More useful idiots - Macleans.ca
 

More useful idiots


 

About 100 American “progressives” met and dined with the decidedly fascist president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to the United Nations in New York this month. Among those attending were former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and former attorney general Ramsey Clark. Here’s one guest’s account of the dinner.

As my friend the Iranian journalist Arash Azizi points out, Ahmadinejad is president of a regime that slaughtered thousands of communists and other leftists in the 1980s. I wish those who broke bread with Ahmadinejad recognized their hypocrisy. I doubt they will. But Arash says the Iranian people won’t forget.


 

More useful idiots

  1. Good on Oxford. That is indeed one of their finer moments.

    • I'm a little startled about your lack of knowledge of one of the West's oldest and most venerable institutions.

      No, I'm not.

  2. To quote my favorite philosopher, Homer Simpson, Iran can kiss my hairy yellow butt.

  3. People who wish their writing to be taken seriously might refrain from using headlines more suitable to Small Dead Animals. Especially if they believe they have important information which the general population should be taking more heed of.

    • So people who warm up to these despicable regimes aren't useful idiots?

      • 'Isolating and demonzing' is working so well.

        • How about private people speaking out against the horrors of the Iranian regime? Why is that so despicable to people who consider themselves "progressives?"

    • Well, we all eventually realize in our lives… sometimes the truth hurts.

    • Nobody takes Petrou seriously. And why would they. He believes it takes nothing more than a meal to make people abandon all their values.

      • Would you have a meal with Clifford Olson? Adolf Hitler? Or even Sarah Palin?

        • If there was a purpose to it, yes I would.

          • What kind of "purpose" would entice you to sit down and have dinner with these people, especially in front of reporters and the press?

          • Offhand I can't think of one, but I was addressing your point, not your idiotic examples.

          • In other words, you'd rather lash out at me than address the issues raised. Then you have the gall to question Petrou's credibility. Fascinating.

          • I did address the issue. I'd have dinner with someone objectionable if there was a purpose for doing so. That's what the people who attended the dinner with Ahmadinjad did. They had a purpose for doing so.

            For example, Cynthia McKinney "spoke of the history of U.S. activists that had died for their commitment to peace, justice and civil rights (including Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and both John and Robert Kennedy)."

            Adolescents like Petrou's have brainwashed themselves into believing talking is evil while murdering people through war is good when the opposite is true.

          • Yes, let's take another excerpt from the same article:

            There were also some critiques, mostly very mildly delivered, of Iran's reported record on human rights and the treatment of political opposition within Iran. The issue of the death penalty was also raised, but most of the twenty-two people who spoke spent their time at the podium speaking about their opposition to the US portrayal of Iran and the importance of Iran as a counterpoint to the US role in the Middle East.

            So, the purpose was to embolden Iran against the US, was it? This is what you approve of, is it?

          • The article is useless after the first page as it simply becomes nothing more than the writer's vague observations and it's been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that such things are valueless. Show me what they said, not what the writer thinks they said.

          • I did a little digging and came up with video of Cynthia McKinney's speech. After watching it I think I can confidently say she was only there because it gave her a soapbox to have her say. Furthermore, there is nothing in what she said that makes her a useful idiot as labelled by Macleans' resident useless idiot.

          • So, being entertained by a despicable regime for the purpose of having "her say" is OK to you, is it? Will you ever get your story straight instead of simply being a knee-jerk Michael Petrou hater? It's like he's not allowed to say the obvious. Lord forbid. He'll get Robert McClelland on here to hurl insults and engage non sequitur arguments.

          • Bobby really has nothing else to contribute.

          • Coming from Robert McClelland, that's sheer comedy.

          • Speaking to Ahmadenijad about MLK has a purpose? Please enlighten me, what purpose is that?

          • I would definitely have dinner with Palin. That would be fun.

            But anything that lends legitimacy to the president of a country that imprisons a blogger for 20 years should probably be avoided.

          • I threw her in to highlight the absurdity of some people's position on this. No doubt, there are some people willing to be fed by Mahmoud but who won't sit down socially with Sarah Palin.

          • Now that I think about how much sense they make when they talk – they may be the same person!

