Sunday, April 18, 2010

Sour grapes and stupidity

Firstly Matt is pissed that his beloved leader Helen Clark missed a big thwank you opportunity on stage, shaking hands with the One.

I figure that it could have been her.......
.....if only she hadn't lied, cheated and stolen in a desperate attempt to rort another 3 years of power.

Thankfully NZ moved on. There were enough intelligent voters to finally dump her, her motley crew and another barrel scrapping side kick (who shall not be named).

Then he adds this wonderful piece of intelligence to the debate on world security.

"Iran logically understands the sooner it gets a bomb the safer it will be."

It must drive him nuts that he now has to hate the USA on one hand and love Obama on the other.

No wonder the poor chap lives in such a constant state of confusion.

20 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Iran logically understands the sooner it gets a bomb the safer it will be.

From the Iranian perspective that statement is perfectly correct - and Iran's policies are set by Iranians, not Western conservatives. If you believe the quoted statement is wrong, do you also believe Israel would be safer without nukes?

Lou Taylor said...

Milt, the whole world would be "safer" without nukes.
But that fantasy isn't going to happen.

History would say that there is a high chance that Israel will be the one eventually defending itself by whatever means possible.

McCarten would no doubt like to see
Iran with nukes so that some day Israel can be wiped off the mat but people like me happen to like Israel. The have a right to be there.
So I am happy that they have nukes as a deterent.I hope they never have to use them.
I trust them alot more than I trust a muslim country.

Anonymous said...

I just wonder what kind of warped logic makes socialists think that theocratic Iran is an ideological ally?

And you're wrong Milt because Iran's policies are set by western conservatives. See those countries bordering Iran you know Iraq and Afghanistan. Who has a military presence in them?

Idiot

Psycho Milt said...

the whole world would be "safer" without nukes.
But that fantasy isn't going to happen.


The Iranian govt's thinking in a nutshell. Which leads it to understand that "the sooner it gets a bomb, the safer it will be."

I just wonder what kind of warped logic makes socialists think that theocratic Iran is an ideological ally?

And I wonder why right-wingers imagine that socialists consider Iran an ideological ally, rather than an implacable enemy. I've noticed right-wingers often mistake seeing someone else's point of view for sharing that point of view - perhaps that explains it.

...Iran's policies are set by western conservatives. See those countries bordering Iran you know Iraq and Afghanistan.

Set in response to Western conservatives perhaps, but not set by them. You're describing exactly the reasons why it's logical for Iran to want nuclear weapons.

Anonymous said...

"Set in response to Western conservatives perhaps, but not set by them. You're describing exactly the reasons why it's logical for Iran to want nuclear weapons."

You may well be right. But the greatest danger that Iran faces is not from the US but its own people. I'd say that the Iranian weapons programme probably has the vast support of most of its people for various nationalistic reason and the hostility to the US and Israel serves as a unifying ideal.

But in the end the mullahs are simply using the illusion of a Iran under siege from hostile external forces as a justification for their rule.

"And I wonder why right-wingers imagine that socialists consider Iran an ideological ally, rather than an implacable enemy."

You're obviously not very well traveled in the realm of left wing activism are you?

Simon said...

"the sooner it gets a bomb, the safer it will be."


Well nominally. But with nukes Iran will be held to higher standards. If Iran fails to met the standards set by America it will easier for America to get Russia and China onboard. Dangerous idiots with nukes is an easer sell than just your bog standard dangerous idiots.

Loser country with nukes attitudes change. Cant go around blowing up embassies anymore. Think Iran can met the standard?

pdm said...

What no one seems to give credence to is the fact that if Iran zaps Israel with HBombs or other nuclear devices it is not going to be pretty for Palestine.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Matt is a man of great insight.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/matt-mccarten/news/article.cfm?a_id=284&objectid=10599799

http://survey09.ituc-csi.org/survey.php?IDContinent=1&IDCountry=LBY&Lang=EN

Taylor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Psycho Milt said...

But in the end the mullahs are simply using the illusion of a Iran under siege from hostile external forces as a justification for their rule.

"Illusion?" There's nothing illusory about those hostile external forces. Most Iranians are too young to remember the last time that hostility took concrete form, but they'll have plenty of stories of dead relatives to remind them.

You're obviously not very well traveled in the realm of left wing activism are you?

Well, if you can find some of these left-wing activists who consider Iran an ideological ally, feel free to point them out - I certainly haven't noticed them.

Loser country with nukes attitudes change. Cant go around blowing up embassies anymore. Think Iran can met the standard?

