Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Flaming Psychopath

Filed under: Iran

That flaming psychopath Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is at it again.

You may remember the incident a few months ago when he boldly declared that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Now, if you can believe it, while visiting Iraq he has stated: "We do not care about [American] statements and remarks because they make statements based on erroneous information. We cannot count on what they say." How's that for hypocrisy? And then he adds that "no one likes" the American forces present in Iraq. Apparently, he's not only in touch with the thinking of every man, woman and child in Iraq, just as he knows, Santy-Claus-like, about the sexual proclivities of every Iranian, but he seems to have forgotten the horrific wars fought between Iran and Iraq, resulting in rivers of Iraqi blood moistening the desert.

Can you imagine how it must feel to know that your country is governed by a raving madman who's furiously striving to acquire nuclear technology? This lunatic makes George Bush look like St. Thomas Aquinas. He makes Teddy Kennedy look like Boss Tweed.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Vova says:

Kim, why are you raging? What's wrong with Ahmadinnerjacket? Compared to our "liberals" (you know that I give them as much respect as I would to ticks, vermin, and maggots) he is a moderate fellow. Fighs against evil and American imperialism and Zionism which, according to our aspiring Nazi candidate, are at the root of all evil.
He'll be a nice negotiating partner for Hussein Obama. Leave him alone


Think says:

Kim,

Did you stop and think for a moment that Mahmoud is able to visit Iraq and have such a good time there because we've screwed it up beyond all recognition? Do you realize that we've botched the rebuilding so badly that the main beneficiary of the war has been Iran?

Instead of attacking Mahmoud (which don't get me wrong is proper, the man is filth) why don't you go and do some critical thinking about our (failed) mission in Iraq and how we got there.


La Russophobe says:

TIM:

Actually, the data clearly shows that we are succeeding in Iraq. We've projected our power across an ocean and liquidated one of the most potent military structures in the world, putting the world in awe of our power, and despite being utterly alone and surrounded by fanatical enemies we've managed to make more and more progress towards civilizing the country.

I guess you're suggesting that we should demand our leaders emulate Iran's leader. If so, I have the same word for you I have for him: psychopath.

It's interesting that, while calling for me to see a different side of the question, you yourself see only one. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?


Vova says:

Our success or failure in Iraq has nothing to do with it, regardless of what the data clearly show (data are plural). Where we did fail was to point out Russian complicity and the fact that Saddam moved his weapons of mass destruction to Syria under the cover of Russian diplomats. But Bush is a pussy and he'd never dare say this lest the lunatic fringe media and anti-American liberals (mostly Dems) in Congress call him a warmanger and hate-mongering racist. So Bush shut up and swallowed.
Besides, there are cultures that are inherently friendly to America and there are cultures that are inherently inimical. Iran is in the former category, so building bridges makes sense. The Arab Muslims are in the latter category, as are our far-left politicians (the Obamas in particular and black "civil rights leaders" in general). So we have to strike a balance of reaching out to the people while shunning the madman. Hussein Obama, on the other hand, being an America-hater, wants to reach out to the tyrant over the people


Frustrated says:

What bothers me is that Bush has to come secretly and hide and sneak out in order not to be killed, while Ahmadinejad was given the first post-invasion red carpet reception for a head of state, and our rode around Iraq in the open, while our troops watched helplessly. This really pains me. Bush may be St. Thomas Aquinas, or better yet he may be Benedict Arnold.


Vova says:

I commiserate with Frustrated. Bush--had he not been a pussy--could have had the thug arrested and put on trial for terrorism, like taking U.S. hostages during Dhimmi Carter. But knowing that the liberals--the likes of Howard Dean, Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, Al Sharpton--think that it's Bush who is a threat to humanity and not Mahmoud the madman, Bush was paralyzed, lest Dan Rather and New York Slimes call him a warmonger. This is truly said.
We have to retake our country from anti-American vermin and pests


what??? says:

"Actually, the data clearly shows that we are succeeding in Iraq."

What data, where? The same data that showed a 36% jump in terrorist attacks against civilians last month (that statistic from that hotbed of anti-Iraqi War sentiment, the Weekly Standard). Do you really consider the murder of over 600 civilians a month to be "success" worth gloating about? The only "success" we are achieving is success relative to our previous total ineptitude.

"We've projected our power across an ocean and liquidated one of the most potent military structures in the world"

Which military structure are you talking about? The Iraqi army? Maybe in 1991 (before we blew it up in Desert Storm) you could have called it "one of the most potent military structures in the world" but if you think knocking off a couple of thousand of half-rate Iraqi conscripts is going to scare the Chinese, much less the Russians, then... well, then you're an idiot.

"putting the world in awe of our power"

Oh yeah Kim, they're shaking in their boots. That's why Chavez, whose entire raison d'etre is anti-Americanism, is close to starting a war in South America, why Iran continues to dare us to do something about their nuclear program, and why Al Qaeda is on the verge of forcing a NATO defeat in Afghanistan (read the papers much Kim, that country is falling down around our ears).

"and despite being utterly alone"

Yes Kim, the way to impress all of our enemies is to do things "utterly alone." That'll show'em that we mean business right! What if they pay attention to this fact and then try to start shit all over the world at the same time (as seems to be happening now). What do we do then? Invade everywhere at once?

"and surrounded by fanatical enemies we've managed to make more and more progress towards civilizing the country."

We have lost almost 4,000 American dead and spent over a TRILLION DOLLARS in Iraq for, as you claim, mere "progress" is "civilizing" a country. You know what, on my list of priorities "civilizing Iraq" comes just after "getting ebola" and "hanging out with Kim Zigfeld." I, and any true American patriot, wouldn't give a rat's ass what happened in that hellhole once we found out there were no WMDs (something we've known for several years now).

Iraq doesn't even qualify as a 'Pyhrric victory' since we HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ACHIEVED ANYTHING.

'Victories' like Iraq are the best possible gift to people I hate (like Mahmoud and Chavez) as well as to people you hate (Putin) because they make America look both impotent and idiotic as well as cost us an ungodly amount of money.



Karel Beckman says:

Disgusting to suggest that Iran is to blame for spilling rivers of blood in the Iran-Iraq war. Dear Kim, read up on your history, please. You have opinions, but you don't know much. Iraq started this war and was backed by the US throughout, just as the US backed the Taliban when it was in their interest. Check out my article: http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/data/docs/pdf%20eer%201/EER2-Iran.pdf






Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/681