Life Imitates The Onion (Tehran Strikes Back)
 

The Associated Press: Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization'
This is honestly the most hilariously appropriate response the Iranians could have taken to the Lieberman-Kyl amendment.

The mind, she boggles.

I chortled heartily. And this isn't some people's representative blowing off steam on his own either: two hundred and fifteen lawmakers aparenly signed this bill.

Note to world leaders: if you're going to wage war, have some tact.

neus nailed what really made it perfect. "Yeah? Well, so's your mum!"

"You are terrorists."

"No Yuo are."

This is pathetic, honestly. So reactionary, so unprofessional. Iran is certainly not intent on making friends.

And neither, apparently, are we. Given how hostile we've been to them given that we have absolutely no publicly presented evidence that they're doing anything against us, I'd say their response is rather kind.

Bwhahaha, this is like all the unpopular kids becoming friends so that they can gossip about the popular kids behind their back.
It's awesome. The world really is like the elementary school playground.

Which are armed with nuclear weapons that can destroy the world many times over. Glorious.

Keep in mind, the popular kids almost always turn out to be huge assholes. :/

Wasn't there some sort of evidence that some of the newer weapons being used by insurgents in Iraq are Iranian made?

I heard about that, but I've never been presented credible evidence, only that "The US Military says so" =\

Also, LOL @ Playground analogy. Its so fitting.

Given the anarchic nature of international relations, the truth is that everybody is a huge asshole, which is why Lieberman-Kyl is so hypocritical.

What I've never been able to understand is why, after two major world wars, nobody seems to have gotten the message that waging war is not the answer for resolving conflicts, especially after witnessing it all and its negative outcomes in the end (millions of casualties in both soldiers and innocent civilians, contempt from the soldiers that survived).

It's as if society doesn't give a damn for the well-being of people in other countries simply because they exist. Governments need to stop producing weapons and having a superiority complex and start working together to prevent worldwide problems (like that'll happen anytime soon). We could have ended starvation and lack of shelter and education in third world countries years ago, but no, look what we waste our money on instead.

This particular situation? Both sides are acting childish. People need to get their shit together, look back at the past and think before making decisions. Normally the past doesn't matter but when it boils down to the possibility of the world going under, it should apply to all political decisions in order to make things better, not worse.

[quote=Basil;510289]What I've never been able to understand is why, after two major world wars, nobody seems to have gotten the message that waging war is not the answer for resolving conflicts.[quote]

So we should have sat Hitler down and explained nicely to him about how he shouldn't be so mean?

Well, the thing with Hitler was that people were fooled into voting him in as the next ruler of Germany, not to mention that WWI was not known as WWI (rather, the Great War) until WWII occurred.

It wasn't until he ordered Nazis to start executing the Jews that he was considered, um, "evil". Even then I don't get why no other country decided to intervene and take him down until years later (the Nazi powers were larger than all of Europe's powers combined? I don't know. I'm learning about WWI in history right now and I don't know that much about WWII).

So to answer your question - he is obligated to hate a certain group of people, like the more unpopular people on GFF might hate the popular crowd. It's only when his hatred escalates into violence that it becomes a problem. There are certainly other options he could have taken regarding the Jews, like moving them to a specific region and allowing them to live there, where they wouldn't become a nuisance to him, but he had to resort with the most damaging solution he could find.

Edit: Arainach, yeah, that's what I meant. :(

They weren't fooled. They voted for him of their own accord. He promised to get rid of their economic hardships and he did. His methods may not have been liked by the world at large, but you can hardly question their effectiveness. If he had stopped short of invading Poland he might be looked upon as a hero - reuniting the old German empire, rebuilding the armed forces, restoring the economy from the Post-WWI slump.

With reference to your point about Hitler, I believe that people weren't so much as fooled as convinced by him. Furthermore, it wasn't just only when he started the Holocaust that he was considered evil. After all, it was his invasion into Poland that more or less catalysed WWII to begin with, and not because the other nations disliked his treatment of Jews.

As for why the other countries took too long to intervene? It was partially because most felt guilty for the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, which basically screwed Germany over quite well. Also, there were other things to consider at that time as well like the Great Depression which the other countries were more concerned over.

In my opinion though, as much as I think the idea of war in itself is rather dumb. I think at this point in the development of the world, it still remains inevitable at some point or another, as it would solve crises that pure negotiation cannot.

In reference to Iran on this point I find it equally interesting that they dont acknowledge that this event occurred.

I think their stand is to try and legitimize their view in front of an audience on their side of the globe by puffing out their chest and showing what they can in a meaningful way that the people over there can understand as courage.

Their culture is different, therefore their reasoning is different. This probably makes sense to them, considering the history of the Muslim faith.

My assumption is based on a leader and his education on this matter. If he was educated in this way I wonder if his countrymen are as well?

We can't expect the world leader of a nation whose very name means 'Land of the Aryans' to hold reputable views on the holocaust.

Once again, I can't help but draw a parallel back to us. Would you like all of America to be stereotyped based on the perceived intelligence and education of our leader?

As if this wasn't already the case anyway regardless of who's president?

You're right!
If a nation identifies itself in any way with the Aryan race, then we must ignore any opinion they might have in all matters related to the Jews.
Even more so if they have been calling themselves that for centuries, and perhaps even millennia, before the holocaust.
They're clearly Nazis.

I was being facetious. The sarcasm is appreciated though since this thread has been a joke since rainman posted.

I wouldnt like it but i'm sure it happens. Our leaders are the most visible representation of what our country has to offer. At least in the U.S. we have some level on control of who represents us. I dont know about Iran.