There have been many attempts at dialogue, despite the huge likelihood that such dialogue will go no where. Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to actually tell me why you're so interested in what this man has to say.
There have been many attempts at dialogue, despite the huge likelihood that such dialogue will go no where. Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to actually tell me why you're so interested in what this man has to say.
I am not so much interested in what this man has to say than any other president. I am interested in the fact that our nation somehow believes it is wise to ignore him.
you may believe nothing you see as productive will come from dialog with him. you may be wrong.
Tell me what you expect comes from ignoring him
and tell me about many attempts our country has made at dialog with him? Please don't say that it is dialog to insist he does what we tell him to do, and we will listen.... that is not dialog.
I am not so much interested in what this man has to say than any other president. I am interested in the fact that our nation somehow believes it is wise to ignore him.
you may believe nothing you see as productive will come from dialog with him. you may be wrong.
Tell me what you expect comes from ignoring him
and tell me about many attempts our country has made at dialog with him? Please don't say that it is dialog to insist he does what we tell him to do, and we will listen.... that is not dialog.
Stopping enrichment would be a good-will gesture that wouldn't cost Iran too much ... So I'll go ahead and say it. His refusal to do so is a big impediment to dialogue.
And I agree with you, I may be wrong. Perhaps a real dialogue could solve the problem. A dialogue on what, exactly? What does this man need from the rest of the world? A sensitive ear? Does he need us to basically let him do whatever he wants? Such would not be dialogue either. I don't think Iran should be ignored, quite the contrary. I do think, however, that the man's arguments about Israeli evil are without much merit and should be dismissed as mad ravings. Now, let's say that, hypothetically, Iran's president stopped talking like he has been and instead said something like "You know, we need to talk. While I understand your fears regarding more nuclear weapons in the Middle East, I want to tell you guys WHY I think we need them. I want to tell you about how some of your policies are making me worried enough to get them ... Can be negotiate a compromise?" ... But he doesn't talk anything like that!
I think diplomatic efforts need to continue, and if that's dialogue, then I agree with you. War isn't the answer here. But sorry, much of what Ahmadinejad has said to date is worthy of derision.
Stopping enrichment would be a good-will gesture that wouldn't cost Iran too much ... So I'll go ahead and say it. His refusal to do so is a big impediment to dialogue.
And I agree with you, I may be wrong. Perhaps a real dialogue could solve the problem. A dialogue on what, exactly? What does this man need from the rest of the world? A sensitive ear? Does he need us to basically let him do whatever he wants? Such would not be dialogue either. I don't think Iran should be ignored, quite the contrary. I do think, however, that the man's arguments about Israeli evil are without much merit and should be dismissed as mad ravings. Now, let's say that, hypothetically, Iran's president stopped talking like he has been and instead said something like "You know, we need to talk. While I understand your fears regarding more nuclear weapons in the Middle East, I want to tell you guys WHY I think we need them. I want to tell you about how some of your policies are making me worried enough to get them ... Can be negotiate a compromise?" ... But he doesn't talk anything like that!
I think diplomatic efforts need to continue, and if that's dialogue, then I agree with you. War isn't the answer here. But sorry, much of what Ahmadinejad has said to date is worthy of derision.
Sensitive ear? Thats just silly...I guess I'll ignore that.
they said they are willing to negotiate - and we said no.
simple as that.. and that is wrong.
We are the ones that want something.. What we want is that Iran, all countries for that matter, not to develop nuclear weapons. Pretty simple.
Now, he'll understand that, but may ask, why the United States should have them and not Iran. He may rightfully expect compensation for voluntarily remaining drastically weaker than the US. We may ask for inspections. We may ask for his help in the "war on terror" He may ask us for a palistinian state. Maybe there will be smaller thing.. maybe we can strike an agreement that will last a few months - while further negotiations continue.
We are the brutal country when we insist on keeping our right to make war while refusing others the right to resist. We are the brutal country unwilling to address Iran's concerns because of things they have done in the past that we didn't like or understand - knowing full well we too have done things in the past that they don't like - and neither would we -
Its just flat wrong to refuse to negotiate - all it does is propetuate the tension - and the wars - and many see that as a positive for us - the most powerful and in the best position to profit from war. If that is our negotiating position - I believe as a psudo democracy, our "leaders" articulate it for us to understand.
Hell if we don't have to talk to anyone we disagree with, then we don't have to apear civilized either.
