Ahmadinejad offers congratulations to Obama
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 16 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 3 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 9 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
Egyptian minister's remarks stoke tensions with U.S.
( 3 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
54 Comments
Login to comment
0
skipthesong
“unjust practices of the past six decades in the sensitive Middle East region are reversed in order to achieve the full restoration of the legitimate rights of nations, especially the aggrieved nations of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”
Hold on. Does he desire a complete reversal where as the US will not be a friend of Israel? Are they expecting Obama will let Iran go lose on Israel because all the rhetoric coming out of there doesn't seem it will go away until Israel just simply doesn't exist.
0
Helter_Skelter
First David Duke, now Barack Obama. It only makes sense Ahmadinejad would reach out to these Americans.
0
smithinjapan
"Hold on. Does he desire a complete reversal where as the US will not be a friend of Israel? Are they expecting Obama will let Iran go lose on Israel because all the rhetoric coming out of there doesn't seem it will go away until Israel just simply doesn't exist."
Skip, don't pretend it's so black and white. I'm SURE Iran doesn't think the US is suddenly going to say, "Screw you, Israel, it's time for some Iranian payback!" Rather, I think Iran realizes that Obama is their best chance yet at coming to some decent COMPROMISES, and perhaps even peace.
Helter_Skelter: still living in the politics of fear that the old bush regime succeeded in instilling in you, eh? Dude, get over it... your man rightfully lost the election (I mean McCain, not bush, though they're more or less the same person). Obama being willing to talk does not liken him at all to David Duke any more than it makes YOU like David Duke for acting like such an extremist on here. As said above, Iran like everywhere else is hoping for peace; you guys should give such hope a try.
0
sabiwabi
Well Obama represents change. Since Bush was by far the worse president ever, I guess that means Obama represents improvement!
0
Nippon5
I think Iran realizes that Obama is their best chance yet at coming to some decent COMPROMISES, and perhaps even peace.
Iran isnt going to change no matter how many people they like they talk to.. They didnt change when daddy Russia offered and Obama isnt going to be able to do anything with them either.. Peace can only happen if its wanted, Iran just wants to rule the area without any foriegners in it.... Its never been a matter of Compromises its been Iran way or no way for longer then you or I have been alive....
Iran like everywhere else is hoping for peace; you guys should give such hope a try. So after you talked to Obama you talked to those in Iran and they want peace? Is that after they kill all those they dont like?
To want peace is very different then to eleminate those you oppose and those who do not share your religion.....
0
Sarge
"the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic revolution"
No doubt.
0
smithinjapan
Nippon5: "Peace can only happen if its wanted, Iran just wants to rule the area without any foriegners in it.... Its never been a matter of Compromises its been Iran way or no way for longer then you or I have been alive...."
Perhaps you ought to read your history. Iran has been the way 'Iran is', in your words, since the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected leader and supported the Shah; one of the darkest chapters in US 'regime change' history. In other words, the current Iran is very much the way it is BECAUSE of US interference, and if the US wants to help change the atmosphere of things in the ME via Obama, then I think Iran is open to it. You, along with clearly not knowing your history well, are simply clouded by preconceived notions of how you WANT Iran to be, my friend. So, what are you suggesting be done with Iran? A harder line than Bush took? Something like McCain wanted? You want yet another war Americans and the world cannot afford??
People of your ilk have no answers; you simply misdirect your frustrations and blame everyone else for your problems (you may have helped created, either directly or through your support of those who created them). You say it's entirely up to Iran to create peace, but it takes more than one person to do the tango, my friend, and peace is most certainly not a one-way street.
Ah, and then you bring in your lack of knowledge of 'foreign' religions at the end, as if you need to punctuate the fact that you don't know what you're saying.
"To want peace is very different then to eleminate those you oppose and those who do not share your religion....."
Yeah, and I suppose you think ALL Muslims and Islam is like this, eh? I know a whole lot of nutbags from other religions who think exactly this way, but I don't see you getting mad at the Evangelists who desperately wanted McCain in power. In fact, it's often funny to hear radical posters on here decry all of Islam and Muslims as terrorists, with some posters saying they should all just be killed; in other words, following, almost religiously, the hate you pretend to abhor in your final sentence.
