Ahmadinejad offers congratulations to Obama

Friday 07th November, 03:21 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 52 Total Comments Show All

skipthesong at 06:26 PM JST - 8th November
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..
```
I don't want any type of alliance with such a right wing fanatical religious run country.
```
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.
```
Didn't Europe try [talking] when the Nazis were "democratically elected"?
```
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.
LFRAgain at 07:50 PM JST - 8th November

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.
ImperiumMundi at 08:20 PM JST - 8th November

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 -

what unites both is their hatred of freedom and in particular the American system's way of guaranteeing it.

it is you who is simplifying and distorting things.
Wolfpack at 11:31 PM JST - 8th November

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!
Sarge at 11:36 PM JST - 8th November

Would Ahmadinejad have offered congratulations to McCain if he'd won?
LFRAgain at 12:05 AM JST - 9th November

it is you who is simplifying and distorting things.

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
Helter_Skelter at 05:56 AM JST - 9th November

LRF

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)...

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?

the United States returned to an active and faithful policy of nuclear disarmament, as a show of good faith,

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.

There are people far better educated and informed than you or I to wrestle with this question.

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.
SuperLib at 06:57 AM JST - 9th November

LRFAgain: 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.

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?
LFRAgain at 08:41 AM JST - 9th November

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.

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?

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?
LFRAgain at 08:47 AM JST - 9th November

The question is about who will enrich the uranium that is needed for nuclear power. Does that change your position at all?

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.
SuperLib at 11:33 AM JST - 9th November

Iran simply cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. But war with Iran is out of the question. We have to find another way.

Agreed.
Helter_Skelter at 02:14 PM JST - 9th November

Unless you missed the last few years, the international community hasn't exactly been tripping over itself...

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?
LFRAgain at 09:43 PM JST - 9th November

How would you ensure Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons?

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.
Helter_Skelter at 05:19 AM JST - 10th November

I mean, aside from unilaterally bombing their nuclear facilities outright, provoking what I believe John McCain referred to as, "Armageddon"?

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.
LFRAgain at 01:25 PM JST - 10th November

Huh? What "Armageddon"?

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.