          • Yes, do tell us under what circumstance you would sup and lend credibility to a genocidal dictator and a child murderer

          • I'd have dinner with Hitler if the steak knives were sharp…

    • It's worth taking note of which would-be progressives are wilfully in league with a fascist government.

  4. Is there some reason we're having a 'two-minute hate' of Iran today?

    • in Newspeak….. Yes.

    • Not Iran. Iran's regime. But feel free to defend a genocidal maniac who routinely executes homosexuals and stones women for being unfaithful to their husbands. Dont worry about any contradictions with your 'progressive' agenda – its ok because Iran really hates Israel too.

      • The world has lots of poor leaders many of them far worse than Ahmadinejad, I just wondered if there was any particular reason to pick on Iran today.

        Because, otherwise you know, we have far more pressing things to worry about.

        • Iran is one of Petrou's favorite files, so it's not surprising he talks about it here. And besides, quality information, for me, is precisely hearing about what's not everywhere in the news.

          Just so you know, I am mostly centre-left in politics; I even briefly helped the NDP in an electoral campaign. So no, I'm not one of these commenters who rave about those damn ignorant smug elitist leftards who drank the Kool-aid (when you've read enough comment boards, you come to integrate the words).

          I find it aberrant that anyone, either from the left or from the right, engage in such a nice rosy social happening with Ahmadinejad, who doesn't represent anything right or honourable by any measure. That is, unless you condone stealing elections, killing civilians, generally being autocratic and stoning women. I just happen to have a prejudice against that.

          • Ahhh well it's a pity then we are unaware of far worse regimes than his.

            Like Saudi Arabia….oh wait, they're an ally.

            Or Uzbekistan…oh wait, we're friendly with them too. They boil people alive you know.

          • That's like saying you'd have dinner with a murderer but not a serial killer.

          • Well since we have to deal with those countries, we have dinner with whoever runs the place whether we're fond of them or not.

            I just wonder why we pick and choose which countries to pounce on, while we're friendly with far worse.

            Names out of a hat by the sound of it.

          • Saudi Arabia isn't "far worse" than Iran.

            Every bit as bad, at worst.

          • Our ally Karzai is not exactly Snow White.

        • Well then I suggest you go on to these far more pressing things.

          Otherwise I dont see harm in pointing out, in a tiny item, in an obscure section of this website, that so-called 'progressives' are hypocritical idiots who cozy up to any dictator that will invite them to dinner. In fact, I consider it a public service.

          • Yes, but then you're always looking for a fight.

          • Pot, meet kettle.

          • pot, kettle, black

    • Well, there is the fact that Iran just locked up a Canadian citizen for 19 years for the crime of publishing a blog, in Canada.

      Seems topical to me.

      • When he was up for execution, the Canadian delegation walked out of the UN. Not a very useful way to deal with it.

        • Trying to appease a nutbar is an exercise in futility. Best just to stick to principle and refuse to associate with the nutbar at all. All nations have to deal with unsavoury people – it's part of international diplomacy – but when you're dealing with an unstable person with irrational ideas and irrational hatreds there's little point in pretending respect. There's nothing to be gained by it and much to be lost.

          • I don't recall saying anything about 'appeasing a nutbar'.

            But when you don't make a point of insulting them publically, you can talk to them or phone them or activate your diplomats, and stand some chance of getting a Canadian out alive. I'd call that 'something to be gained' by common civility. We've lost all contact this way…and gained nothing.

          • Canada, the US, Israel, France, the UK and other European countries all walked out on the UN speech wherein the Iranian leader made an erratic speech featuring his usual anti-semitism along with some new twists like the theory that the US was behind 9/11. The guy is increasingly isolated and it's increasingly clear that he's not firing on all cylinders. Engaging with the guy only lends him credence that he's clearly forfeited. We didn't take it from him, he threw it away.

          • No, the US in particular stayed to listen.

            You don't change anything in the world by refusing to talk to other people

            It's just being shortsighted.

            Engaging with him doesn't lend him any credence….in fact it may do some good. When you paint people into a corner, they tend to react badly.

            And the more we go after Iran, the more the natural human tendency for them to start sticking together will come to the fore….whereas at the moment, Iranians want the regime gone.

            Always, we're keen to draw lines in the sand, and dare people….and it hasn't gotten us anywhere but into messes.