I'm not saying you're one of said radicals, but the tone is not terribly different.
0
smithinjapan
sarge: "No doubt."
And just what do you mean by this? You're right there's no doubt -- for once you have a REAL president; a man who wants to lead and usher in peace, instead of a dufus who wants to be 'the war president' and rushes into countries illegally, sacrificing not only his country people but his own political party. You're right there's no doubt that Obama is stronger, and better equipped to lead the free world. Hell, even the Iranians see it is a sign of strength and congratulate the man! It's a point of pride for your country, sarge, where there is almost none left, and zero dignity, after bush. What's more, it's a sign of victory. The only signs of loss this possibly indicates is a further loss of respect for those in pain over the McCain loss, and who cannot help but to lash out at the prospect of peace from the man they abhor, simply because he beat their choice.
Sorry, bud, but Obama is that man. The world respects him in a way neither of those you support (and who oppose each other) could be.
0
yabits
Even the enemies of the United States respect the new president-elect. It's admittedly hard for anyone to respect an unintelligent, lightweight cowboy with a chip on his shoulder. The exception being hard-core Republicans, of course.
0
frontandcentre
RRII - we feel your pain!
Iran - engagement is the key.
0
SuperLib
Obama could be good for Iran just because he's not Bush. And that's not the standard empty radical rhetoric, I mean it in the sense that Iran's backed themselves into a corner. Their economy is hurting, they're isolated, the President is unpopular. They can't continue to spit in the face of sanctions that are slowly eroding the country. A new face gives them the chance to reverse their position and just lay the blame on Bush whether it's true or not. It gives them the chance to offer concessions and save face at the same time.
0
SuperLib
I've heard the radical left mention this probably over 1,000 times. But I've yet to hear them mention the fact that Iran is currently a gay killing holocaust denying genocide/terrorist supporting hardline radical Islamic theocracy.
Why is that?
0
Nippon5
*People of your ilk *
LMAO..
And the kid stands on the swing in the playground and yells!!!!! People of your IKE..
My god what a gradeschool line..
My post and all statments in it apply to the history of this ruling party (they took power in 1978) and not the centuries of history for the area.even thought they did have more wars then I want to count... But you can try to apply what I say to the region or the whole religion because it makes you have an argument..
Or you can blame all the evils on the US which is your MO..
In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax.
But in the end Obama will not change the core values of the goverment of Iran nor will he get them to change on Israel, Gays or ETC...
The UN and a ton of countries have tried to be diplomatic to Iran, but Iran doesnt want to go that route, unless of course when you talked to their leaders on the phone they told you different? Their history is to do it their way, its not hard to figure out that Obama isnt going to change their core beliefs just because he is Black, Young, Raised for some time in the region etc etc etc..
The problem is simple for my IKE... I have lived long enough to see the promises of the wanna be presidents fail over and over again. I also have also seen the hate and rhetoric of this Iranian goverment for many years and have seen it doesnt change even under sanctions.
I wish the Middle East would settle down and become a love fest but it has shown since before I was born that it doesnt like that form of living....
Maybe countries like Canada can send people there to show them how peace works when the UN and many other countries have failed trying...
So please show me how and I mean with proof how Obama is going to change Irans core beliefs?? I think he might try and thats good, but I dont see this godly power to change them that way..
...I want to make a correction to my first post I thought they took power in 68 not 78 so maybe not before my life time or yours if your that old...
0
adaydream
The bush Regime told Iran, screw you.
The Obama Regime hasn't said anything yet, but the republican posters here are already blasting Obama when he hasn't responded to Ahmadinejad's congradulation comment.
The United States relations are just about to change.
The people of the United States elected Barack because they were tired of the last 8 years. Some posters are willing to wait and see what Barack will say and so, others are telling us what he "WILL" do and are crusifing him already. < :-)
0
smithinjapan
Nippon5: "So please show me how and I mean with proof how Obama is going to change Irans core beliefs??"
A slightly better post than your previous ones, but I don't know where you get 'IKE' from... I said 'ilk', and if you can show me a little kid who knows how to use 'ilk' properly I'd be pretty impressed.
