Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad gives off the air of mad self-importance and benighted self-pity common to almost all powerful men, but he does give a good interview. He often obfuscates, but in doings so gives his interviewers just enough room to hang themselves, and they oblige, coming off as merely hectoring. Iran must do this. Iran must do that. Iran must show a sign. While the Iranian President responds plainly, speaking on the nuclear question:
If a technology is beneficial, everyone should have it. If it is not, no one should have it. Can it be ... [that] we are not even permitted to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy? Our logic is completely clear: equal rights for all. The composition of the Security Council and the veto of its five permanent members are consequences of World War II, which ended 60 years ago. Must the victorious powers dominate mankind for evermore, and must they constitute the world government? The composition of the Security Council must be changed.Which is hard to quibble with.
Predictably, Ahmedinejad dissembles on on his position on the scale of the Holocaust, speaking with deliberate ambivalence. This is callous and condemnable, but as the American President (and his predecessors) perform the same rhetorical dance regarding the Armenian genocide, one can hardly call Ahmedinejad uniquely callous or disingenuous regarding the legacy of mass killing in the 20th century.
8 comments:
Why is it that no one can interview Ahmadinejad without acting like a dick?
remember when he came to columbia, and the university president introduced him by shitting on his head? similar dynamic, perhaps
do we now get treated to Obama and Sarkozy landing on the deck of the naval rescue boat and unfurling a "mission accomplished" banner?
Um, how about the rhetorical dance concerning the United States' own mass killings by American officers of state? One could say the hypocrisy is a little more egregious in this regard.
Hard to quibble with indeed. One of the toughest problems our masters encounter when running their little empire is that they are constantly having to shit all over justice and common-sense decency. Running the world means "defending the indefensible", and doing it for 60 years plus is hard work....
So disenfranchise means "screwed" cause you say so, and now "ambivalence" means vague?
Or do you think part of him sympathizes with the Jews?
:poke:
Huh? Huh?
Yeah.
Nutella, your ass probably still has bootprints on it from the last time you started ranting about the poor, victimized Israelis and the slobbering, monolithic hordes of Mooslims that hate them for no good reason. Don't start that up again, for your own sake.
Post a Comment