          • No, the US in particular stayed to listen.

            That will come as a surprise to the New York Times

            UNITED NATIONS — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran made a series of incendiary remarks in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, notably the claim that the United States orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks to rescue its declining economy, to reassert its weakening grip on the Middle East and to save Israel.

            Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed world leaders during the General Assembly at the United Nations on Thursday. Those comments prompted at least 33 delegations to walk out, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, all 27 members of the European Union and the union's representative, diplomats said.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24nations

          • Different speech….he made two. One Tuesday and one Thurs.

          • Oh? Where was the speech on Tuesday?

          • At the UN of course. It was a weeklong event.

          • I tracked it down myself thanks. He gave a speech which the translators refused to translate. No one could understand him except those who speak his language. The U.S. didn't "stay and listen" they stayed and ignored an untranslated speech in a foreign language. Boy, that's really staying engaged.
            http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/0

            And, of course, none of that has SFA to do with his speech to the General Assembly which was, just as we discussed, shunned by some 30-odd countries including the US and Canada.

          • Goodness what a grump you are….you repeat back what I've already told you, and somehow think that's an answer.

            Here: Cons like Fox

            On Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad spoke during the global summit on poverty, the American delegation remained even as he predicted the defeat of capitalism.

            snip

            But as Ahmadinejad walked from the podium, he did so rewarded by applause in the august chamber of the world body.

            Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/23/app

          • emily, neither left or right as she likes to say but…. she loves the Iranian jew hater.

          • Sorry to be boring anyone, but this just makes me laugh…

            Here's another account of the speech that the US, in particular, stayed to hear:

            Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest speech to the United Nations on Sept. 21 generated more confusion than controversy. Ahmadinejad's speech was hobbled before it got underway, as shortly into his beginning remarks he paused to criticize the United Nations translators, saying they were not translating his words accurately. The U.N. translators then exacerbated the tension and bewilderment in the hall by bluntly announcing they were reading from a prepared script, and refusing to translate further.

            Consequently, much of the Iranian president's speech was never actually understood by those present in the room who did not understand Persian. Unusually, there was not a massive, coordinated walkout on the controversial president, though Canada abstained from attending. Typically, nations at odds with Iran use the opportunity of Ahmadinejad's speeches at the United Nations to make public their disdain for his rhetoric. Likely, the embarrassment of the translation debacle, coupled with ignorance of precisely what Ahmadinejad was saying, made any political maneuvers to marginalize or disrupt the Iranian president redundant.

            http://tinyurl.com/27vn2n9

      • For one thing he was not an Islam extremist like Khadr, so people is not interested in fighting for his freedom. Give them Khadr and his comrades and you get a serious fight to free them.

        • Can't agree with you there… the blogger in question was actually a very vocal supporter of the Iranian regime, they arrested him anyway. Whatever Khadr did or did not do, he's a Canadian citizen and our government has a duty to protect his rights. They have failed to do so, and that's a serious failure on their part.

          • IN Khadr's case, it was also the involvement of Canadian agents being involved in unconstitutional treatment towards him which necessitated government action.

          • Oh wait, upon re-reading I see you aren't talking about the journalist, but Khar.

  5. Oh, and the phenomenon of useful idiocy is certainly not restricted to Iran. The left has had a long love affair with a Caribbean island tyrant. But at least even he has the sense to take shots at Iran, too.

      • Yes, the West has been allies with some bad players, including the Soviet Union. Does that mean people have to enable regimes like Iran, or any other thug country?

        • No, I just think it's not just a disease of the left.

          • Maybe you can provide some examples of conservatives acting as private individuals to enable despicable regimes? Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh wasn't sending Osama takeout.

          • So…going to a dinner is WORSE than providing weapons and financial support? (Although Rush probably DOES have some Osama-grade heroin in his medicine trunk)

          • They're two different things, and an example of you trying to distract from the topic raised. But glad to see that your smear of Rush Limbaugh reveals your true colours. Thanks for that.

          • Uganda's anti-homosexuality laws have profound connections to The Family/The Fellowship – the religious organization whose membership includes Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Ensign, and Coburn.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Ch

          • Let me see if I can get this straight. You're justifying the left's love affair with Mahmoud by suggesting that some US conservatives are guilty-by-maybe-association for the the murder of gays in Uganda? Wow.