Anyway, with the above quotation you are mincing words and twisting the argument. No one on here said that Obama could change the core beliefs of the people (or at least the government) of Iran, nor should they try -- it's a sovereign nation, after all -- but he CAN help influence the ACTION Iran is taking. Despite your belief that the actions of Iran and its core beliefs are one in the same, that is not the case -- belief is not action, action is not belief. One can be BASED on the other, but it doesn't have to be the case, and is NOT always the case here, again, despite you trying to twist the argument to be otherwise, 'based on your experience'.
Proof that Obama can change the way Iran is acting and form a proactive relationship with the nation and its peoples is in their willingness to talk. Their core beliefs? That's another issue, and no one should dictate what another person's beliefs should be.
0
LFRAgain
So now the right suddenly cares about the rights of gays? Har! Just when I thought it was impossible for the Far Right to be any more hypocritical, you all still continue to surprise.
Please stop latching on to issues to bolster your argument that you have amply demonstrated you don't really give a rat's hienie about. It's transparent and dishonest.
0
SuperLib
So if we can get the gay killing holocaust denying genocide/terrorist supporting hardline radical Islamic theocracy who refuses to respond to diplomacy to COMPROMISE via diplomacy on genocide, terrorism, and nuclear weapons then we'll be OK because Iran is a country that wants peace just like any other.
Agreed, smith?
0
SuperLib
Yep, that's me. The anti-gay far right supporter. Praise be Jesus!
0
Helter_Skelter
smith
Ah yes. Now that Obama is president, the Jihadists will turn their swords into plowshares. I only wish I were a leftist so I too could live in a world of fantasy.
0
Helter_Skelter
You're the one willing to embrace an Iranian regime that's befriended a neo-Nazi, not me.
0
adaydream
Sounds like we have some fanatics here on this article.
You sound like like the Jihadists, just 180 degrees off course. < :-)
0
skipthesong
This is really amazing and sad. I can understand smith's arguments, but still I find incrediably hard why people claiming to be left would give Iran any type of support. As for their democratically elected president of yesterday, well they did over throw the shah and still, with all the excuses, still haven't put in a democratically elected government for the most part. Face it, Iran was Hijacked by the religious right and it has the support of the American Left. If you think I am wrong, please prove me wrong. I know far too many Iranians who would disagree with you and agree with me.
0
ImperiumMundi
good points, skipthesong.
"Face it, Iran was Hijacked by the religious right and it has the support of the American Left."
what unites both is their hatred of freedom and in particular the American system's way of guaranteeing it.
0
Nippon5
Using ILK is a childish way to try to lump a person you dont know into a made up group of people you feel are wrong when they disagree with you.. Since it is so childish and children cant repeat adult words so well they say IKE...
Core beliefs are what fuel the goverment in Iran and that includes no western influence in the region as stated by him in this artilce and every other time he speaks.. "He said Iran and other nations of the world ‘‘also want U.S. intervention to be limited to its borders, especially in the Middle East.’’
Since this wont happen as Israel is a very important part of America's policy making the Iran goverment would have to back talk and change its core beliefs.. I dont see that happening do you? and if you do show me any proof from history where they have dropped this core value and belief?
I also understand your deep desire for your neighbor country that you admire so much to start talking to Iran, but as we all know talking to a wall is not very productive, and when it comes to Irans core beliefs they will not change with out a new goverment coming into power.
Dont argue the logic from your side, look at the facts from their side.. We all would love peace. But to obtain peace you have to have two sides that are 100% for it, and that cant happen when one side has a core belief it has to wipe a race and a country off the map.. You logic is sound we should be able to talk it out, just like a police man should be able to talk a guy so he doesnt kill a hostage, but if the guy doesnt want to not kill the hostage the talk doesnt accomplish anything...
World peace is a dream I have.. but I am smart enough and have lived in this world long enough that it cant happen, it only takes one person to change peace to war..... Its a sad thought but its a true one.....
I hope Obama can bring peace to the region but Allah couldnt so I think Obama might not be able to either....
0
skipthesong
But to obtain peace you have to have two sides that are 100% for it" Religion is the biggest obstacle to achieving that I believe.
0
Helter_Skelter
Is that really the best you can do when you have no intelligent responses to arguments?
0
skipthesong
Sounds like we have some fanatics here on this article" the only fanatic is Iran's AJ. Many of you are cheering Obama, but you would have done with any of the other non-repub candidate, including Hillary.