We are the brutal country unwilling to address Iran's concerns because of things they have done in the past that we didn't like or understand - knowing full well we too have done things in the past that they don't like - and neither would we
This is about the present, he wants peaceful nuclear technology and then a couple days later states he wants to whipe countries off the map. Or how about when he claims the holocost was a myth? The guy is a whack job and him having nuclear capabilities is a lot bigger threat to world peace than Bush is or any former American president who has waged wars overseas.
What exactly are Iran's concerns? Ahmadinejad jails anyone who speaks up against him. His country has a lot bigger problems then trying to obtain nukes. Instead of developing the infastructure, he blows his countries oil profits on dangerous research and personal consumption, much like Sadamm did... His people are impoverished and uses the nuclear issue to sitr up national pride.
I dont think we will directly attack Iran but Israel will with our bombs.
Watched a good show last night on the Cdn mission to get some of the lucky Yanks who weren't grabbed back in the day in Iran. And sure as the sun rises in the east, there was Ahmadinejad taking a blindfolded Yank out of their compound. Pretty interesting the way we forged docs and came up with a couple of plans to save some of the bacon over there.
Amazing how the guy goes from radical school boy to leader of the nation. Sound familiour to anybody out there?
There have been many attempts at dialogue, despite the huge likelihood that such dialogue will go no where. Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to actually tell me why you're so interested in what this man has to say.
b/c it would be nice to know that we at least attempted diplomacy before starting another war
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,” he said. “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,” he said. “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
the current iranian year?
i wonder how much is pandering like so many of the us politicians do w/ christians? he's obviously not a nice guy, i'm just sayin...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i wonder how much is pandering like so many of the us politicians do w/ christians? he's obviously not a nice guy, i'm just sayin...
I'm sure if George Bush started talking about a "Christian revolution reaching the entire world" you'd be willing to blow it off as "pandering"? Going to church and saying crap like "In God we Trust" is one thing. Veiled threats are another.
This guy is a religious hard-liner. If George Bush's religious leanings make you uncomfortable, this guy should make you quake. Khatami was a panderer. This guy is the real deal.
I'm sure if George Bush started talking about a "Christian revolution reaching the entire world" you'd be willing to blow it off as "pandering"? Going to church and saying crap like "In God we Trust" is one thing. Veiled threats are another.
This guy is a religious hard-liner. If George Bush's religious leanings make you uncomfortable, this guy should make you quake. Khatami was a panderer. This guy is the real deal.
I don't disagree with any of that.. but the point is that he is the leader of Iran. He makes their decisions. there is no benefit in refusing to talk to him. If our ideas are better - If cooperating with the US is "win-win" than we should try and persuade him.
because, there is plenty of history to show that war is "lose-lose"
I'm sure if George Bush started talking about a "Christian revolution reaching the entire world" you'd be willing to blow it off as "pandering"? Going to church and saying crap like "In God we Trust" is one thing. Veiled threats are another.
This guy is a religious hard-liner. If George Bush's religious leanings make you uncomfortable, this guy should make you quake. Khatami was a panderer. This guy is the real deal.
good point, altho bush makes statements a bit more hard than 'in god we trust'
it just seems like it would be obvious the retaliation if they ever actually tried something like that so it seems kinda like rhetoric
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the guy in Iran, ahmadinejad, and bush pretty much do and say the same thing...both are using the other to foster fear in order to keep the masses at bay...
just listen to both, you'll hear it, if you let yourself...
oddly, ahmadinejad came to power much the same way as bush...
he Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor people and their economic status.
...both beat the drums of war...and both say things they know are untrue....both use the other to push their agenda....
I don't disagree with any of that.. but the point is that he is the leader of Iran. He makes their decisions. there is no benefit in refusing to talk to him.
Of course! But there's not necessarily benefit in talking with him either. We'd be in a much better place right now if we would just publically ignore this jackass. Let him build his nukes. He won't be the first, he won't be the last either.
If our ideas are better - If cooperating with the US is "win-win" than we should try and persuade him.
But he has nothing we want.
because, there is plenty of history to show that war is "lose-lose"
The only people advocating a war here are George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
good point, altho bush makes statements a bit more hard than 'in god we trust'
Has he ever invoked God in some kind of "revolutionary" or violent context? I'm seriously asking here. I don't know if he has.
it just seems like it would be obvious the retaliation if they ever actually tried something like that so it seems kinda like rhetoric
Umm....they do try it. Who do you think Hezbollah is in part funded by? Who do you think the Iraqi insurgency is in part funded by? Who do you think previous Iraqi seperatists were in part funded by?