          • some on the left, I should say.

          • Let me see if I have this straight.

            You asked: "Maybe you can provide some examples of conservatives acting as private individuals to enable despicable regimes?"

            I replied: "Uganda's anti-homosexuality laws have profound connections to The Family/The Fellowship – the religious organization whose membership includes Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Ensign, and Coburn"

            If you didn't want an answer to the question, then you probably shouldn't have asked it.

          • And I'm saying that it's not a very good example. It's more of an inflammatory accusation.

          • He was pointing out that cuddling up to, and influencing despicable regimes is not totally a left leaning thing. He's right about that. There are fringe types on both sides.

            The left just seems to have more of them, and they are a lot more brazen about it. Some of them seem to wear it like a badge of honour.

          • I'm not so sure about that – for example: the College Republican types in the 80s (like Grover Nordqvist, Jack Abramoff and the like) went over the moon for Angolan freedom fighter Jonas Savimbi. They even went so far as to have this bizarre anti-Communist Woodstock in Savimbi's base of operations, all with the backing of the Reagan administration.

          • Was that around the same time as Trudeau's trip to Cuba, to show solidarity with Fidel?

          • Not sure. But it was certainly after Donald Rumsfeld had his photo-op with Saddam Hussein :)

            See, we can play this game til the cows come home. Neither group is "better" or "worse". The real question at hand is why anybody gives a tinker's damn about Ahmadinijad – he's pretty much a puppet, a PR guy for the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. At the end of the day, the President in Iran has very little power…but if you notice, nobody really says too much about the Ayatollah anymore. I think we all know why that is.

          • "Useful idiots" indeed :)

          • You're more than welcome to post examples — and I don't mean the unsubstantiated kind that Argent is conjuring up.

          • Dennis I think you need to show some class and admit that Argent took your bait and fed it back to you. Move on. You don't need to claim that "No western conservatives have ever cow-towed to bad guys" to denounce the Iranian regime.

  6. Not that I doubt Petrou's interpretation, but is there an account of what the meeting was about from a reliable news source?

  7. And frankly I'm more concerned about democratic governments cozying up to dictators like Saudi Arabia and China than when a group of nobodies like this does it.

  8. Michael, thank you for bringing this up. but I'm wondering why there has been very little commentary in the Canadian media on the fact that Brian Mulroney is now bought and paid for by our "friends" in Saudi Arabia?

    • I think it goes along the lines of 'if you're a friend of the Bushes, you're a friend of the Saudi's'.

  9. "Ahmadinejad is president of a regime that slaughtered thousands of communists and other leftists in the 1980s. I wish those who broke bread with Ahmadinejad recognized their hypocrisy."

    Left wing types think North American conservatives are the scariest people on earth and need to be stomped on. If that means dining with mass murderers, so be it. Left wing types also have form killing off one another – it's a feature, not a bug, apparently.

    Progressives and liberals have no fringe – they are allowed to do/say whatever they want. Breaking bread with guy who wants to finish what holocaust started is not seen as questionable in any way because progressives are all about love and peace, don't you know.

      • Do you have any links to stories this decade and that don't involve government employees?

        No doubt conservatives do all sorts of sordid things when in government and practicing foreign affairs but I am not seeing any links to articles where regular conservatives get together to celebrate a mass murderer like progressives do.

        • Never elect regular conservatives – thanks for the tip, Berg.

    • Got any more generalizations in you there? Might as well get them all out.

  10. 'Progressives' admire any regime that has absolute power. The savages in Iran use that power to kill their opponents – that is the pinnacle of 'Progressive' achievement, it doesn't matter if they're religious fanatics, communists or a regime working for 'social justice', it is the absolute power Progressives fantasize about openly. Recently, radical leftists in the US were wishing Obama had absolute power so he could finish off the US for good.

    • What I meant to say, of course, is that this is an incredibly reasonable and intelligent point. You sir are a scholar and a gentleman.

    • Blue is red and purple is water. They key opens sunshine and the sky is the moon. Progressives eat ether and kill hamster kittens along the shore of hill brown grope topple speaker of board boring hole plate receiver.

      Together we have made a solid case against the progressives. Well done comrade.