You don't get it, you are basically jumping in bed with a guy who has set out assisinations on common folk, arrested those who have tried to convert from Islam and put people who are gay in jail (and yet, the same proponant of Iran called me a bigot the other day because I wasn't down with the gay marriage ban that DEMOCRATICALLY WAS VOTED FOR) and all that is ok because all you wanted was Bush out. He's out, now please start coming to your senses.
Obama can not be dumb enough to actually try to make friends with this nut job. Iran has been going crazy over the US even when you had god like Clinton in office. Come on people quit showing support for a country that is run by one of the most right wing, nazi like organization on the globe (prove me wrong, prove me wrong, I'll offer up a lot on this Saturday)....
0
skipthesong
Now that the republicans are gone, why don't we team up, help Iranians get rid of their version of REPUBLICANS because as long as those guys are the dictadores you can not use the "over throw of a democratically elected president in the 50's!
0
LFRAgain
Tell you what. Let's come to a small agreement here: You stop making asinine comments like "they hate freedom," and I'll stop assuming you're either a 12-year old or George W. Bush slumming around on internet news sites? Deal?
You just throw this stuff out, off the cuff, without really thinking much about it. It was the Left©, if you'll recall, that was fighting to preserve the "American system's method" of ensuring liberty (called the "U.S. Constitution," BTW), when your hero, outgoing-President Bush wend out of his way to push through legislation authorizing warrant-less, illegal wire-tapping of American citizens, the suspension of habeas corpus to prisoners, and the use of torture against fellow human beings. When called upon by the Left to uphold the principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States, a task to which he pledged himself under oath, he responded, "It's just a damned piece of paper!" Lovely.
Of course, it's never been as if facts or the truth meant anything to many on the Right® when winning is ALL that matters, and any method to achieve a victory is acceptable, including declaring black as white, and the sky being green, so I've come to expect a certain degree of this kind of silliness from them, but it gets tiresome after a while when they brandish their ignorance and clear lack of perspective like a badge of honor on a daily basis. No, being willfully stupid is not cool.
I, for one, don't support Ahmadinejad, and never have. I've always maintained that he's a lunatic. But the current Bush policy of standing back, folding the collective arms of the U.S. diplomatic corp, and saying we won't talk, with a prepubescent "Hmph!" Yeah, how's that been working out for us? Not too well, judging by the fact that Iran hasn't given up a damned thing.
Attack them? We can’t even mop up the rag-tag hicks that make up the Taliban in Afghanistan. There’s no possible way the U.S. could open up a third military front with Iran, no matter how many smart bombs we have, no matter how many boots we put on the ground, even with a mandatory draft. No, that’s not Left©-leaning defeatism. It’s a materiel and strategic reality, one that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been reminding Bush of since this all started to unfold.
You don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, and virtually the entire world doesn't want them to have nuclear weapons, including other Arab nations. So to accomplish that, we need a different approach, one that the current Republican administration lacks the will or imagination to try. If Obama wants to try that, then we should support those efforts, not allow wounded pride from getting spanked (hard) in an election cloud our perspective of an endeavor that is to everyone’s benefit.
C’mon, Patriots! We wouldn't want anyone questioning your commitment to America, would we? Step up to the plate and play ball with the rest of the team! ;-)
0
skipthesong
When called upon by the Left to uphold the principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States" Hold on now, just today people are talking about taking away a constitutional right of outlawing gun ownership, what's next after that?
You post is my whole point, if you continually go back to Bush, you are going to get no where. Addtionally, calling one posters asine as he quotes they hate our freedoms, guess what, they do.. they don't like the freedom of religion for one, they don't believe in the pursuit of happiness outside religion, and I don't think they are asking for volunteers for their military. So lets get back to the real argument and that whether or not WE make peace with Iran and not vice versa. Many here have used the 1950's over throw of the democratically elected president when in fact women could not vote in that election and neither could certain elements of that population. I would hardly call it democratically. Least you not forget, many there at one point put the Shah's family back in power and when kicked out, how many of them came following out of there. If you really want to see kissing butt, how about the US not letting the dying guy get political asylum in the US instead of hot and sticky Panama? I am going to say no to peace with Iran, not that I want a war with them, but my feelings will remain - I don't want any type of alliance with such a right wing fanatical religious run country. Didn't Europe try when the Nazis were "democratically elected"? Sure Bush is/was wrong on the issue on how to deal with Iran but so is Obama.
