Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar

i appreciate u taking the time out to response i guess with your "information" from wikipedia, but you should read my entire post before you let your emotions get the best of you

 

i dunno how we got so off track since this thread is about iran, but here is an article written by iran's ambassador to the un that was published today:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

 

I wouldn't let this lazy rookie get under your skin. I'm not sure clutch is keen on keeping the rookies around long-term, anyhow.

By the way - there's no chance CreepyFloyd is really new here. He's most likely a regular who got banned in the past. No new poster pops on the scene, averages 30 posts per day and ventures into the D&D throwing rocks from day 1. It usually takes posters quite some time to even find the D&D, much less post in it.

 

ok on the one hand i'm lazy and on the other i'm averaging 30 posts per day...i will admit i've been reading clutchfans for a year or so and following the rockets all my life, but i've never been a member...i just joined obviously to talk about basketball, but i was pleasantly suprised to see the d&d...you guys were throwing fits about internet "sources," i provide an article and i can give book recommendations as well, all u gotta do is ask

 

From the Middle East Quarterly , Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (Gloria) Center, Interdisciplinary University, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. This article is adapted from his book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley, 2005).

Blaming America for Arab Dictatorship

Many Arab liberals engage in anti-American rhetoric. Whether these liberals voice anti-Americanism for tactical reasons, to try to disprove the labels assigned to them by Arab nationalists or Islamists, or because of their own latent Arab nationalism, the net impact remains the same: while the liberals strive for democracy and reform, they promote anti-Americanism and inaccurate interpretations of Washington's policies. This presents a serious pitfall for liberals: by trying to fit into the existing discourse, they may reinforce its basic assumptions. Yet, if they break with the dominant concepts, they risk pariah status.

It has been hard for even open-minded Arabs to revise past tendentious assumptions in order to reexamine history. The dominant Arab intellectual system attributes the cause of all Arab problems to external villains. There are exceptions to this rule, but there are relatively few who propose the elements needed for a more coherent version of the United States and its policies. These include a better understanding of U.S. society and political culture; a willingness by Arabs to take responsibility for their own problems and shortcomings; the necessity to puncture the myth of Arab resistance to the United States as a central element in ideology and behavior; a reevaluation of stereotypes about U.S. policies on the Arab-Israeli conflict; contextualization of the accusation that Washington backs Arab dictatorships; and comprehension that the U.S. government can have good intentions toward the Arab world.

A common complaint is that the U.S. government has supported autocratic regimes. This accusation creates a Catch-22 for many liberals. On the one hand, many Arabs criticize the U.S. government for pursuing normal diplomacy with existing Arab regimes, arguing that this conveys either acceptance of or responsibility for the repressive governments in the Arab world. On the other hand, these same Arab commentators label any U.S. diplomatic pressure for change as proof of U.S. hostility toward Arab independence. Jordanian journalist Salameh Nematt, for example, charges that U.S. policy was the real reason for the failure of reform in the Arab world. All Arab states are either dependent on the United States or too busy defending themselves from attack by it. The U.S. accusation that Arab countries lacked democracy was just an excuse "to intervene in the states' domestic affairs."[14]

The claim of U.S. responsibility for Arab dictatorships gives rise to an irony. Egyptian intellectuals denounce U.S. calls for democracy as interference at the same time as they claim their government's repressive policy is underwritten by U.S. aid.[15] Saleh ibn Humaid, president of the Saudi Shura Council, complains that Washington is hypocritical about advocating freedom, democracy, and human rights because it backs autocratic, oppressive regimes.[16] Yet Ibn Humaid is an appointed official of a Saudi regime that is a leading example of American backing for a non-democratic government.

A similar case followed the Saudi government's March 2004 arrest of thirteen liberal dissidents. The U.S. State Department criticized Riyadh's move as repression of reformists. There were no cheers in the Arab media for this U.S. initiative on behalf of free speech in the Arab world, however. Rather, the governments and media reacted with anger, mobilizing public sentiment against Washington's attempts to back reform.[17]

This liberal hypocrisy is retroactive, too. Critics of U.S. policy seldom cite regimes glorified in the Arab discourse that have benefited wrongly from U.S. support. Gamal Abdel Nasser's regime was both the apex of the pan-Arab movement and also a repressive dictatorship. Washington sought to engage Nasser upon his seizure of power in the 1952 Egyptian revolution. Four years later, following Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal, President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to back the Anglo-French-Israeli effort to overthrow the Egyptian regime. Was Eisenhower wrong not to endorse the intervention? Nasser became a hero in the aftermath of the Anglo-French-Israeli withdrawal. His success, though, was largely a result of U.S. diplomatic pressure. Likewise, would those who criticize the U.S. government for working with Arab dictatorships in attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict prefer Washington to refrain from negotiating efforts because of the nature of the Arab regimes?

