Opinion Forum

U.S. Walks Out on President

September 23rd, 2010

No, I’m talking about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. President Obama spoke at the UN today before the goofy little Iranian made his speech, but the U.S. delegation only walked out on Ahmadinejad.

Anyway, it’s reported that Ahmadinejad had some pretty wild things to say about 9/11, Qur’an burning, and other topics close to his tiny heart. The U.S. delegation immediately walked out when they heard what he had to say about 9/11. Good for them.

According to Ahmadinejad, there are three “prevailing viewpoints” about 9/11 that should be the subject of a “UN fact-finding mission:”

The U.S. government view, he said, is “that a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.”

A second theory, which he claimed is held by the majority of Americans, is “that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.”

A final theory holds that the attack was “carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation,” he said. “Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.”

Kind of sad that some extremist Americans on the far right and left agree with Ahmadinejad on his second theory. Some ignoramuses who don’t have the excuse of being extremists agree with him, too.

Of all the things that are regretable about the UN, perhaps one of the worst is that the President of the U.S. and the President of Iran can speak at the same podium on the same day to the same crowd (more or less) and be treated as equals. In fact, I suspect that more of that crowd of tinhorns and kleptocrats had a favorable opinion of Ahmadinejad than of Obama.

Remember that about one of every four dollars the UN spends comes out of the pockets of American taxpayers.

Articles written by Tom Carter
Tags: 9/11, Ahmadinejad, conspiracy theory, Koran, Quran, U.S. delegation, UN
Categories: News, Politics | Comments (8) | Home

8 Responses to “U.S. Walks Out on President”

Brianna | September 24th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

“Remember that about one of every four dollars the UN spends comes out of the pockets of American taxpayers.”

I know. And it’s disgusting. And the US should get out of the UN, and the UN out of the US, precisely because of this immense drain on our resources for immoral and useless purposes, as well as for the travesty of the moral equivalency you mentioned.

Failing that though, at least our delegation had the guts to walk out.

d | September 24th, 2010 at 12:39 pm

Hooray for our delegation. If we get out of the U.N.,it would not be advantageous for us. Our country would probably be even more hated,then. Plus,then.we would have no voice there. We couldn’t even walk out when someone is sayiong stupid,insane things about us. These countries may have insane presidents,but,they are their presidents and we have to deal with them,hopefully,peacefully.

Tom Carter | September 24th, 2010 at 12:42 pm

I wouldn’t even try to make a defense of the UN. But I’m not sure that just getting out of it would be in our best interest. At least it’s a place to meet and talk, and it can provide one last stop before people start shooting (although it often doesn’t). There’s also the issue of it being based in the U.S. Again, I don’t like the idea of corrupt fatcats and their fur-bedecked wives from destitute third-world nations prowling the shops on 5th Ave in their limousines, but if the UN is going to exist, I’d rather have it in the U.S. than somewhere else.

I’d add this — I’ve worked directly with UN field organizations in very poor and/or war-stricken nations (UNHCR, WFP, UNDP, etc) and they often do good work. They certainly aren’t perfect, but they fill a gap. On the other hand, UN peacekeeping forces, which I’ve also worked with, aren’t very impressive unless they include a significant proportion of serious military forces — U.S., British, etc.

The one thing we mustn’t do is take the UN too seriously, and I’m afraid the Obama Administration leans heavily in that direction. But should we continue giving the UN so much money, enabling them to keep kicking us and spitting on us? I wish there were a way to pay less, but I don’t think there is.

Dan Miller | September 24th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

I don’t much like the UN and don’t much like having it in the United States, with the delegates living in a bubble of relative prosperity and to some extent insulated from what goes on elsewhere in the world.

However, one incident from June of 1950 comes to mind. When North Korea invaded South Korea, the United States was able to get the UN to enter the conflict on behalf of South Korea. The UN provided some material support and boots on the ground; not much but enough to make legitimate the creation of a UN Command under US control. That helped.

Russia was then boycotting the UN because of the failure to seat Red China and remove Nationalist China. Had Russia been present at the Security Council meetings, the chances of a veto of UN intervention would have been substantial.

