It's time to start taking other world leaders seriously

[kutulu]

Ovbiously, there has been a ton of press coverage about Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It really bugs me that the press is boiling their statements down to the rantings of silly, crazy people. These are intelligent, powerfull, and serious people whose countries' actions will play large roles in future global politics. Their countries will be major players in the areas of global security, terroism, and energy. They have strong anti-American feelings and are not at all afraid to make their position known. If you don't believe me that they are intelligent and capable people, check their wikipedia entries.

The press coverage of them is atrocious. Professional news companies will play clips of them with silly sound effects or smarmy comments about how they are looney. I'm concerned that due to the sheepish nature of the general public, this attitude about them will lead people to believe that they are nothing more than crazy people that shouldn't be taken seriously. The public needs to take them seriously because many people accross the world WILL. There are plenty of people that are on the fence about us and a strong leaders like them will be able to convert them to their line of thinking.

I'm not complaining about Bush here either. I do think Bush takes them seriously. This isn't really a thread about what Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been saying or their politics in general, it's about the coverage of them, please keep that in mind.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by kutulu

WILL

WHAT?

Foreign leaders are like kryptonite to people who are nationalists. I happen to think they should be covered more, but I don't expect that to happen until we've had a few liberal presidents in office.

[ubertuber]

I was pretty disappointed that the headline of stories about Hugo Chavez's speech have solely concerned themselves with his "Devil" comments, which were merely a rhetorical device. There were more interesting things to notice about what he said. The devil thing was merely decoration.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I was pretty disappointed that the headline of stories about Hugo Chavez's speech have solely concerned themselves with his "Devil" comments, which were merely a rhetorical device. There were more interesting things to notice about what he said. The devil thing was merely decoration.

Yea lets not forget gems like...

the US empire is on the way down, and it will soon be finished for the good of all mankind.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'


Chavez's speech should have been more wildly covered in full just so we could all enjoy the ranting socialist giving a speech that would have been perfect for the Warsaw pact.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea lets not forget gems like...

the US empire is on the way down, and it will soon be finished for the good of all mankind.

You know, I recall Lee Kuan Yew, PM of Singapore saying similar rhetoric, then would ask for military aid, court American companies to build and invest within the country. So in one breath he bemoans the US and the other he asks for assistance.

I find it interesting that lots of other leaders have harsh rhetoric to say about America, yet seem to always have hat in hand asking for some sort of aid or help.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I find it interesting that lots of other leaders have harsh rhetoric to say about America, yet seem to always have hat in hand asking for some sort of aid or help.

I don't think it's likely that Chavez will be coming looking for US support anytime soon, or at least, not while the current US administration is in power. He's pretty clear he could withhold oil exports and put us in a world of hurt.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't think it's likely that Chavez will be coming looking for US support anytime soon, or at least, not while the current US administration is in power. He's pretty clear he could withhold oil exports and put us in a world of hurt.

Its all just a big plot to FORCE the senate to allow drilling in ANWAR.

But seriously, never give into blackmail.

[World's King]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't think it's likely that Chavez will be coming looking for US support anytime soon, or at least, not while the current US administration is in power. He's pretty clear he could withhold oil exports and put us in a world of hurt.

That's true but if you remember, Chavez offered us help after New Orleans broke.




I'm not really sure why his comments were such a big deal. Bush calls out and talks down to political leaders that he doesn't agree with all the time.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by World's King

That's true but if you remember, Chavez offered us help after New Orleans broke.

Yep. An offer that was turned down. Heckofa job.

Originally Posted by World's King

I'm not really sure why his comments were such a big deal. Bush calls out and talks down to political leaders that he doesn't agree with all the time.

Simple. He's talking bad about our Bushie! Marginalize him! Fast!

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by World's King

That's true but if you remember, Chavez offered us help after New Orleans broke.

Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=2&c=y

What were they going to do to help? It was giving the US the political finger, nothing else.

