To the esteemed president of Iran......

[AchtungBono]

Will you please shut the hell up!!!!

I'm so fed up with the bilge that shoots out of this guys mouth - its not even funny.....can't we spray for him or something?

The Iranian people aren't stupid.......why don't they get rid of him already? Can't they see he's a menace to them????

This is his latest drivel from the Yahoo news website:

+++++++

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, told a cheering crowd of students in the Indonesian capital that it is every country's right — not just the United States — to use new technology to meet energy needs.

He said his country was willing to negotiate, but that the United States first must drop its "bad attitude."

"We are not only defending our rights, we are defending the rights of many other countries," he said. "By maintaining our position, we are defending our independence."

Ahmadinejad, known for his fiery rhetoric, is visiting Indonesia amid a deepening standoff over his country's nuclear program and suspicions it is developing nuclear weapons. This week, key U.N. Security Council members agreed to present Tehran with a choice of incentives or sanctions in deciding whether to suspend uranium enrichment.

The move will delay a draft U.N. resolution that could lead to sanctions and possible military action if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies, saying it aims only to generate energy.

The Iranian leader told Indonesia's Metro TV station earlier Thursday he was unconcerned about the possibility of U.N. sanctions, saying the West had more to lose than Iran did if the country was isolated.

"We do not need to be dependent on others," he said, adding international isolation would serve only to "motivate" the country's nuclear scientists.

He also said Western nations with large stocks of nuclear weapons were practicing "double standards" in pressing Iran to stop its peaceful nuclear program.

Asked what it would take to begin talks with the United States to resolve the standoff, he said Tehran would talk to anyone except Israel, which Iran does not recognize.

"There are no limits to our dialogue," he said. "But if someone points an arm (a weapon) at your face and says you must speak, will you do that?"

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Israeli officials have described Iran's nuclear quest as the Jewish state's greatest threat. Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned Monday that Iran could be threatened with destruction if it continues to vow to destroy Israel.

Israel had no immediate comment on Ahmadinejad's latest remarks, said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

At a meeting Tuesday, representatives of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France as well as Germany agreed to tell Iran the possible consequences of its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program and the benefits if it abandons it.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday she and her counterparts on the U.N. Security Council agreed to give Iran another two weeks to reconsider its position.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at the British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to comply.

Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.


+++++++++




My favorite part is this:

"There are no limits to our dialogue," he said. "But if someone points an arm (a weapon) at your face and says you must speak, will you do that?"

----

Is he talking about US or about his friends in the Hizbollah who have no problem threatening innocents with terrorism???

What a HYPOCRITE..........

 

[nbcrusader]

Bush is the real threat here.....

 

[Justin24]

Bush, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Il Jung, Blair, Every politician and Big Business is dangerous.

 

[vaz02]

wasnt this guy elected by the irian people in a free election ?

 

[Justin24]

I think so, but I think he was elected by more of the strong religouse sect, like here in the US. Alot of the Christian sect helped Bush get reElected.

 

[Irvine511]

wasnt this guy elected by the irian people in a free election ?

don't you realize that elections will cure all a society's ills? to hell with history, to hell with democracy brought by bombs.

 

[verte76]

I think so, but I think he was elected by more of the strong religouse sect, like here in the US. Alot of the Christian sect helped Bush get reElected.

Yes. They identified his moderate opponent with the rich and privileged and voted out of frustration over this.

 

[sarit]

and now this....

 

[financeguy]

Ahmadinejad is a useful idiot for the neo-cons, everything he does and says could amost be designed to fit their agenda.

 

[A_Wanderer]

wasnt this guy elected by the irian people in a free election ?

The Mullahs barred candidates that were not to their liking from running, the "moderate" and "conservative" choice was two sides of the same coin.

It is quite inconsequential though, since democracy is not the problem - Islam is, the apocalyptic and genocidal worldview of the Shiite sect of the 12 Imam that Ahmadinejad encapsulates.

 

[financeguy]

The Mullahs barred candidates that were not to their liking from running, the "moderate" and "conservative" choice was two sides of the same coin.

It is quite inconsequential though, since democracy is not the problem - Islam is, the apocalyptic and genocidal worldview of the Shiite sect of the 12 Imam that Ahmadinejad encapsulates.

I think that the current (alleged) 'policy' of the Iranian government can be adequately explained, in pragmatic sensible terms, without resort to neo-con theology.

