Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Larry King 2night

12357

Comments

  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    meistereder wrote:
    Does anyone here really believe that our intentions are to help citizens of Iran?


    Exactly

    And to answer your question. Nope.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    meistereder wrote:
    Saw the interview. One thing that struck me -- agree with his principles or not, he is much more thoughtful and intellectual than our president. The way he considers responses. He has an intellect that is not evident in Bush or Palin for that matter.

    Another thing that struck me is that the western press tends to take many things this guy says on their face. Leaders in the middle east do not speak like our western leaders. They use more symbolism and grandeur, and the reason for that is much of what they are saying is rooted in deep religious principles. When he says things like that there are no gays in Iran, he does not mean there are no gays. He means it is illegal there by religious law. As in "It doesn't happen, got it?" The western press jumps all over that of course to point out that this guy is a kook. He's not a kook. Underestimating people's intellect is extremely dangerous in my opinion.

    Now, do I agree with his principles? Some, but certainly not all. I do think that our atrocities surpass his country's. I do think diplomacy is vital. I do think that speaking to the guy is important in the world we have now. These old ideas of labeling someone a terrorist because he believes something you don't, and then blindly sticking to "We don't talk to terrorists" is another old way that is proven not to work.

    Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?


    If he was running for VP or president HERE I would be extremely concerned.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    brandon10 wrote:
    Exactly

    And to answer your question. Nope.

    That would work and diminish my argument if I was basing it on what the Bush Administration's intentions were. I'm stating what our intentions should be.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    brandon10 wrote:
    If he was running for VP or president HERE I would be extremely concerned.


    I'd hope you'd be concerned that he was leading a nation anywhere if you're scared of Palin.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    digster wrote:
    That would work and diminish my argument if I was basing it on what the Bush Administration's intentions were. I'm stating what our intentions should be.

    I agree. But it's the intentions of the govt that influence foreign policy. Not our intentions.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    cincybearcat wrote:
    I'd hope you'd be concerned that he was leading a nation anywhere if you're scared of Palin.

    Not when it comes to his beliefs about homosexuality. It doesn't concern me that he or the majority of his people have strange beliefs.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    brandon10 wrote:
    Not when it comes to his beliefs about homosexuality. It doesn't concern me that he or the majority of his people have strange beliefs.


    Wow, you totally avoid the issues don't you?

    It's not just about his views on gays, it about the pass someone gave him because his view is due to his religious beliefs. So, it would go for all issues, not just gays.

    Nevermind, not worth it.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    brandon10 wrote:
    I agree. But it's the intentions of the govt that influence foreign policy. Not our intentions.

    Well, that's a pretty depressing thought.
  • Flannel Shirt
    Flannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    talk 2 him.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    brandon10 wrote:
    Not when it comes to his beliefs about homosexuality. It doesn't concern me that he or the majority of his people have strange beliefs.

    I'm just a little surprised by your unwillingness to give even the slightest bit of ground on this issue. It's not surprising to me that you're unwilling to advocate military force towards Iran (which I agree with). You even seem unwilling to admit that he may have his hands dirty in some horrific crimes against his people and is the leader of a country with a terrible human rights record.

    Let me ask you, what is your problem then with international pressure? With business divestment? With aggressive diplomacy? It's okay to call him a brutal leader, it doesn't make Bush and his administration any more legitimate.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Wow, you totally avoid the issues don't you?

    It's not just about his views on gays, it about the pass someone gave him because his view is due to his religious beliefs. So, it would go for all issues, not just gays.

    Nevermind, not worth it.

    The fact of the matter is that I am not concerned about his belief system because it doesn't affect me. Sarah Palin's does. Her belief system can influence my laws and my life. Therefor, I am far more concerned.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    brandon10 wrote:
    The fact of the matter is that I am not concerned about his belief system because it doesn't affect me. Sarah Palin's does. Her belief system can influence my laws and my life. Therefor, I am far more concerned.


    I think your wrong in that it doesn't effect you...but fair enough.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Ok, so he gets a pass for saying there are no gays because of his religious beliefs, but Palin gets hammered for her religious beliefs and no dinosaurs?


    A pass? No, he doesn't get a "pass" whatever that is.

    He is not running for office here. He wouldn't come close to being nominated here. That is obvious.

    I'm talking about the way the press portrays this guy. As I said, I disagree with much of his policies, but to paint him as a kook is irresponsible and dangerous.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    digster wrote:
    I'm just a little surprised by your unwillingness to give even the slightest bit of ground on this issue. It's not surprising to me that you're unwilling to advocate military force towards Iran (which I agree with). You even seem unwilling to admit that he may have his hands dirty in some horrific crimes against his people and is the leader of a country with a terrible human rights record.

    Let me ask you, what is your problem then with international pressure? With business divestment? With aggressive diplomacy? It's okay to call him a brutal leader, it doesn't make Bush and his administration any more legitimate.

    I have never once said that I don't advocate international pressure or aggressive diplomacy. In previous post when I have said that we should leave them alone, I have been mostly referring to military actions. I do believe any pressure should be from the international community, for sure not from the U.S. alone.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    meistereder wrote:
    A pass? No, he doesn't get a "pass" whatever that is.

    He is not running for office here. He wouldn't come close to being nominated here. That is obvious.

    I'm talking about the way the press portrays this guy. As I said, I disagree with much of his policies, but to paint him as a kook is irresponsible and dangerous.


    Perhaps I misunderstood, that's how I took it.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    brandon10 wrote:
    It is their world and the majority of their people want to live the way they do.

    Why is it America's business to interfere everywhere around the world? Let's worry about our own problems. Education, health care, and infrastructure.

    Our foreign policy around the world is what's creating the terrorism. Quit fucking with your neighbors house and clean your own home! Especially when your neighbors don't bother you.

    It's not what the majority want; he was being deceitful. He may have been elected, but it was an election where the liberal/progressive's where taken off the ballot. So imagine an election here where the only candidates are Mcain, bush, Palin, Romney..etc. you get the picture.

    The majority of the people dont want to live this way and they will eventually revolt. Of course, if the US or Israel intervenes that would bring the country together and it'll be a cluster again.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    Reading Open's post, it made it clear to me that none of us, unless we're living in Iran or have recently, can really know for sure what the consensus is on their leader, whether good or bad. All I can know for sure are the testimonials of those who have left and the news reports that do get out and they do not paint a heartening picture.

    Brandon, if you agree with all those things why were you disputing my argument when I continuously said that military intervention is not right or possible in Iran?
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUtnFGIjzAo

    Just incase anyone has not seen it. part 2 and 3 are also up.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    talkshowhost wrote:
    I think I remember him saying that shortly after his election but changing his point after the worldwide outrage. But my memory could be wrong about that. As I wrote later, he definitely promoted the idea of 'moving' Israel to Europe in a german magazine. And he used the word 'ismihlal' towards Israel which can be translated as 'destruction' (he did this 4 months ago).
    "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

    Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

    "Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem)."

Categories