Israel's demonstrated that it's possible to have nukes and continue your murderous business-as-usual without the UN giving a shit. It's a fact that's lost on Western conservatives, but not on people in the Middle East, or any 3rd wld country interested in getting nuclear-armed.

Anonymous said...

""Illusion?" There's nothing illusory about those hostile external forces."

LOL. That's what the mullahs say to their people.

"From the Iranian perspective that statement is perfectly correct"

And you're 'Iranian' right s you'd you'd know this? Most of the Iranians I knew didn't even like to be called Iranian but Persian. Iran was a term brought back into vougue by the theoratic regime after the revolution which is where your sympathies apparently lie.

What a tool.

Simon said...

“Israel's demonstrated that it's possible to have nukes and continue your murderous business-as-usual without the UN giving a shit.”

That of course is very true but America is not hostile towards Israel.

Israel has had nukes for 30 years and the Arabs don’t mind too much.

Iran nukes up and suddenly the Arabs have to get their own nukes.

Iran with nukes makes it more of a target and regime change comes into play and other countries will look the other way.

Psycho Milt said...

And you're 'Iranian' right s you'd you'd know this?

I know right-wingers find this impossible, but if you exercise your brain it's possible to consider how things might look from another's perspective.

Iran was a term brought back into vougue by the theoratic regime...

Ever heard of Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran?

...which is where your sympathies apparently lie.

I know right-wingers struggle with this one as well, but it remains entirely possible to consider foreign dictatorships as such rather than as cartoon bad guys, without feeling the remotest affinity for them.

Anonymous said...

"I know right-wingers find this impossible, but if you exercise your brain it's possible to consider how things might look from another's perspective."

No. you think you know but never truly will. It is simply the versimiltude of knowledge. It's pretty much the same mistake that George Bush made when he invaded Iraq:

'Hey these are fundamentally freedom loving people living under a dictatorship so we'll be received with open arms as their liberators.'

Recent history however tells another story.

So Milt, why you're at it why don't you try and explain why the Japanese people support whaling cos I'm really interested in hearing your insights on the previously inscrutable oriental mind.

Psycho Milt said...

I don't recall claiming that "consider how things might look from another's perspective" equates to "know with certainty how things look from another's perspective."

As to Bush, he wasn't considering how things might look from the Iraqis' perspective, he was indulging in wishful thinking of the "if they don't see things this way, it's because they're wrong" variety.

As to why some Japanese support whaling, it's not hard to think of a few possibilities: they eat whales, the ICR disputes the view that whales are threatened species, they don't like Whitey telling them what to do, no doubt there are more - strangely enough, being able to see that does not make me a sympathiser or their "ideological ally."

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon, it is very likely the Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic people support whaling for the very same reasons New Zealanders support sheeping.

Hurf Durf said...

Milt's just another fellow-traveller Red cunt. Levelling the playing field indeed.

As for Iran, it doesn't need nukes to be safe. It's big enough, got enough support from Russia and China, has a large enough army and not enough stomach by the Western political class to attack it. If Bush wouldn't permit a strike on Iran, what makes anyone - and that includes bosom buddies Milt and Iran - think that Barky would? Go on. I challenge you.

The real reason for a nuclear weapon in Iran is not military, but political - Iran wants to be the top dog in the region. Being a recognised nuclear power gives the country enough prestige for underground nutters in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain to turn to Iran for leadership and financial funding and Iran can afford to be a lot more overt about it if possible. If these countries try to push back - what? Are they going to attack a nuclear state? Really? Maybe they'll go after the organisations themselves. And then after Iran mobilises its forces and threatens an "extraordinary" strike? That'll shut them up. Maybe in the future France will want to do something about its youths of indeterminate religious origin in its banlieus. Oh wait, there's the spokescountry for the Muslim world threatening "extraordinary" action to protect their oppressed brothers.

Is that the world you want, Milt? Is that safe enough for you? Is that just enough for you?

Psycho Milt said...

Hurf Durf, there seems to be some confusion. I'm talking about Iran the real, actually-existing country, not the cartoon bad-guy Iran of right-wing nutbar fantasies.

sagenz said...

Milt, Doesn't it get frustrating being continuously misconstrued?

Even hurf durf cannot understand your view despite a quite reasonable description of Iranian logic. By his logic he is an Iran supporting Islamist cunt because he understood and described an opposing point of view.

Psycho Milt said...

No frustration - I always assume there's an audience of lurking readers to address, regardless of whether particular commenters can see the point or not.