[roachboy]

gee, ustwo, nice that you are able to engage in complicated questions in such an insightful way once again.


your posts can be reduced to this:

we're amuricans goddamn it and collectively we have more guns than anyone and so our penis is ENORMOUS and because of that we have no obligation to even pretend to be part of the world community, to take other countries seriously, to think in any complexity about the world, the be curious about information or even be coherent.

we can engineer debacle after debacle and should not be judged by anyone.
you dont like it: fuck you.

whatever doesn't work out we can pretend never happened because we're AMURICANS damn it and ignorance is our god given right.
and if you dont like it: fuck you.

we have weapons---you have fewer: so fuck you.

if your country is on the loosing end of exploitative relations with the united states:fuck you.

if your leaders say anything at all that indicates being exploited is not everyone's happy place: fuck you.

we have weapons systems, we have money, we are AMURICANS: so fuck you.

that's all i see--and even this version gives you more credit that your posts merit.

i wouldnt waste my time posting this were it not for the fact that your "perspective" appears not to be far from that of the band of far right incompetents who presently occupy the white house.
fuck all of us, i guess.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by roachboy

gee, ustwo, nice that you are able to engage in complicated questions in such an insightful way once again.


your posts can be reduced to this:

we're amuricans goddamn it and collectively we have more guns than anyone and so our penis is ENORMOUS and because of that we have no obligation to even pretend to be part of the world community, to take other countries seriously, to think in any complexity about the world, the be curious about information or even be coherent.

we can engineer debacle after debacle and should not be judged by anyone.
you dont like it: fuck you.

whatever doesn't work out we can pretend never happened because we're AMURICANS damn it and ignorance is our god given right.
and if you dont like it: fuck you.

we have weapons---you have fewer: so fuck you.

if your country is on the loosing end of exploitative relations with the united states:fuck you.

if your leaders say anything at all that indicates being exploited is not everyone's happy place: fuck you.

we have weapons systems, we have money, we are AMURICANS: so fuck you.

that's all i see--and even this version gives you more credit that your posts merit.

i wouldnt waste my time posting this were it not for the fact that your "perspective" appears not to be far from that of the band of far right incompetents who presently occupy the white house.
fuck all of us, i guess.

Translation: "Fuck everybody that disagrees with me, roachboy. Any viewpoint but mine is a waste of time, and I'll destroy those viewpoints (in my own mind) with an array of strawman arguments."

Unfortunately, most of Congress seems to have adopted your attitude.

[roachboy]

huh--so let's see for a second if there is anything of substance to be addressed your "clever" post marv....














no, as it turns out.

try a little harder, marv. put a bit of effort in. maybe someone now already far to the right will take you seriously then. as it stands, i have nothing to say to you. one ustwo is enough.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Translation: "Fuck everybody that disagrees with me, roachboy. Any viewpoint but mine is a waste of time, and I'll destroy those viewpoints (in my own mind) with an array of strawman arguments."

Unfortunately, most of Congress seems to have adopted your attitude.

Marv why did you go and quote him, now I read it and its the usual insults and pseudo-superiority I've come to expect and attempt to avoid.

[Ch'i]

A nation should never harbor a superiority complex, especially when they owe over eight trillion dollars in debt. There's not room enough for both.

UsTwo, though a bit extreem, roachboy's potrayal of what you've been posting is fairly accurate. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning behind your posts. Hopefully the latter.

[roachboy]

ustwo: maybe you could improve the situation.

i dont care that you float around way way to the right--i assume that somewhere beneathwhat you treat us to consistently, you actually think about what you believe and have reasons for what you think--but apparently you do not take others (here at least) seriously enough to develop actual arguments. that's your choice: but dont try to blame me for the effects of your own choices in how you comport yourself here.

i would much rather that you put away your "being an asshole is enough for these people" attitude you display and have actual discussions.
it would improve the forum.
think about it.

[World's King]

What the hell is wrong with you people?


The moment someone disagrees with you, you get all pissed off and call names. Now I agree that Marv's post was pretty pointless and mean but c'mon on. Stay on topic.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by roachboy

ustwo: maybe you could improve the situation.

i dont care that you float around way way to the right--i assume that somewhere beneathwhat you treat us to consistently, you actually think about what you believe and have reasons for what you think--but apparently you do not take others (here at least) seriously enough to develop actual arguments. that's your choice: but dont try to blame me for the effects of your own choices in how you comport yourself here.

i would much rather that you put away your "being an asshole is enough for these people" attitude you display and have actual discussions.
it would improve the forum.
think about it.