0
ImperiumMundi
good points, skipthesong.
note also the same people who criticize the bush administration for 'not talking' to iran (lot of good it has done our european allies...) are often the same people who would have you believe the truly asinine notion that an innocent, inward-looking iran was somehow 'radicalized' the day bush, in surveying the dangers America faced, included iran in the canadian david frum's phrase 'axis of evil' .
0
Helter_Skelter
LFRAgain
My approach would be to level Iran's nuclear facilities by air right now. It could be done in a week with targeted strikes, resulting in few casualties. The plans are already drawn up. Without nukes, Iran no longer poses a serious military threat to the region.
So what would be your approach knowing the dire consequences of this terrorist-exporting nation obtaining nuclear weapons? What is Obama's plan? There's a time factor here so decisions need to made quickly.
0
Helter_Skelter
skip
Taking away our first amendment rights with the "fairness doctrine".
0
LFRAgain
To the best of my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to outlaw gun ownership.
You are reading selectively. Look at ImperiumMundi's entire 08:51 AM post. He likens Iran's radical Islamic leadership with liberal Americans, borrowing a page from Bush's Simplified Rhetoric 101 playbook. According to ImperiumMundi, the Left hates the American form of government and freedom. And I'm calling that asinine because it’s clearly not true. The American form of government is what helped us avoid another four years of the kind of simple-minded thinking and nonsensical ranting that ImperiumMundi embodies.
Do you disagree? Do you truly believe that I, Betzee, USAFdude, yabits, et al. hate America and freedom? If so, that would make you equally asinine, both in your abysmal misinterpretation of reality and in your blatant attempt to appeal to what amounts to a truly childish level of patriotism in other Americans. It ranks right up there with, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" stinker that Bush laid seven years ago.
But I don’t think you’re even remotely that daft. So no worries here.
But Imperium?
Quite honestly, I’ve had more than enough of being told I hate my country simple because I disagree with intellectually challenged flag-wavers who wouldn’t know constitutional law if it came up and bit them on the heinie.
In the meantime, we’re treated to ImperiumMundi’s less-than-stellar insight with these zingers:
Like a parrot, he pretends to have a grasp on the real issues at hand by latching on to other poster’s arguments with puppy-like loyalty and agreement, but in reality couldn’t foster an original, fully-reasoned thought if his life depended on it.
And he has the audacity to suggest that Democrats will bring about the destruction of the country?! Ignorance will, and he’s packed to the eyeballs with it, spreading hate and divisiveness, long after his Party has lost, falsely believing that if we didn’t buy into their garbage the first time around, maybe we’ll get suckered the second, thanks to his inability to move on.
Back to the actually discussion at hand:
The United States was a democracy for well over a century before the right to vote was finally opened up to women in 1920. Does that then negate the United States’ status as a democracy in the years preceding 1920?
You’re jumping waaaaay ahead of the gun here. No one is talking about alliances here. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms is what’s on the table now. And the current strategy hasn’t been working at all. But war is not only the worng answer at this point. It’s also a logistical impossibility.
Is Obama's proposed idea of dialogue wrong? Well, it's awfully early for us to presume to know what he will say. So, how about waiting to see what happens before you demonize the man for trying where Bush has utterly failed?
No, they tried talking when Germany annexed the Sudetenland in 1938, five years after being democratically elected, and the European allies realized they were severely overmatched and couldn't put up a fight if they wanted to.
The United States military, while, stretched thin, yes, is not in such a position. Nor are our allies.
0
SuperLib
At this point we might want to start ignoring the Bush obsessed when it comes to Iran. It's impossible to have a constructive conversation since their only goal is to express their personal dislike for Bush.
I'm sure Bush's wire tapping policy is not supported by some, but I don't see how we're going to get anywhere talking about that when we're really talking about Iran. You have people like smith whose posts have offered nothing but praise and defense of Iran. I think we need people who are willing to look at Iran for who they really are, especially if they're going to be sitting across the table from Obama.
