and just how is he going to accomplish this act? Even in the worst case, should he create a couple of nuclear bombs, wouldn't his country be completely anihilated the moment he used one of them? Seems like end of threat to me.
He is more likely to bring about the end of the world by pushing buttons and having paraoid and idiotic people overreact to them and pre-emptively take him out before he's truly proven he's a madman with real action instead of just mindless bark. History has shown that often the most dangerous of the tyrannical despots are the ones that don't radio their plans, the ones that spring up suddenly and invade a neighbor after lulling them in with neighborly affection.
Ronald Reagan also had some very strange things he was overhead saying that, had people taken him at his word, would've signaled he was prepared to begin Armagheddon. Should the Soviets or Chinese had pre-emptively taken us out just in case he really meant it? I can tell you, I was more worried in those days hearing those things from Reagan than I am now listening to this overgrown child that's in need of no more than a timeout without his toys.
Art
Current Events » in reply to "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been overheard promising the "end of history in two or three years."
re: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been overheard promising the "end of history in two or three years."
The whole thread (16 posts)
- "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been overheard promising the "end of history in two or three years."
- I believe Ahmadinejad believes it
- Don't blame Bush. He won't be the President in three years.
- Clearly they do not have peaceful intentions. They have alternate technology available. If they don't take it I would give them only sanctions. (n/t)
- Ahmadi-jihad is a symptom of a much wider problem in the world
- re: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been overheard promising the "end of history in two or three years."
- I think of him as a windbag.
