[Masthead] Patches Fog ~ 48°F  
High: 70°F ~ Low: 44°F
Friday, Oct. 24, 2014

Rhetoric or reason?

Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 9:08 AM

Evil has arrived, just a short distance from Ground Zero.

Ground Zero. Where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to visit was turned down and, I think, rightfully so.

A visit by him to the World Trade Center site would be equal to giving America the finger.

Ahmadinejad has already received the classic New York welcome for its enemies: A bold, front-page headline in the tabloid Daily News telling him where to go. (And it's exactly where you think...) The N.Y. tabs are continuing their attacks this week as crowds protest his appearance.

Ah-mad-inejad ('mad' emphasized intentionally) leads a country which supposedly wants to build an atomic bomb, helps anti-American forces in Iran and is generally despicable in the eyes of the American masses.

Meanwhile, he ordered Iraq's major border crossings with northeastern Iraq closed Monday after the U.S. detained an Uranuan official accused of smuggling weapons.

"How come is it that you have that right (to possess nuclear capability), and we can't have it?" he asked.

Wonder what would happen if we closed the U.S.'s borders to Ahmadinejad, as in refusing to let him leave? Dumping a head of state into one of America's you'll-never-get-out prisons for terrorism suspects would definitely (almost misspelled it 'defiantly -- that would work, too, actually) get the world's attention.

Ahmadinejad has claimed America has been denied "correct information" and wants to be directly heard. I consider him as spewing rhetoric, but this does lead to a thought:

Are we -- instead of the "other side" -- being censored?

Our "gatekeepers" include network newscasts, both traditional networks plus CNN and "fair and balanced" Fox News, and the Associated Press, from which newspapers circulating in Shelbyville get their national-world news.

Are network news leaders such as Charlie, Brian and Katie slanting the news through their own biases? And what about Dan Rather, who's filed an I-wanna-get-richer lawsuit against CBS/Viacom? He's a definite example of bias

I lost a lot of respect for Mr. "Courage" (remember that signoff...) when Rather was "brave" enough to broadcast his unwarranted attack on President Bush. I'll admit I'm not the biggest Bush fan, but I was watching that night and thought right from the start, "that's biased." Not good for network news...as if it hasn't happened before.

Back to Ahmadinejad. Should he be given a direct line, so to speak, to America? And should the networks and print news services inject voices of reason or just let him rant and let hearers/readers make up their own minds?


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

If it wasn't nuclear weapons it would be something else, it always has been. It has gone from the ones with the biggest sticks and rocks win, to whoever has the biggest bombs wins.

Until every country decides it would be in the WORLDS best interest to do away with WMD (which we all know that will never happen) it is in the United States best interest to keep ours. If Syria or Iran or even one of many others including Russia thought for one minute that we couldn't blow them off the face of the earth..we would already have a nuke sitting in our lap.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 26, 2007, at 12:42 AM

I wish that no one did have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that horse has left the barn. Currently there are 8 known countries that possess nuclear weapons. Fortunately, both Iraq and Iran are not part of that group.

What I know about Iran doesn't just come from our government. Having been around during the Iranian revolution and talked with some who escaped, I feel pretty justified in my stance. If you read the comments from both the German and French presidents st the UN today, I'm not the only one. I understand your total dislike for the current US administration. But don't let that cloud your opinion of the rest of the world. These people hate us. They hate you, they hate me, they hate your family, they hate your way of life. Maybe not the citizens of Iran, Syria and the like. But rest assured the people in charge would love nothing better than to see the US fall onto the scrapheap of history.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 10:07 PM

And what purpose does it serve for us to have them? Just like what purpose did it serve for us to give them to Iraq?

The point is, the only thing we know about Iran is what our government tells us. The same people who told us to have faith in their logic for war. And every link they have tried to fuse together in order to destroy an "axis of evil"...

I am in no way supporting terrorism or saying Iran should have weapons. I am saying NOBODY should, including but not limited to the United States, the perpetrator of many injustices.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 7:20 PM

If you think about it, it's in the Iranain's best interest NOT to have nuclear weapons. Given the Iranian's past (and most likely present) support for terroist groups it would be only a matter of time before they willingly or through coersion gave a group a nuclear weapons. If those weapons were used, the US repsonse probably would be to attack Iran instead of some loose knit terroist group. And it wouldn't be with the occasional cruise missle either.

We may not have legal authority, but it is vital that the US (and Russia for that matter) fight tooth and nail to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of countries like Iran and North Korea. These states represent the extremes of the political spectrum and it serves no purpose to give them the ultimate offensive weapon.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 7:03 PM

I agree dc... We tell the entire world what they can and can't do... And so often, we find that America is doing more of the "can't do" things, than any other nation on the planet.

We have no authority to tell the entire world what they can/can't posess when we secretly have huge stashes ourselves. THAT is a totalitarianistic attitude, and we wonder why we are made a mockery of, when we preach "democracy" and practice unilaterialist and self-righteous concepts.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 6:29 PM

""How come is it that you have that right (to possess nuclear capability), and we can't have it?" he asked."

I have often wondered that myself. We have Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons at our disposal but we go around saying no other country can have those things. We probably even have things noone knows about and it's okay.

Just something I have always found curious.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 11:55 AM

If you want to see what "the other side" is saying, look no further than here:

http://www.memri.org/

Prepare yourself for a shock. They don't care for us too much.

-- Posted by Brian Mosely on Tue, Sep 25, 2007, at 9:27 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.