Too true RB.
A-hem! Back on topic, I thought both the Mike Wallace 60 Minutes interview and the the Time magazine cover story treated Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the seriousness he deserves. It's difficult though to not focus on MA's clearly out of touch beliefs such as Holocaust denial. It's hard to engage in rational debate and dialogue with someone who willfully ignores reality.

As far as Chavez reaching out for U.S. aid, it seems unlikely. Let's not forget that Chavez has already come to the aid of poor Americans..

[Elphaba]

Host, I have read the 13 page letter, numerous interviews and watched Mike Wallace make a fool of himself. If you read and listen to his words carefully, he isn't denying the Holocaust but confronting the wrongs of WWII and asking why the Palestinians were required to give up their land to right those wrongs. He is repeatedly misquoted in our press about the whole "wipe Israel off the map" as well. With careful reading of his actual statement, you might conclude that he was in fact referring to a true "map" rather than the Jewish people.

In response to the OP, I absolutely agree that we need to become more knowledgeable about foreign heads of government rather than accepting without question what our media chooses to report. Chavez may appear to be the clown, but his influence in the nonaligned countries in South America is profound.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Host, I have read the 13 page letter, numerous interviews and watched Mike Wallace make a fool of himself. If you read and listen to his words carefully, he isn't denying the Holocaust but confronting the wrongs of WWII and asking why the Palestinians were required to give up their land to right those wrongs. He is repeatedly misquoted in our press about the whole "wipe Israel off the map" as well. With careful reading of his actual statement, you might conclude that he was in fact referring to a true "map" rather than the Jewish people.

I missed Host's post here, or was that some kind of dig at me? I don't get it. Anyhow I didn't think Mike Wallace made a fool of himself, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. As far as his Halocaust denial I was referring to this part:

TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow independent research?

TIME: But massive research has been done.

Ahmadinejad: They put in prison those who try to do research. About historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. We are waiting for answers.

Who puts who in prison for trying to do research? Anyone who says we have to "assume" the holocaust occured, as if it's still up in the air, isn't exactly in touch...with anything--including reality. How carefully do you suggest we read statements like this? I'm sorry but these questions are quite clear:

An extract from the diary of Lieutenant Colonel Mervin Willett Gonin DSO who was
among the first British soldiers to liberate Bergen-Belsen in 1945.

Camp
I can give no adequate description of the Horror Camp in which my men and myself were to spend the next month of our lives. It was just a barren wilderness, as bare as a chicken run. Corpses lay everywhere, some in huge piles, sometimes they lay singly or in pairs where they had fallen. It took a little time to get used to seeing men women and childen collapse as you walked by them and to restrain oneself from going to their assistance. One had to get used early to the idea that the individual just did not count. One knew that five hundred a day were dying and that five hundred a day were going on dying for weeks before anything we could do would have the slightest effect. It was, however, not easy to watch a child choking to death from diptheria when you knew a tracheotomy and nursing would save it, one saw women drowning in their own vomit because they were too weak to turn over, and men eating worms as they clutched a half loaf of bread purely because they had to eat worms to live and now could scarcely tell the difference. Piles of corpses, naked and obscene, with a woman too weak to stand proping herself against them as she cooked the food we had given her over an open fire; men and women crouching down just anywhere in the open relieving themselves of the dysentary which was scouring their bowels, a woman standing stark naked washing herself with some issue soap in water from a tank in which the remains of a child floated. --Source: Imperial War museum

What MA is claiming again and again is that moral relativity dictates that his people have the right to nuclear weapons, free trade, etc. But I'm not willing to agree to having moral equivalence with a person who would say the above.

I am a little let down that the U.S. press has now passed up two opportunities to question Ahmadinejad on his alleged role in the 1979 hostage crisis. Not that I would expect him to be honest, but Mike Wallace is famous for making people squirm on issues like this.