The concept of an "Islamic Revolution" is a central part of Iranian politics. And that conceptual revolution stetches far beyond Iran's borders.
For every reason you rightly despise George Bush, you should despise this guy times 10.
the guy in Iran, ahmadinejad, and bush pretty much do and say the same thing...both are using the other to foster fear in order to keep the masses at bay...
just listen to both, you'll hear it, if you let yourself...
oddly, ahmadinejad came to power much the same way as bush...
...both beat the drums of war...and both say things they know are untrue....both use the other to push their agenda....
I'm sure if George Bush started talking about a "Christian revolution reaching the entire world" you'd be willing to blow it off as "pandering"? Going to church and saying crap like "In God we Trust" is one thing. Veiled threats are another.
This guy is a religious hard-liner. If George Bush's religious leanings make you uncomfortable, this guy should make you quake. Khatami was a panderer. This guy is the real deal.
...he just uses God to get votes.....the Iranian president does the same Its all about power and money and the gullible.
I don't disagree with any of that.. but the point is that he is the leader of Iran. He makes their decisions. there is no benefit in refusing to talk to him. If our ideas are better - If cooperating with the US is "win-win" than we should try and persuade him.
because, there is plenty of history to show that war is "lose-lose"
but at this point it really doesn't matter if there is dialog....the Iranian President has a strategy..and will keep with that strategy...I'm all for dialog..and I'm very much against the ethnocentrist policies of this administration and most Americans...but think we let the Eurpeans keep this going....we (America) pretty much pissed off our respect for doing the right thing in the world with Iraq.
how are they different? Bush uses catch names like "Evil" "Extremists" Facists" etc in describing Muslims...oh and if you say he differentiates between good and bad Muslims...the average Schmuck in America see them as one...and Bush knows this. .....and there are many Good Christians that see this as a war between Christians and Muslims...and Bush plays on this. Same as the Iranian dude...no??
how are they different? Bush uses catch names like "Evil" "Extremists" Facists" etc in describing Muslims...oh and if you say he differentiates between good and bad Muslims...the average Schmuck in America see them as one...and Bush knows this. .....and there are many Good Christians that see this as a war between Christians and Muslims...and Bush plays on this. Same as the Iranian dude...no??
When George Bush declares that men and women should ride in seperate elevators, I'll agree with you. When George Bush has an absolute ruler that judges his opponents unfit to run in an "election", I'll agree with you.
Just because Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler had some similitaries did not make them "the same". Same goes here. Your brush is too big for your hand.
When George Bush declares that men and women should ride in seperate elevators, I'll agree with you. When George Bush has an absolute ruler that judges his opponents unfit to run in an "election", I'll agree with you.
Just because Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler had some similitaries did not make them "the same". Same goes here. Your brush is too big for your hand.
need better examples.....the elevator example doesn't fit..thats a cultural thing (i don't agree mind you...I"m thinking women get almost the same rights as men (-: ) ....the opponent example little better.......we have a two party system..so?!?!...my point was that they both use religion to further their need for power and greed...and both vilify their supposed enemies...I do like your brush to big for my hand anology...cause I am guilty of that...alot...for sure. Peace...FFG.
need better examples.....the elevator example doesn't fit..thats a cultural thing (i don't agree mind you...I"m thinking women get almost the same rights as men (-: ) ....the opponent example little better.......we have a two party system..so?!?!...my point was that they both use religion to further their need for power and greed...and both vilify their supposed enemies...I do like your brush to big for my hand anology...cause I am guilty of that...alot...for sure. Peace...FFG.
Our "two party system" doesn't have an absolute ruler that can ban one of those two parties ineligible. It's not a "cultural thing" to ban women from the same elevators when the culture (while repressive to women) does not agree with such a policy.
Look, your point has merit you're just taking it too far. Certainly there are scary similarities between the two leaders. But there are important differences between them and, more importantly, between the political systems that they operate in.
Our "two party system" doesn't have an absolute ruler that can ban one of those two parties ineligible. It's not a "cultural thing" to ban women from the same elevators when the culture (while repressive to women) does not agree with such a policy.