      • Thanks Joe You and Ottawa_Centrist….I thought it was just me that took Philanthropist's rant for babble. LOL

        • He left our Soros – no good right wing rant is complete without mentioning him. And points aren't deducted if the ranter has no idea who he is.

        • You can't argue with facts so you resort to attacks. Silly 'Progressives'.

          • Just because you say something doesn't make it fact.

            I would be as bold as to say if you say something the odds are against it being a fact.

  11. Evidently, a dinner comprised of a special group of progressives selectively chosen based on their improper adoption of the moniker "progressive".

    Let us hope that the use of the term "progressive" does not devolve in meaning only that one is a mindless twat without the capacity to form judgement or think critically, as we already have a term for such individuals.

    • "Liberals"?

    • "Let us hope that the use of the term "progressive" does not devolve in meaning only that one is a mindless twat without the capacity to form judgement or think critically, as we already have a term for such individuals."

      It's way too late to get concerned about that.

      Incidentally, the term progressive doesnt mean "in favor of progress". Originally, in the early 20th century, it was a term coined to refer to the idea that society should be directed by social scientists and other such "experts". Traditionally, progressives have been on the wrong side of history more often than not. They are authoritarian by nature, and have little faith in people taking care of themselves. The nanny state is the ultimate progressive achievement.

      Progressive rock on the other hand, is awesome.

      • By what do you mean "on the wrong side of history"? I am familiar with the rest of your definition but in terms of the historical notations, I've always been under the impression that (as with small-c conservatives) their views were fairly reactionary based on their reading of what had happened in the past.

        Pendulum swinging, and all that.

        • Progressives were generally soft on communism, and certainly tougher on anti-communists than on communists. Then there's this whole thing with fascism in the 30s. By that, I dont mean that progressives were supporters of the Holocaust and were cheering for Hitler in ww2. What I do mean is that before fascism showed its true face during the war, the progressives in America were very much in admiration of the domestic policies of both Mussolini and Hitler, because of their willingness to insert government in every aspect of people's lives. Early progressives are also much associated with the eugenics movement.

          There is a common thread in all this: progressives believe that government knows best, that government should be there to save me from myself, and that government run as many things as possible.

          • "Early progressives are also much associated with the eugenics movement."

            Quite right. Did you know the first Vice-Chairman of the International Eugenics Congress was that noted Progressive Winston Churchill?

          • I'm sure somebody will be bringing up Jonah Goldberg any moment now….

          • No I didnt. But it doesnt change the facts that many early progressives, including Woodrow Wilson, were eugenicists.

          • Or maybe we could put on our big boy pants and agree that people on every side of the spectrum were eugenicists in the first half of the 20th Century.

          • not really no. Churchill went back and forth between liberal and conservatives a couple of times. As much as I admire the man, he was not without flaws.

            It's quite different to suggest that one man, with a habit of changing his mind, took a position that was wrong, than it is to suggest that a whole ideology embraced a concept which is now seen as widely repugnant. The idea that government should be able to dictate who gets to breed is right in the sweet spot of progressive thought – its a logical conclusion of progressive principles – that government knows best and there are essentially no limits to how much government can intrude in private lives.

            Incidentally, Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, was a big time eugenicist, and she saw abortion as a perfect means to limit the spread of what she considered "inferior races".

          • Teddy Roosevelt, John Kellogg and Arthur Balfour also were prominent supporters of eugenics. If Churchill doesn't meet your stringent standards of Conservatism, then surely these three figures do, right?

            Now again, let's all put on our big boy pants and admit that all sides of the spectrum were sympathetic to eugenics in the first part of the 20th Century. This overarching need to define "the left" as unbridled evil is silly, and history just doesn't bear it out – regardless of what Jonah Goldberg would have you believe ;)

            p.s. You should talk to bergkamp – he also seems to think that Sanger's support for eugenics is noteworthy.