[aKula]

Chavez is probably still a little more than pissed off at the USA due to the support of the 48 hour coup.

As for his policies, some of them are too extreme. Confiscation of private land has taken place and the recently passed law with a long jail sentence for insulting the president. Then there are programs to provide cuban doctors for the poor which I do think is a good thing for the people (I'll leave aside any objections to the policy of supplying oil to Cuba).

The press coverage of them is atrocious. Professional news companies will play clips of them with silly sound effects or smarmy comments about how they are looney.

Whenever I hear things like this I'm glad that we have <a href="http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/">SBS news</a> here in Australia, they also have many in depth shows reporting events from around the world. The other government funded Australian channel, ABC, has good news as well. Any mistakes and lack of journalistic integrity is usually picked up by another program called <a href="http://abc.net.au/mediawatch/">mediawatch</a>

I've sometimes watched the PBS news, which doesn't seem bad at all. I guess it could be the sign of a mature democracy that the government funded television news are more informative that the private ones. From what I gather from posts from here and slashdot as well, many people realise that reading the newspaper is the best option in remaining informed. I do that as well, but the television news available from the government funded stations are not that bad at all.

As for any bias in the news I consume, I read a conservative newspaper to counteract any slight left bias in the television programs. Now I must emphasise that this bias is at most slight, indeed I think it is nonexistent most of the time. I find reading a conservative newspaper is great for myself as I would describe myself as leaning slightly to the left, it challenges your stance on issues. Their layout and use of language is also superior to their rival paper here where I live.

With these programs and media outlets accesible to me, I have no complaints about the media. I just avoid all the nonsense on the private stations.

[Seaver]

What MA is claiming again and again is that moral relativity dictates that his people have the right to nuclear weapons, free trade, etc. But I'm not willing to agree to having moral equivalence with a person who would say the above.

I am a little let down that the U.S. press has now passed up two opportunities to question Ahmadinejad on his alleged role in the 1979 hostage crisis. Not that I would expect him to be honest, but Mike Wallace is famous for making people squirm on issues like this.

/clap, Bravo Host

[powerclown]

It blows my mind to watch these 2 clowns' performances taking place in NEW YORK FREAKING CITY, USA. These international pillars of anti-americanism ranting and raving and gesticulating with props, el diablo this, sulfur fumes that - all the while inside the US...sleeping in american hotels, eating american food, watching american tv, being driven around in american limos, getting head from american hookers (sorry..).

I bet these world leaders are all actually buddies in real life, playing poker together, going for bike rides together, drinking together, giving eachother stock tips, oil deals, laughing together hysterically about the stories the press writes about them. What else makes sense after this week's UN performances?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Locobot

I missed Host's post here, or was that some kind of dig at me? I don't get it. Anyhow I didn't think Mike Wallace made a fool of himself, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. As far as his Halocaust denial I was referring to this part:

Who puts who in prison for trying to do research? Anyone who says we have to "assume" the holocaust occured, as if it's still up in the air, isn't exactly in touch...with anything--including reality. How carefully do you suggest we read statements like this? I'm sorry but these questions are quite clear:

What MA is claiming again and again is that moral relativity dictates that his people have the right to nuclear weapons, free trade, etc. But I'm not willing to agree to having moral equivalence with a person who would say the above.

I am a little let down that the U.S. press has now passed up two opportunities to question Ahmadinejad on his alleged role in the 1979 hostage crisis. Not that I would expect him to be honest, but Mike Wallace is famous for making people squirm on issues like this.

My apologies, locobot. I have had very little sleep and when I saw the Bush avatar I mistook it for host. My profound apologies to host for my error.

Who puts who in prison for trying to do research?

He is correct, locobot. It is illegal in Germany and perhaps elsewhere to engage in research with the intent of disproving the Holocaust. A writer/historian (not sure) was recently sent to prison for just that.

In light of the OP I would suggest that no one underestimate the intelligence of Ahmadinejad or how skillfully he uses that intellect. Anyone who wishes to paint him as some sort of madman has been drinking the koolaid.