Things are hardly the same now as they were in 1950, and the United States has far less influence at the UN than she did then. Still, it’s a point worth considering.

Pamela | September 26th, 2010 at 4:45 am

Wow, you have to be a far right or far left extremist or an ignoramus to believe what most Americans believe….which is that forensic evidence doesn’t lie? That multiple eye witnesses in different parts of buildings, unknown to one another, could not possibly have all lied the exact same lie? That *lie* being that they heard explosions BEFORE the planes hit. That it’s absolutely NOT reasonable, logical or remotely possible that Building 7 completely collapsed hours later for no apparent reason or that ALL the buildings went down in a perfect implosion scenario but were not imploded? Those two coincidences alone are stunningly miraculous.

You really believe this government is a benevolent one with only the best interests of the American people at heart? O.M.G. There’s an ignoramus here, but it’s not the *far right* or *far left* *extremists*. Perhaps you need a motive? Ok, how about complete observation and control of the American people? We have been in a constant State of Emergency since 9/11. That alone gives FEMA incredible power and allows for a frightening array of surveillance sans warrants/court orders. Seriously, the last agency you want having as much power as FEMA has is FEMA.

Patriotism is absolutely appropriate. For your fellow countrymen.
But when your government has turned it’s back on you and sold you out for what it can get for your sorry hide, it’s time to view the government as a THREAT to your life, liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness and basic SAFETY. The government does not get a pass on patriotism simply because it exists. That is a respect it has to earn. This government has grown beyond it’s abilities to function. Greed has been such an integral part of how that happened and now completely integrated into the current system, it’s nearly impossible to extract it and return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights without first having a complete collapse of the current system.

The two main things you need to control in order to take control of a country on any level you desire are the monetary system and the food supply. Our monetary system is on the brink of complete collapse and Codex is being crammed down our throats by some of our most *loving* leaders even as the American people scream at them to STOP. This country is circling the drain. It’s Sheeples who confuse blindly loving the government bent on destroying their country with patriotism, who are helping it to happen.

You know how you catch wild pigs? First you find a clearing in the woods where the pigs pass by every day. Then you put out some corn. The pigs will be suspicious of the free corn, but eventually they’ll become more comfortable with it….since it hasn’t hurt anything and they’ll begin to eat. Every day the corn is there and they come to depend on it. Once they’re completely comfortable with the corn, you put up one side of a fence. They’ll freak out and be afraid, but then they’ll see the fence isn’t hurting anything and return to eating the corn. Continue with those steps until you are ready to put up the last piece of the fence. Eventually you’ll be able to walk right up to the pigs while they’re eating the corn and put up the last piece of the fence. The pigs won’t even know you’re there until they’re done eating and then it’s too late.

They’re putting up the last piece right now. Only instead of boxing in pigs, it’s Sheeples. You can go on grazing as your freedom slips away but I intend to continue fighting for my freedoms as stated in the Constitution. And don’t worry, I’ll be fighting for yours, too, even as you point and laugh and call me names.

Tom Carter | September 26th, 2010 at 9:43 am

Pamela, it’s kind of hard to respond to a rant like this. Just a couple of points:

First, if you believe that most Americans think the 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, could you please cite a poll or some other respectable source to back that up?

Second, you don’t have a clue what FEMA does. And even if it did the kinds of things you seem to think it does, recent history shows that it can’t find its butt with a map and a compass, so your freedoms are secure.

I won’t address the pigs and sheeple business. I can hear all that junk from any number of weirdo extremist sources.

Dan Miller | September 27th, 2010 at 4:02 pm

If President Bush et al were cretins as so commonly believed, how did they manage to cover up such a mess? If it happened, lots of folks had to know.

A cover up of that sort of thing would be impossible, even if President Bush were far smarter than Nixon, Obama or any other recent president. There has been little to suggest that those who credit the notion of U.S. covert involvement in the September 11th disaster accept that he is.

The pronouncements by Adjnutjob or whatever are far less than persuasive; the “birther” stuff is more persuasive, but in the absence of reliable evidence is not very credible either.

Tom Carter | September 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Most nutty conspiracy theories fall apart on just the issue of the number of people who would have to be in on the deal and then keep their mouths shut forever. Couldn’t happen.