Look, your point has merit you're just taking it too far. Certainly there are scary similarities between the two leaders. But there are important differences between them and, more importantly, between the political systems that they operate in.
like you, I agree we have a better, more equitable society than the Iranians (surely we're both little ethnocentric)...also realize there is no comparison in political systems between Iran and the US...but...Bush uses the same rhetoric as Iranian Dude with the same motivations...thats all....both are "Evil Do-er's" using gullible people to further their agenda...
Abuskedti
Posts: 1,917
Comments
There have been many attempts at dialogue, despite the huge likelihood that such dialogue will go no where. Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to actually tell me why you're so interested in what this man has to say.
I am not so much interested in what this man has to say than any other president. I am interested in the fact that our nation somehow believes it is wise to ignore him.
you may believe nothing you see as productive will come from dialog with him. you may be wrong.
Tell me what you expect comes from ignoring him
and tell me about many attempts our country has made at dialog with him? Please don't say that it is dialog to insist he does what we tell him to do, and we will listen.... that is not dialog.
Stopping enrichment would be a good-will gesture that wouldn't cost Iran too much ... So I'll go ahead and say it. His refusal to do so is a big impediment to dialogue.
And I agree with you, I may be wrong. Perhaps a real dialogue could solve the problem. A dialogue on what, exactly? What does this man need from the rest of the world? A sensitive ear? Does he need us to basically let him do whatever he wants? Such would not be dialogue either. I don't think Iran should be ignored, quite the contrary. I do think, however, that the man's arguments about Israeli evil are without much merit and should be dismissed as mad ravings. Now, let's say that, hypothetically, Iran's president stopped talking like he has been and instead said something like "You know, we need to talk. While I understand your fears regarding more nuclear weapons in the Middle East, I want to tell you guys WHY I think we need them. I want to tell you about how some of your policies are making me worried enough to get them ... Can be negotiate a compromise?" ... But he doesn't talk anything like that!
I think diplomatic efforts need to continue, and if that's dialogue, then I agree with you. War isn't the answer here. But sorry, much of what Ahmadinejad has said to date is worthy of derision.
I agree, and that's why I found the idea of a debate between the two pretty funny.
Thanks, I was just thinking that I needed my stomach emptied.
Sensitive ear? Thats just silly...I guess I'll ignore that.
they said they are willing to negotiate - and we said no.
simple as that.. and that is wrong.
We are the ones that want something.. What we want is that Iran, all countries for that matter, not to develop nuclear weapons. Pretty simple.
Now, he'll understand that, but may ask, why the United States should have them and not Iran. He may rightfully expect compensation for voluntarily remaining drastically weaker than the US. We may ask for inspections. We may ask for his help in the "war on terror" He may ask us for a palistinian state. Maybe there will be smaller thing.. maybe we can strike an agreement that will last a few months - while further negotiations continue.
We are the brutal country when we insist on keeping our right to make war while refusing others the right to resist. We are the brutal country unwilling to address Iran's concerns because of things they have done in the past that we didn't like or understand - knowing full well we too have done things in the past that they don't like - and neither would we -
Its just flat wrong to refuse to negotiate - all it does is propetuate the tension - and the wars - and many see that as a positive for us - the most powerful and in the best position to profit from war. If that is our negotiating position - I believe as a psudo democracy, our "leaders" articulate it for us to understand.
Hell if we don't have to talk to anyone we disagree with, then we don't have to apear civilized either.
This is about the present, he wants peaceful nuclear technology and then a couple days later states he wants to whipe countries off the map. Or how about when he claims the holocost was a myth? The guy is a whack job and him having nuclear capabilities is a lot bigger threat to world peace than Bush is or any former American president who has waged wars overseas.
What exactly are Iran's concerns? Ahmadinejad jails anyone who speaks up against him. His country has a lot bigger problems then trying to obtain nukes. Instead of developing the infastructure, he blows his countries oil profits on dangerous research and personal consumption, much like Sadamm did... His people are impoverished and uses the nuclear issue to sitr up national pride.
I dont think we will directly attack Iran but Israel will with our bombs.
Watched a good show last night on the Cdn mission to get some of the lucky Yanks who weren't grabbed back in the day in Iran. And sure as the sun rises in the east, there was Ahmadinejad taking a blindfolded Yank out of their compound. Pretty interesting the way we forged docs and came up with a couple of plans to save some of the bacon over there.