That being said, I'm looking forward to Obama talking to Iran. Maybe he will be able to provide some kind of breakthrough because a breakthrough is what we need. A new face at the negotiation table could provide Iran with an outlet to make some concessions. More cooperation between our two countries could thaw out relations and make a future deal possible even if Obama isn't able to get something done initially.
But I'm also not naive. Using diplomacy with Iran isn't new, despite what some would have you believe. Over the last few years both rewards and sanctions have been offered and Iran has failed to compromise on anything at all. So far Iran has refused to compromise with Europe. They've refused to compromise with Russia. They've refused to cooperate with the UN. They've even refused to compromise with their Mid East neighbors. I understand that this is the country Obama will be sitting across the table from, a country that has a proven track record of refusing the same negotiations that Obama will be attempting. If they continue along the same path then it will be obvious that they have no real intention of negotiation and Obama will be able to do is expose that.
One difference with Obama is that he recognizes that diplomacy doesn't always work and that's important. You can talk to anyone, but if that person refuses to negotiate and compromise then talking can sometimes prove to be useless, as it has so far. I agree with him when he says that if Iran fails to respond to direct negotiations then the US will continue to apply sanctions and penalties. And I think Europe is on board as well. I know the media focuses on the US and Iran but if you look at statements from European leaders they're just as opposed to Iran's actions as the US is. Maybe Iran will recognize that compromising with Obama will be their last chance before things really start to get bad for them.
0
LFRAgain
Helter_Skelter,
The beauty of our democracy is that we work collectively as a society to foster the kinds of future leaders who are able to address these issies. At least in theory. There are people far better educated and informed than you or I to wrestle with this question.
So my opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours. Joe the Plumber and Joe Sixpack have no business dictating foreign policy.
If it were me, I'd offer them so many viable alternative sources of energy to fullfill their "energy needs" (no, I don't buy their "we need energy" excuse for a second either) – so many options, that if they balked in the slightest at accepting, their intentions would become clearly suspect, even to the most hopeful or critical observer. Then I'd level their nuclear facilities.
But at the same time, in order to avoid the stench of hypocrisy, which all too many Americans seem to have become perfectly content wallowing in, I'd work to ensure that the United States returned to an active and faithful policy of nuclear disarmament, as a show of good faith, if you will, not only to Iran, but to the entire international community to which the US largely dictates who can and who cannot possess nuclear weapons. Double-standards never sit well with anyone, and it's only a matter of time before they come back to haunt you.
0
LFRAgain
"address these issues" it should read. Oops.
0
skipthesong
LFRAgain: Quite a post, I should feel honored...
To the best of my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to outlaw gun ownership." I think you may have your wording wrong. The 2nd Amemendment, while debatable, has been what was used as the right to bear arms... Let's not get into that here... I was just pointing out a few things going as of today..
You are reading selectively. Look at ImperiumMundi's entire 08:51 AM post. He likens Iran's radical Islamic leadership with liberal Americans, borrowing a page from Bush's Simplified Rhetoric 101 playbook. According to ImperiumMundi, the Left hates the American form of government and freedom. And I'm calling that asinine because it’s clearly not true. The American form of government is what helped us avoid another four years of the kind of simple-minded thinking and nonsensical ranting that ImperiumMundi embodies." Very well put. However, now I don't know him one bit, but I think he is seeing what I am seeing - if you dis Iran your are jumped, kicked, bitten, sand in the face by people claiming themselves to be of the left. If I could point good points about GWB, and were to do it in public, I'd probably be brawling for hours. If I pointed out my feelings about Iran in public like I do here, same.
Do you disagree? Do you truly believe that I, Betzee, USAFdude, yabits, et al. hate America and freedom?" Well, I would hope you don't hate the US. The US has been good to my mother's family however, my father on the other hand stood for something else.. No, I don't think you hate America but I just wish more were open to more views than just what the left is calling out. There are mistakes out there and there are a lot of mistakes about Bush.
It ranks right up there with, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" stinker that Bush laid seven years ago." Yes, it does; you are right but many on the left are basically doing the same, just on the flip.. Just look at many posts here.
Like a parrot, he pretends to have a grasp on the real issues at hand by latching on to other poster’s arguments with puppy-like loyalty and agreement, but in reality couldn’t foster an original, fully-reasoned thought if his life depended on it." Now you are picking on the poor guy. Why can't he/she have speak out?
