Enjoy That Funny Letter!

[quote]hspder wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
How so? I don’t really see any similiarities besides the existing climate of nationalism in both countries. The major difference is that the Iranians don’t have a major grudge and an axe to grind against America, the way the Germans did. They simply want to be left alone to their affairs. Germany, having been decimated by the allies after WWI, was out for blood by the time Hitler came around. That atmosphere made his ascent possible. Furthermore, in what could be the most important distinction between pre-war Germany and modern Iran, the former had absolutely nothing to lose; it was a decimated country after the first Great War. Iran, today, has plenty to lose from an armed confrontation with the West, as do, most likely, the Western powers themselves and Israel.

I am not saying the opposite – what I’m saying is that his philosophy reminds me of Hitler’s, but I also said, much like you, the climate (the context) is completely different…

If you re-read what I said, you’ll understand.
[/quote]

Interesting. So we can compare muslims with aryans, and the desire to destroy Israel with the concept of Lebensraum? That is a good analogy.

Should we then ‘nip this thing in the bud’, as should have been done in the '30s?

HH

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Here’s a good analysis of the letter from a site that doesn’t belong to either of the mainstream camps (liberal/conservative).

The author saturates all of his editorials with outside links to verify his claims, so I will refrain from copying the article here, minus said links.[/quote]

This website is one of the most biased I have ever seen.

It actively promotes that anti-war agenda by only providing select information. This does not make “good analysis”.

The fact that you think it does shows your inherent bias.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sounds more like a pre-concieved parody than a legitimate stab at an interpretation.

I’ve read the Move-On.org stuff, the Daily Kos stuff and the other stuff from which he obviously sourced his opinions, and I read the letter.

Who, Ahmadinejad? You really think he got his opinions from western sites? The accusations he raised are common knowledge in the Middle East, as well as much of the world. Or maybe you were referring to the writer of the parody, in which case I don’t quite follow your meaning.

I think the parody had some laughs, but it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the content of the actual letter. [/quote]

I’m familiar with Justin Raimondo (sp?) and his opinions as well.

But I wasn’t suggesting the Iranian president got his information from the sites I pointed out – I was suggesting their positions were strikingly similar as to the “known facts.” It’s funny how many folks (not necessarily you, as you’ve not commented on this that I’ve seen) think that American knowledge of the rest of the world is crap, and the information they do “know” is crap, but are more than willing to latch on to the opinions of the world about internal U.S. issues as proof for something or other. While generally more people in various countries have opinions about the U.S. than people in the U.S. have about many other countries (mostly because of the perceived effect on life of the particular individual looking outside of his own country), I don’t think the average opinions of foreigners on U.S. internal issues are any more reliable than the opinions of Americans on the street about the internal affairs of any foreign countries.

At any rate, maybe later when I have some more time we can have an interesting thread on historical parallels between countries under dictatorships that are looking to do military buildups, and the reactions of countries that considered stopping them.

Until then, here’s an interesting article looking at the letter through the lens of Persian history:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/65803.htm

[quote]vroom wrote:

If you simply were to say that you felt the letter was worthless, after looking at it, instead of implying (at the onset) that you decided beforehand, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.[/quote]

Actually, I gave no indication one way or the other, I merely stated (quite accurately IMO), that none of us is in the proper frame of mind to give a legitimate interpretation of his ramblings. Further, why is the onus on me to read it or to prove that I read it merely because you think I didn’t? Maybe you shouldn’t assume we’re all dumb hicks and you could learn a thing or two, or at least save yourself an argument.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Actually, I gave no indication one way or the other, I merely stated (quite accurately IMO), that none of us is in the proper frame of mind to give a legitimate interpretation of his ramblings. Further, why is the onus on me to read it or to prove that I read it merely because you think I didn’t? Maybe you shouldn’t assume we’re all dumb hicks and you could learn a thing or two, or at least save yourself an argument.[/quote]

I think you should up your anti-e’s.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
vroom wrote:

If you simply were to say that you felt the letter was worthless, after looking at it, instead of implying (at the onset) that you decided beforehand, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Actually, I gave no indication one way or the other, I merely stated (quite accurately IMO), that none of us is in the proper frame of mind to give a legitimate interpretation of his ramblings. Further, why is the onus on me to read it or to prove that I read it merely because you think I didn’t? Maybe you shouldn’t assume we’re all dumb hicks and you could learn a thing or two, or at least save yourself an argument.[/quote]

Lucasa,

Remember, it’s Vroom.

HH

I’m no historian, nor a political or military strategist, and these are my unbaked ramblings (I actually have a day job, and I just concocted this in my constantly diminishing spare time), so feel free to completely disagree with me and tell me I have no idea what I’m talking about… I welcome any insights on this others might have.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Interesting. So we can compare muslims with aryans, and the desire to destroy Israel with the concept of Lebensraum? That is a good analogy.[/quote]

Yes. That is a good analogy, and judging from this letter, those are the beliefs he defends – plus, clearly, totalitarianism, much like Hitler did.

What is quite amazing from this letter – at least, from my interpretation after reading it a few times – is how little new information it brings. I mean, it’s almost like a manifesto of their ideology, but we could already figure out what that is from other bits and pieces.