          • why would Sanger's particularly racist brand of eugenics not be noteworthy?

            again, I will repeat, it's not about any particular individual, it's whether your ideology's principles lead to eugenics. for progressives, it necessarily does. progressivism is the belief that society ought to be directed from on high by experts in every conceivable field. and so experts, according to a progressive, ought to decide who gets to have kids.

            whatever any particular past conservative may have said is entirely irrelevant. the fact is that conservatism, with its notions of self-reliance and limited government is entirely at odds with the notion of eugenics.

            it's not to say that any so-called conservative politician follows these principles – they most certainly dont, the war on drugs being a prime example of self-identified conservatives pushing for a progressive agenda (by saving people from themselves).

            i dont consider the left as unbridled evil, and neither does jonah goldberg. you would realize this if you actually read his book. i consider the left misguided, not evil. there's a very important difference there.

            the idea that underpins progressivism, that experts ought to direct society, does not stem from a desire to enslave the population, it stems from a genuine desire to make the world a better place. it's just wrong and its consequences are to enslave the population. hence, msiguided.

            same with communism. neither marx or lenin were evil in my view, just wrong. they wanted to rectify real injustices. they just created more injustice in doing so. hence, not evil, but misguided.

          • It's not noteworthy because many, many people believed that eugenics was the way forward as society – on both the right and the left.

            again, let me repeat, eugenics was supported across the political spectrum. There's no underpinning in progressive principles that led it to embrace eugenics (nothing in conservative principles that would either, I might add).

            You keep trying to score historical points against the left. Much like Goldberg does. You are as misguided as him.

            Just stop.

          • Im not trying to tar contemporary lefties with the sins of their predecessors. Im trying to show how principles which appear good or harmless at first glance can lead to disaster.

            Eugenics is essentially the idea that the human 'stock' can be improved if human breeding is directed by experts.

            Progressivism is the idea that human society can be improved if experts are allowed to regulate every aspect of life.

            They're a match made in heaven.

            It's not an entirely academic question either. Just recently in Macleans there was an article about how Harper is all about rejecting expert opinion on everything – for that he was labeled an idiot and all sorts of things.

            Pretending that there's no link whatsoever between progressivism and eugenics in a lame effort to defend progressivism is just going to lead to more disasters like eugenics.

            History teaches us that 'expert opinion' is not at all the same as 'wisdom'. We should learn the lessons of history if we are not to repeat it.

          • History teaches us that 'expert opinion' is not at all the same as 'wisdom'. We should learn the lessons of history if we are not to repeat it.

            Perhaps, but there is value in listening to people who have dedicated their lives to particular fields of study and have thusly gained a great deal of insight about them. The issue with early progressivism, as I see it, isn't necessarily in the idea that we ought be directed by experts, it was the failure to recognize a spectrum of experts and determine a considered opinion on our own. Secondarily, that expert opinion was once considered in a vacuum – and we all well know by now that nothing happens in a vacuum (except a lot of dirt sucking).

            Conservatives would do well to listen to a spectrum of experts as much as progressives would do well to tell said experts to stuff it from time to time. But of course, that comes down to judgement.

            And you can't teach (or apparently, elect) good judgement into someone.

          • Well said.

      • And Republicans once stood against slavery….

    • LOL oh very useful. Never heard of any of them either.

  12. That's cuz they probably hang out in the mythical land o' Rabble.
    Among the disappeared.

  13. Honestly, I think few of those people attended just to see how delusional he is, and also curious who and what were other's purpose in being there, just like the observer.

    • Excuse me, some people are trying to sell a magazine here, Miss!

      • I hope it's selling.

  14. Will there be a published list of every world leader for whom every other single person must not only disapprove of and disagree with, but must run screaming from any function where are they are present? Will we remain our own essential humanity if we fail to spit and make the sign of the evil eye at the mention of his very name?

    Is it just this guy? Nobody else?

    • Well, he's not a world leader (yet), but I think a strong case can be made for adding Justin Bieber to the top of any such hypothetical list.

    • Macleans needs a new cover idea – prepping us for 'Worst Badguy in the World' issue.

      • That's an awesome idea. I'd love to read a well reported piece on who, according to Western liberal democratic values, are the worst regimes on Earth.

        • And who had dinner with them.

    • Will there be a published list of every world leader for whom every other single person must not only disapprove of and disagree with, but must run screaming from any function where are they are present?

      Do you have any idea how often we'd need to change that list? The work needed to keep it up to date would be ASTRONOMICAL.