Amazing how the guy goes from radical school boy to leader of the nation. Sound familiour to anybody out there?
b/c it would be nice to know that we at least attempted diplomacy before starting another war
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
We have:.
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,” he said. “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
the current iranian year?
i wonder how much is pandering like so many of the us politicians do w/ christians? he's obviously not a nice guy, i'm just sayin...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_calendar
I'm sure if George Bush started talking about a "Christian revolution reaching the entire world" you'd be willing to blow it off as "pandering"? Going to church and saying crap like "In God we Trust" is one thing. Veiled threats are another.
This guy is a religious hard-liner. If George Bush's religious leanings make you uncomfortable, this guy should make you quake. Khatami was a panderer. This guy is the real deal.
I don't disagree with any of that.. but the point is that he is the leader of Iran. He makes their decisions. there is no benefit in refusing to talk to him. If our ideas are better - If cooperating with the US is "win-win" than we should try and persuade him.
because, there is plenty of history to show that war is "lose-lose"
Between God, Karl Rove, Laura and the terrorists, how does he think for himself?
interesting
good point, altho bush makes statements a bit more hard than 'in god we trust'
it just seems like it would be obvious the retaliation if they ever actually tried something like that so it seems kinda like rhetoric
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
just listen to both, you'll hear it, if you let yourself...
oddly, ahmadinejad came to power much the same way as bush...
...both beat the drums of war...and both say things they know are untrue....both use the other to push their agenda....
Of course! But there's not necessarily benefit in talking with him either. We'd be in a much better place right now if we would just publically ignore this jackass. Let him build his nukes. He won't be the first, he won't be the last either.
But he has nothing we want.
The only people advocating a war here are George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Has he ever invoked God in some kind of "revolutionary" or violent context? I'm seriously asking here. I don't know if he has.
Umm....they do try it. Who do you think Hezbollah is in part funded by? Who do you think the Iraqi insurgency is in part funded by? Who do you think previous Iraqi seperatists were in part funded by?
The concept of an "Islamic Revolution" is a central part of Iranian politics. And that conceptual revolution stetches far beyond Iran's borders.
For every reason you rightly despise George Bush, you should despise this guy times 10.
Excellent post.
...he just uses God to get votes.....the Iranian president does the same Its all about power and money and the gullible.
Similarities, certainly. "The same", no.
but at this point it really doesn't matter if there is dialog....the Iranian President has a strategy..and will keep with that strategy...I'm all for dialog..and I'm very much against the ethnocentrist policies of this administration and most Americans...but think we let the Eurpeans keep this going....we (America) pretty much pissed off our respect for doing the right thing in the world with Iraq.
how are they different? Bush uses catch names like "Evil" "Extremists" Facists" etc in describing Muslims...oh and if you say he differentiates between good and bad Muslims...the average Schmuck in America see them as one...and Bush knows this. .....and there are many Good Christians that see this as a war between Christians and Muslims...and Bush plays on this. Same as the Iranian dude...no??
When George Bush declares that men and women should ride in seperate elevators, I'll agree with you. When George Bush has an absolute ruler that judges his opponents unfit to run in an "election", I'll agree with you.
Just because Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler had some similitaries did not make them "the same". Same goes here. Your brush is too big for your hand.
need better examples.....the elevator example doesn't fit..thats a cultural thing (i don't agree mind you...I"m thinking women get almost the same rights as men (-: ) ....the opponent example little better.......we have a two party system..so?!?!...my point was that they both use religion to further their need for power and greed...and both vilify their supposed enemies...I do like your brush to big for my hand anology...cause I am guilty of that...alot...for sure. Peace...FFG.
Our "two party system" doesn't have an absolute ruler that can ban one of those two parties ineligible. It's not a "cultural thing" to ban women from the same elevators when the culture (while repressive to women) does not agree with such a policy.
Look, your point has merit you're just taking it too far. Certainly there are scary similarities between the two leaders. But there are important differences between them and, more importantly, between the political systems that they operate in.
like you, I agree we have a better, more equitable society than the Iranians (surely we're both little ethnocentric)...also realize there is no comparison in political systems between Iran and the US...but...Bush uses the same rhetoric as Iranian Dude with the same motivations...thats all....both are "Evil Do-er's" using gullible people to further their agenda...