I dont think AN's speech will necessarily work against Iran's nuclear energy program. The West has threatened Iran already and shamelessly passed a resolution to send Iran to the security council for what Iran explicitly has the right to do according to the NPT. So, it would be utterly stupid to keep on begging that they reconsider their position. Instead, what AN has done will make it harder for the west to isolate Iran in the Arab world. Arab governments mostly hate Iran anyway, but such a vocal commitment to the Palestinian cause will make it harder for them to work againist Iran vis-a-vis their OWN PEOPLE...something AN explicitly addressed in his speech: "your own people will hate you". So what is the west going to do about this? They have already threatened Iran with security council resolutions, so in fact now AN is calling their bluff..... are they going to attack Iran?
Well I am not an anti-semite.....and I dont support anti-semitism...and I think unfortunately the hatred in the islamic world of Israel has and will create anti-semitism. But being aganist "zionism" doesnt make one an anti-semite......and if its okay to hate a "Baahist" regime, a "Nazi" regime, etc... I don't see why a "Zionist" regime cannot be hated???? I dont hate the "Zionist regime" personally.....but if regime change is okay in theory, then I dont see why Blair was so goddamn constipated when he responded to AN:
"These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable. I have never come across a situation where the president of a country says they want to wipe out another country - this is not acceptable"
After all, I remember at the begining of the Afghanistan campign, when the U.S. was bombing afghanistan, Bush came out and stated that the taliban/afghans (failed to make a distinction) should hand over "bin laden" and "we will reconsider what we are doing to your country". So in fact, although later on alot was said about reconstructing and bringing democracy to Afghanistan, in that instant the U.S. president gloated about physically destroying another country. AN said the "zionist regime" should end, he didnt say the people and the land should be destroyed, after all, where would the palestinian refugees go to then?
So...all in all...its a bad outcome for the world that things are escalating out of control, but I think AN is doing the right thing in not applying the breaks. In Game theory lingo, this is a "game" where one should strive for the dominant strategy and to seem radical and aggressive is to have the right strategy. For more info, read Thomas Schelling's (this year's noble prize winner) "Strategy of Conflict", his masterpiece.
Well I am not an anti-semite.....and I dont support anti-semitism...and I think unfortunately the hatred in the islamic world of Israel has and will create anti-semitism. But being aganist "zionism" doesnt make one an anti-semite......and if its okay to hate a "Baahist" regime, a "Nazi" regime, etc... I don't see why a "Zionist" regime cannot be hated???? I dont hate the "Zionist regime" personally.....but if regime change is okay in theory, then I dont see why Blair was so goddamn constipated when he responded to AN:
"These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable. I have never come across a situation where the president of a country says they want to wipe out another country - this is not acceptable"
After all, I remember at the begining of the Afghanistan campign, when the U.S. was bombing afghanistan, Bush came out and stated that the taliban/afghans (failed to make a distinction) should hand over "bin laden" and "we will reconsider what we are doing to your country". So in fact, although later on alot was said about reconstructing and bringing democracy to Afghanistan, in that instant the U.S. president gloated about physically destroying another country. AN said the "zionist regime" should end, he didnt say the people and the land should be destroyed, after all, where would the palestinian refugees go to then?
So...all in all...its a bad outcome for the world that things are escalating out of control, but I think AN is doing the right thing in not applying the breaks. In Game theory lingo, this is a "game" where one should strive for the dominant strategy and to seem radical and aggressive is to have the right strategy. For more info, read Thomas Schelling's (this year's noble prize winner) "Strategy of Conflict", his masterpiece.