      For several regimes, I recommend we simply put "Leader of Country X" on a piece of paper with a little velcro so that we can pull them off the list and then stick them back on again more easily, based upon whether we're in the "selling them weapons and supporting their operations" moment of our relationship, or the "trying to avoid getting killed by all of the weapons and training we gave them" phase.

  15. I didn't mention NDP so there's no reason for you to do that.

    But considering that the reactionary right seems to attach great value to
    the 18th and 19th centuries, I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies.

    • Rabble is the dipper site. LOL

      Yes, the right seems to want to live in the past….heaven knows why, cuz it sucked.

  16. Shameful and disgusting

  17. Ahmadinejad takes on America. That is enough to make him hero status to many. Chavez similarly. Please send more on the topic Michael, thanks.

  18. However, Michael, any pixel wasted on Ahmadinejad is a pixel not spent denouncing Israel. What with the economy and global warming, we just shouldn't be wasting pixels. So maybe you should only be denouncing Israel.

    thanks,
    The Left

  19. The left's tacit alliance with radical Islam is, perhaps, the most repugnant aspect of today's polity.

    From the perverted sense that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes the left's kinship with that aspect of radical Islam that rejects "the West".

    To the leftist, all roads lead to class warfare, and so they are enamoured with radical Islam's hate on the West (read the ruling class).

    Of course, the likes of "Emily" here can't see past the class warfare to see that radical Islam couldn't care a wiff about their "cause" and would be just as content to see them stoned as those special interest groups the left has abandoned in support of the Islamists, such as women, gays, the less powerful etc.

    • No one has any idea what you're blathering about chet. I don't know of anyone with an alliance with radical Islam….not even Muslims.

      In any case radical Islamists don't 'hate our freedoms'…..they want us out of their countries. It's not about religion, it's about politics.

      Cons shouldn't be discussing 'class warfare' after trying to pit rural against 'Toronto elites'….that's just laughable.

      As it turns out, not even YOU know what you're talking about.

    • The left's tacit alliance with radical Islam is, perhaps, the most repugnant aspect of today's polity.

      From the perverted sense that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes the left's kinship with that aspect of radical Islam that rejects "the West".

      Uh, wasn't "the right" doing exactly what you're describing here back when the radical Islamists were killing Commies? Hell, even since the end of the Cold War "the right" has been pretty friendly with most of these guys. Lest we forget, the Bush administration was in favour of the Taliban before they were against it.

  20. Ahmadinejad is president of a regime that slaughtered thousands of communists and other leftists in the 1980s.

    Not to diminish your point, but Canadian PMs and cabinet ministers (of all political stripes) have been known to break bread with the Presidents of regimes who have done much worse in their past. Hell, with reference to victims from "the left", in many cases western governments themselves at the very least financed the slaughtering of thousands of communists and other leftists by foreign regimes. I'm also pretty sure that our problem with Iran in the 1980s wasn't exactly "they're killing lots of communists and leftists". If the west-backed regime of the Shah had still been around in the 1980's, I'd bet a year's salary that said regime would have spent a fair portion of the decade slaughtering thousands of communists and other leftists too. In fact, wasn't that pretty much the whole reason we backed the Shah?

    I think it's also always useful to keep in mind that most of the people who are trying to kill us in 2010 were either our CLIENTS (if not outright ALLIES) in the not too distant past, or, they're the people that our clients (/allies) spent our money to opress. More often than not these regimes are trying to kill us with weapons we sold them, and training we provided.

    Anyway, my broader point is just that any group who would refuse to meet with someone based on the fact that said person's regime "slaughtered thousands of communists and other leftists in the 1980s" must have a shockingly short list of people they're willing to meet with. I'm absolutely certain that there are many regimes who slaughtered many more communists and leftists in the 1980s than Iran, and at the time, I'm pretty sure we were cheering said regimes on (if not paying for their operations and/or selling them the weapons to carry said operations out).

  21. Excellent point here:

    I think it's also always useful to keep in mind that most of the people who are trying to kill us in 2010 were either our CLIENTS (if not outright ALLIES) in the not too distant past, or, they're the people that our clients (/allies) spent our money to opress. More often than not these regimes are trying to kill us with weapons we sold them, and training we provided.

    Non-interventionist foreign policy is the best. Model Switzerland, and do as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington thought.