Conversely, anyone who criticizes Washington for cooperating with oppressive regimes should see its overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a good thing. But many of those who say U.S. policies favor reactionary regimes, nevertheless, opposed the war to remove Saddam from power. Such hypocrisy would extend to a number of other situations. Would these liberals have preferred Washington to cut off all aid to Egypt because of the nature of the Mubarak regime? Was it wrong in Arab eyes to help the Palestinian Authority because of Yasir Arafat's dictatorial behavior? Should President George H.W. Bush have refused to defend the Saudis and Kuwaitis from Iraqi invasion in 1990 because both countries were less than democratic? Conversely, would Arab liberals argue that Washington should not have lent assistance to Iraq against the Iranian challenge in the 1980s unless Baghdad first made substantial reforms? Such quandaries could be made about almost every country in the region. Should the U.S. government not have helped the Jordanian monarchy survive subversive efforts by radical states in the 1960s and 1970s? Too often, those criticizing Washington for not having pressured Arab dictatorships in the past are critical of its efforts to do so at present.

Such logical inconsistency is why Arab liberals do not explore in detail the implications of blaming the United States for Arab dictatorships. For liberals, this would be a counterproductive argument. First, it relieves Arabs themselves of responsibility for their difficulties, a crutch liberals seek to break. Second, it reinforces the ruling doctrine's hold over the minds of millions of Arabs who have been taught that their dictators are defending them against the United States.

 

they've been loving it since we messed up iraq

 

barry rubin is a israeli citizen and is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-israel "think tank" that is the mouthpiece for the likud party in the us and winep was established by aipac (an ethnic/jewish lobby)...also, Middle East Quarterly belongs to Daniel Pipes, a well known Islamophobe, thus, this source and what it says is garbage

 

this thread is about iran....why have you hijacked it hayes with articles about arab liberals?

i'd like to get your thoughts on the article by the iranian ambassador to the un

 

I already addressed the bias. That hardly invalidates the arguments. You'll have to do better than that. And no offense, but its pretty amusing for you to write off a long argument because someone is biased, and THEN quote the Iranian ambassador, lol.

Lol, go back and look. As I was only responding to your statements, if the thread's been hijacked, it wasn't by me.

As Iran has had a secret program for almost two decades, I think the proclamations of an open and civilian nuclear program are in serious doubt. That the EU - certainly not in Bush's pocket (as Iraq attests) - felt compelled to refer the matter to the UNSC, as does the US, also provides a different picture than the Iranian ambassador portrays.

 

Oooohhh...looks like he got under *someone's* skin.

BTW, I like his posts.

Keep posting creepyfloyd. Discussion is always good.

 

thanks zboy like the rocket championship teams i dont get intimidated

good job of NOT commenting on the article i posted hayes....iran's program is under international inspection, which is more than i can say for the us as america continues to proliferate wmd

if anybody has done anything illegal its the us with their illegal invasion and occupation of iraq and their support for a criminal regime in israel no matter how many international laws, un security council resolutions, atrocities they commit against the palestinians

 

LOL...Zboy I've been under your skin for some time now. You're obsessed with me. I dominate your thoughts and control your emotions.

Creepy - don't flatter yourself with Zboy's comments. It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory coming from Zboi

 

ZBoy getting owned like usual

 

Which I guess is also why you're in here cozying up to a Kerry supporting traitor.

When was the last time texxx attacked the argument rather than the person making it, by the way? Pre-2006? Pre-Iraq war? Or is the dogged preference for attacking the messenger another part of the everything that changed on 9/11?

 

Sure, Bats, you can make fun and joke about 9/11, but I will not do such a traitorous thing. I respect those who died on that day and I would hope you would reconsider your position to agree with me on that one.

 

Nice. Accuse me of making fun of and joking about 9/11, call me a traitor for the thousandth time, imply I lack respect for those that died and encourage me to start respecting the dead. **** off, *******.

 

p.s. Unlike you texxx, I think it's wrong to lynch black people, have sex with children or rape women. I'd really encourage you to change your mind and agree with me about all that. Also, when did you stop beating your wife? TIA, dick.

 

Bats, when you mockingly state, "oh, everything changed on 9/11", I have a problem with that. I have news for you: Everything did change on 9/11. That's when our war on terror began. Our country was attacked, and we went to war. We have to make changes to fight this war, and your mocking our efforts to fight that war does not help our cause. In fact, I'd say it hurts our cause. Frankly, I think it shows disrespect for those who died on that day, because you can rest assured that they don't want to see others die at the hands of terrorists.

 

good lord batman jones
do you kiss your mother with that mouth

filthy, filthy