 

[melon]

What we tend to forget is that democracy usually works within a rather rigid ideological framework. That is, you're never going to get an electable candidate that will overthrow capitalism in the U.S. Likewise, in Iran, the chances of getting an electable candidate who can overthrow Iranian theocracy is rather remote.

This is probably why Marxism comments on how "choice" is generally an illusion, as all the available options in theory are conveniently quite the same in practice.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

What we tend to forget is that democracy usually works within a rather rigid ideological framework. That is, you're never going to get an electable candidate that will overthrow capitalism in the U.S. Likewise, in Iran, the chances of getting an electable candidate who can overthrow Iranian theocracy is rather remote.

This is probably why Marxism comments on how "choice" is generally an illusion, as all the available options in theory are conveniently quite the same in practice.

Melon

I think that capitalism is based on an amoral structure, but not immoral set of assumptions, whilst Marxism is inherently old-fashioned 'cos it's predicated on a 19th century class structure - it has a plenty to say to the dispossesed and the guilt trip ridden element of the middle class, but it has fuck all to say to the aspiring middle class and aspiring working class.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that the current (alleged) 'policy' of the Iranian government can be adequately explained, in pragmatic sensible terms, without resort to neo-con theology.

Im sure that we will find out in the next two years, it is a very good thing if it is all a cynical stunt.

 

[melon]

I think that capitalism is based on an amoral structure, but not immoral set of assumptions, whilst Marxism is inherently old-fashioned 'cos it's predicated on a 19th century class structure - it has a plenty to say to the dispossesed and the guilt trip ridden element of the middle class, but it has fuck all to say to the aspiring middle class and aspiring working class.

Communism was really created for a peasant-dominated society. And for the mid-19th century, probably only 5% of the population, at most, actually fit the definition of "middle class" or higher, I'm guessing. So, really, the theory of communism was really a product of its times.

Marxism, as a philosophy, however, has been highly influential, and, whether people want to admit it or not, the only reason that capitalism has survived to this day is because it fused in Marxist ideas in the early 20th century.

As such, even though communism is an utter failure, I do believe that Marxist philosophy still has merit in a capitalist society.

Melon

 

[Se7en]

i love it when you guys talk about marx and communism.

 

[Halifax]

i love it when you guys talk about marx and communism.

ALL discussion on this forum get hijacked whenever the words "Marx", "communism" or "capitalism" are uttered.

 

[melon]

ALL discussion on this forum get hijacked whenever the words "Marx", "communism" or "capitalism" are uttered.

The discussion became relevant when someone asked why this guy was elected in the first place. The thing is that most people don't realize that a government typically works in two layers: an inflexible layer (capitalism, communism, theocracy, etc.) topped off with the veneer that we call "democracy."

And it is under that principle as to why Ahmadinejad was elected in the first place. Even if the Iranian people had elected his opponent, it is likely that we'd be in exactly the same place right now--with the exception that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would likely have kept his mouth shut more and Iran's nuclear program would be even more covert. So, perhaps, be glad that they elected the bumbling idiot instead of the suave career politician in this instance.

Melon

 

[verte76]

What we tend to forget is that democracy usually works within a rather rigid ideological framework. That is, you're never going to get an electable candidate that will overthrow capitalism in the U.S. Likewise, in Iran, the chances of getting an electable candidate who can overthrow Iranian theocracy is rather remote.

This is probably why Marxism comments on how "choice" is generally an illusion, as all the available options in theory are conveniently quite the same in practice.

Melon

This is true. They are preventing moderates from running in Iran. Iran actually has a good-sized liberal opposition, but the mullahs won't let them run for public office. The moderates are there, but they can't get elected if they can't run.

 

[Irvine511]

The Mullahs barred candidates that were not to their liking from running, the "moderate" and "conservative" choice was two sides of the same coin.

It is quite inconsequential though, since democracy is not the problem - Islam is, the apocalyptic and genocidal worldview of the Shiite sect of the 12 Imam that Ahmadinejad encapsulates.

agreed.

but i wonder if democracy can't help but legitimize apocalyptic and genocidal worldviews if they are agreed upon by the population.

a democracy does not a tolerant society make.

 

[A_Wanderer]

True, liberal values are what ensures a generally tolerant society, hence the Liberal Democracy, rule of the people while protecting individual rights.