And he has the audacity to suggest that Democrats will bring about the destruction of the country?!Again true, but aren't many here saying the same thing about the Repubs as though there is some evil guy looking over a crystal ball..
Ignorance will, and he’s packed to the eyeballs with it, spreading hate and divisiveness, long after his Party has lost, falsely believing that if we didn’t buy into their garbage the first time around, maybe we’ll get suckered the second, thanks to his inability to move on." I guess you don't like the idea of people venting their anger..
"Many here have used the 1950's over throw of the democratically elected president when in fact women could not vote in that election and neither could certain elements of that population. I would hardly call it democratically."
The United States was a democracy for well over a century before the right to vote was finally opened up to women in 1920. Does that then negate the United States’ status as a democracy in the years preceding 1920?" Yes it does and no it doesn't. It does negate us if we are to use history as a bench mark. But I am talking today and the excuse as to why Iran hates the US..
You’re jumping waaaaay ahead of the gun here. No one is talking about alliances here. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms is what’s on the table now. And the current strategy hasn’t been working at all. But war is not only the worng answer at this point. It’s also a logistical impossibility." Ok, you are right! and I did jump to the wrong conclusion. Personally, as I have stated, that country is run just counter to my beliefs. I shiver at religion and hate the fact that people let it control us much less make it the basis of a government.
Is Obama's proposed idea of dialogue wrong? Well, it's awfully early for us to presume to know what he will say."
You know what, that's very true. And perhaps I shouldn't even have commented on any of this today, just having one boring day yet things going very well but I just can't spend my new cash load.
So, how about waiting to see what happens before you demonize the man for trying where Bush has utterly failed?" I will if you promise to be fair and if it does fail remain unbiased and give the criticism where it is due. I said before, I shiver at religion but I also fear blind faith in any political party - this is not a game.
No, they tried talking when Germany annexed the Sudetenland in 1938, five years after being democratically elected, and the European allies realized they were severely overmatched and couldn't put up a fight if they wanted to.
The United States military, while, stretched thin, yes, is not in such a position. Nor are our allies.
0
LFRAgain
skipthesong,
No need to feel honored, but I think you feel strongly about what you say, so I felt you deserved a considered response.
I don't think you and I are too far from seeing eye-to-eye on many of these issues, and you're right: Many on the Left here are going ridiculously overboard with accusations that Bush "destroyed" the country. The fact that we're all here to snipe at each other about a concluded election, one that the Dems won, is more than ample proof of the ability of our institution to withstand tyrants and fools.
I suspect we are simply looking for answers to the same problems from different vantage points, which really sums up essentially all of the arguments Republicans and Democrats have been having for years. I just wish so many Republicans didn't feel the need to respond to disagreement with claims of treason, hate of country, and (cough! cough!) "hatred for freedom." It's idiotic. There really is no other word for it.
If Obama fails because of his own foolishness, I'll be the first to yell, trust me. Like any president, he's been handed an incredible trust and responsiblity by the people of the United States. I would be more than simply disappointed if he squandered it. But, as you already know, I don't think he's a fool in the least, and am confindent he will do what's in the best interests of the American people and the world at large.
0
ImperiumMundi
LFRagain wrote:
"You are reading selectively. Look at ImperiumMundi's entire 08:51 AM post. He likens Iran's radical Islamic leadership with liberal Americans, borrowing a page from Bush's Simplified Rhetoric 101 playbook. "
here is the relevant part of that 8:51 post:
"Face it, Iran was Hijacked by the religious right and it has the support of the American Left."
i replied to the above quote by saying -
it is you who is simplifying and distorting things.
0
Wolfpack
The death to America crowd in Iran, other sponsors of terror, terrorists organizations, and the Democrat party got their man elected; I guess Congratulations are in order for you all!
0
Sarge
Would Ahmadinejad have offered congratulations to McCain if he'd won?
0
LFRAgain
So in other words, what you're saying is that the religious right in Iran and the American Left are united by a common hatred for freedom and the American system's way of guaranteeing it. Which is pretty much what I’m calling you on. But thank you for, err... clearing (?) things up.
Like I said, you haven't even the vaguest clue of what you're talking about.
