lounsbury is a prime example. We have so much in common!