In regards to the stabs at Bush II’s policies and ideological incongruences, he is using them cleverly to make his ideology sound more legitimate ? basically, diverting attention like an illusionist. Unfortunately Bush II gave him PLENTY of material for that, and America’s reactions to those stabs are just piling up the material. We need to realize that if we are to fight the spread of his ideology, we need to clearly be the bastion of integrity and the “tough good guys” – basically, clearly take the high road, even while still being firm in our democratic beliefs – and honestly we’re doing a piss poor job at that: most Americans are either taking the ?low road? or not defending the foundations of our beliefs that they don?t subscribe to ? Democracy, Freedom, Equality.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Should we then ‘nip this thing in the bud’, as should have been done in the '30s?[/quote]

We’re very much past beyond the “bud” phase, and as I said before the geopolitical situation is very different. This is an extremely complex situation.

On one hand, Israel bought themselves this war and it is the belief on many in this world that Israel will be fighting Islam for eternity (or until the Second Coming, depending on who you chose to believe) – and yes, Methodists share this belief – and, honestly, it’s not like Iran is surrounded by bastions of Democracy. Their “Lebensraum” is, except for Israel, already established. In essence, if we decide to just let Israel go (which I know will have severe political consequences, but hey, so would have attacking Iran, right?), we could just not care. It might even be a good way to force us to reduce our dependency on oil. Maybe impose a few trade restrictions just to make our position clear and weaken their Economy. As I said before, they do not want to be part of the international community, so let?s just let them go on their merry way?

On the other hand, one can argue that they might want to take it up another notch eventually and go for Europe. However, he does not really give an hints in that direction in this manifesto, and I’m relatively certain that they will not do that militarily; Islam has already invaded Europe, and, truly, there’s very, very little we can do about it unless you make dramatic changes in laws there and do what Germany and Austria did with Nazis and Nazism for Islamism – essentially, make it illegal.

Finally, my wife?s grandfather (an Indian Muslim which ran away from Goa, India to Mozambique, due to religious persecution, and then married a Black Catholic lady ? my wife?s grandmother – and converted to Christianity ? pretty complicated life!), once said something that stuck with me forever: ?The best way to deal with Muslims is to leave them alone; each sect hates each other so much that they will be happy to exterminate each other; they do NOT need our help in doing so??

Now, you can say that most of these excuses were made for Nazi Germany too, and we cannot afford to sit back and relax, and you may be right – however, we could take a middle-ground and do something that would have worked against Nazi Germany – gather up allies, and obtain a STRONG commitment from them that the moment Iran makes an even small attempt at going for Israel, we will all unleash the full force of our Armed Forces – reminding them (our allies) about 100 times that if we had done that the day Hitler invaded Poland, we would have saved millions of lives, especially if we had the ability to get there as quickly as we can now get to Iran and Israel. At the same time, we should definitely and openly advise Israel that the moment Iran makes a move, they have the international blessing to defend themselves with whatever they have, including nuclear weapons.

Now, this does not prevent the possible destruction of Israel if Iran strikes them with nukes. But it does provide a strong statement, and it does protect us – and any strategy that is more aggressive will definitely be worse in terms of cost of American lives.

Again, just my ramblings. I’m not attached to them.

First of all, I want to make it clear that my comments have nothing to do with anything political, and are in no way meant to defend the actions of either the US or any other country.

I just would like to clear up the following misconception. At one point the letter said:

Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.” - Mathew 10:34

Of course, He is not talking about a physical sword, or physical force, but a spiritual battle.

So many people have this misconception that Jesus was all about love, peace and forgiveness for everyone. Love, peace and forgiveness are certainly facets of God, but they are not synonymous with God. He is also righteous, just and wrathful towards sin.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
So many people have this misconception that Jesus was all about love, peace and forgiveness for everyone. Love, peace and forgiveness are certainly facets of God, but they are not synonymous with God. He is also righteous, just and wrathful towards sin.
[/quote]

Great, looks like we have all the makings for a nice holy war to cleanse the planet (of humanity).

[quote]vroom wrote:
JPBear wrote:
So many people have this misconception that Jesus was all about love, peace and forgiveness for everyone. Love, peace and forgiveness are certainly facets of God, but they are not synonymous with God. He is also righteous, just and wrathful towards sin.

Great, looks like we have all the makings for a nice holy war to cleanse the planet (of humanity).[/quote]

One side already sees it as a holy war.

Thankfully the West doesn’t take religion very seriously and is not treating it as a holy war.

Vroom and Zap,

Maybe I wasn’t clear. God has not handed over the task of judging the world to Christians or anyone else. Neither has he given any indication that Christians are to fight some Holy War against the rest of the world. As I mentioned, my comments had nothing to do with the political situation. I was referring to spiritual matters.

JP,

No offense, but fanatic literalists can twist and interpret their religion to support almost anything.

This is what we have happening with the islamofascists.

This is the dangerous side of having extremely strong religious views, especially if someone else is teaching you their own interpretation of that religion for their own purpose.

Zap,

If it became a religious crusade on “our” side, then there would be a much larger problem on “their” side than there is currently.

So, I’m not really disagreeing with you, but we are looking at a situation with a lot of public acceptance over there, but not really a lot of fired up public participation.

Thankfully.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
So many people have this misconception that Jesus was all about love, peace and forgiveness for everyone. Love, peace and forgiveness are certainly facets of God, but they are not synonymous with God. He is also righteous, just and wrathful towards sin.
[/quote]

The big issue that springs from this is that each side could see the other as sinful and could discount their own sins as a factor to the bigger picture. They could go with this idea and say that God is on their side alone. This is where it could possibly get out of hand. Thankfully, for now at least, our government is not completely entertwined with any one religious belief.