Don’t fret though. Just wait a bit for another poster to put something up, then you can cut and paste it, add a simple, “Good points, {insert poster’s name here}!” then finish up with some vague comment about true patriots.
Maybe you can just latch on to Wolfpack's silliness above. :D
0
Helter_Skelter
LRF
This is the exact same approach that was used with N. Korea in The Agreed Framework in the 1990's. This failed policy not only resulted in a nuclear-armed N. Korea, but a country that now exports nuclear weapons technology to Islamic terrorist regimes. Needless to say, it was an abject failure. It's important to learn from history so the same mistakes aren't repeated. So knowing your plan isn't a viable option, what other approach would you take knowing time is of the essence?
What does destroying the nuclear program of a terrorist-exporting nation and preventing a potential nuclear holocaust in the Middle East have to do with our nuclear program? The United States should be lauded by the international community for doing the dirty work they refused to do. Our actions alone would be a show of good faith to the world. The United States wouldn't have to make some compromising gesture. Anyway, what utter nonsense to suggest some sense of moral relativism between Iran and America's nuclear program.
From what I've seen over the years, I'd trust Joe Sixpack more than these "educated and informed" government elites you so eagerly seem to entrust.
0
SuperLib
There has been no demand placed on Iran to give up any kind of energy. No one is stopping them from using nuclear power. The question is about who will enrich the uranium that is needed for nuclear power.
Does that change your position at all?
0
LFRAgain
The United States should be lauded by the international community for doing the dirty work they refused to do. Our actions alone would be a show of good faith to the world.
Unless you missed the last few years, the international community hasn't exactly been tripping over itself to pat the U.S. on the back for "selflessly" going to war with nations of the Middle East, especially since those wars have resulted in simply pissing off the people of the Middle East even more than they already are. Nice attempt at the soft sell, though.
How very typical a response from a GOP regular, "What's this got to do with me?"
I'll try to spell it out simply for you: It's difficult to tell a nation that it has no right to develop its own nuclear program when you're sitting on top of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
Oh, wait. I forgot. You're operating from the "Might Makes Right" handbook of international policy, therefore, yes, you CAN dictate whatever the hell you want to other nations. Gotcha'. BTW, how's that workin' out for 'ya so far?
0
LFRAgain
Why would it? I've said before, Iran simply cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. But war with Iran is out of the question. We have to find another way.
0
SuperLib
Agreed.
0
Helter_Skelter
I said the US should be lauded for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. I didn't say it would be. When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981, they were chastized by an ungrateful international community. So, you're right, I put little weight in world opinion when it comes to national security issues. Kowtowing to the international community is more of leftist trait, you know, needing constant approval and reassurance from the European elite before making any decision. No thanks.
But you still haven't answered the fundamental question. How would you ensure Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons?
0
LFRAgain
That's the million dollar question, isn't it? So, how would you?
I mean, aside from unilaterally bombing their nuclear facilities outright, provoking what I believe John McCain referred to as, "Armageddon"?
Unless that'a all you've got. Which brings us right back to square one.
0
Helter_Skelter
Huh? What "Armageddon" would be provoked by bombing Iran's nuclear facilities? Iran would strike back, but it would only be with conventional weapons. And no other major world power would come to their defense. A nuclear Armageddon is possible, however, if Iran does get hold of nuclear weapons. If Iran were to detonate a nuclear weapon somewhere in the world, you will have Armageddon.
I've stated clearly what I would do in my previous post. It's evident you have no answer to the "million dollar question" so I won't bother asking again.
0
LFRAgain
Hey, don't look at me, champ. McCain was your candidate. You ask him what he meant. I don't speak for him.
You've stated that you would bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. And that's supposed to keep them from obtaining nuclear weapons. And I , as do many advisors in the Bush administration, independent think tanks, the Israeli's (who are certainly not gun-shy), and a host of other well-informed sources in America and abroad, believe it won't work and will only aggravate an already tense situation in the Middle-East.
But forgive me. I was obviously too humble in suggesting there are far better qualified people to tackle the question than you or I. You’re absolutely right; The Obama administration, and the world, for that matter, should by all means defer to the superior foreign policy acumen of General, umm, Helter . . . Skelter. That’ll make things right.
Back to top