Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations

Flappycat · Sep 20, 2006

Oh, Jewscout. Shove aside your disagreements with him on Israel. If I had my way, the whole region would be sunk into the sea and hopefully all its pettiness and prejudice with it. What the man is demanding gives opportunities for political leverage. The main thing I wouldn't allow him under any circumstances is allowing in the OIC; the Vatican doesn't have a seat on the Security Council, and he should be content that we're being fair insofar as that. Aside from that, I think the best possible response to him should be that he should face the inevitability that Israel and the disputes pertaining to them will be sorted out by treaty and compromise, not by war-making.

And people, THE HARDLINE STANCE IS NEVER GOING TO MAKE IT, NO MATTER HOW FOOLISHLY STUBBORN ENTITIES LIKE THE U.S. PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE. Refusing to sort things out by treaty and compromise has led the U.S. and several other countries into disaster after repeated disaster, and they're not going to cease to be met with failures until they have learned to conduct themselves as if they are subordinate to the end of common peace. This is the only method that will ever work.

Ormiston · Sep 20, 2006

My only question(s) on this topic is: What is an acceptable solution for all? Is there one?

Super Universe · Sep 20, 2006

Iran is playing a very dangerous game. They are floating on oil yet they somehow need nuclear energy? Is anyone really buying this story?

Iran has ties with (more likely controls) Hezbollah so if they do develop a nuclear weapon then the world just became a much more dangerous place.

If a nuclear weapon ever goes off inside Israel you can expect that Tehran would be hit in response and maybe Damascus as well.

Why do we need this trouble in the world? Why does Iran need to go down this path?

Who is a threat to them? We took out Saddam. There is no threat to them, they should put their money into their own society, build gardens and waterfalls but instead they see a small nation a thousand miles away from them as a threat?

c0da · Sep 20, 2006

kai said:
would you buy a used car from this man ?

Get rid of the beard, fasten the top button and stick a tie on. Then i would, yes!

That being said, I don't actually know the Persian word for car.

doppelganger · Sep 20, 2006

The Iranian President's speech was fairly mild compared to that given today by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush's address Tuesday. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

The leftist leader, who has joined Iran in opposing U.S. influence, accused Washington of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."

"We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head," he said.

He also said the U.N. "doesn't work" in its current system and is "antidemocratic." He called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month.

"Venezuela once again proposes today that we reform the United Nations," he said. He drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when called U.S. "imperialism" a menace.

Bush. Chavez. Ahmadinejad. All pretty much the same to me.

Politicians suck.

CaptainXeroid · Sep 20, 2006

*** MOD POST ***

Just a reminder to keep comments on the topic at hand and off each other. If you feel someone is attacking you personally, hit the Report link instead of responding on the thread. Thank you.

kai · Sep 20, 2006

c0da said:
Get rid of the beard, fasten the top button and stick a tie on. Then i would, yes!

That being said, I don't actually know the Persian word for car.

the top buttons a dead give away

Quiddity · Sep 20, 2006

Flappycat said:
Oh, Jewscout. Shove aside your disagreements with him on Israel. If I had my way, the whole region would be sunk into the sea and hopefully all its pettiness and prejudice with it. What the man is demanding gives opportunities for political leverage. The main thing I wouldn't allow him under any circumstances is allowing in the OIC; the Vatican doesn't have a seat on the Security Council, and he should be content that we're being fair insofar as that. Aside from that, I think the best possible response to him should be that he should face the inevitability that Israel and the disputes pertaining to them will be sorted out by treaty and compromise, not by war-making.

And people, THE HARDLINE STANCE IS NEVER GOING TO MAKE IT, NO MATTER HOW FOOLISHLY STUBBORN ENTITIES LIKE THE U.S. PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE. Refusing to sort things out by treaty and compromise has led the U.S. and several other countries into disaster after repeated disaster, and they're not going to cease to be met with failures until they have learned to conduct themselves as if they are subordinate to the end of common peace. This is the only method that will ever work.

I'm not expert on the issue, but I can't begin to imagine to tell Israel (or any country dealing with extremism of this kind) to just work things out through diplomacy. As if this wasn't something they have never thought about.

doppelganger · Sep 20, 2006

Victor said:
I'm not expert on the issue, but I can't begin to imagine to tell Israel (or any country dealing with extremism of this kind) to just work things out through diplomacy. As if this wasn't something they have never thought about.

What are the alternatives?

Quiddity · Sep 20, 2006

doppelgänger said:
What are the alternatives?

I wouldn't know. I'm not as versed as others on the details that could make the world of difference. From the little I do know, it looks like the extremists are unwilling to negotiate. What do you do when another country is unwilling to talk and wants you dead?

Defend yourself.

Flappycat · Sep 20, 2006

Victor said:
I'm not expert on the issue, but I can't begin to imagine to tell Israel (or any country dealing with extremism of this kind) to just work things out through diplomacy.

I suggested nothing of the sort. It's a wonderful idea, though, Victor. What do you think of what I was actually suggesting, though?

As if this wasn't something they have never thought about.

I certainly hope that this is their end goal. Otherwise, it would be foolish to support them at all, wouldn't it?

Quiddity · Sep 20, 2006

Flappycat said:
I suggested nothing of the sort. It's a wonderful idea, though, Victor. What do you think of what I was actually suggesting, though?

I certainly hope that this is their end goal. Otherwise, it would be foolish to support them at all, wouldn't it?

Fair enough. What did you mean by this:
think the best possible response to him should be that he should face the inevitability that Israel and the disputes pertaining to them will be sorted out by treaty and compromise, not by war-making.
Is this not diplomacy?

Flappycat · Sep 20, 2006

Yes. Iran should be more inclined to support a diplomatic solution for the conflict, and they'd seed more trust with their contemporaries if they did. I also want more cooperation between them and their neighbors. It's a general rule that I want to see cooperation and unity worldwide, and I have no tolerance for bungling about with ancient land feuds. I think that having them reign in Hezbollah would be a fair exchange for giving their requests fair and serious consideration. They'll also have to taste many other medicines they are unaccustomed to before actually getting anything their way.

Quiddity · Sep 20, 2006

Flappycat said:
Yes. Iran should be more inclined to support a diplomatic solution for the conflict, and they'd seed more trust with their contemporaries if they did. I also want more cooperation between them and their neighbors. It's a general rule that I want to see cooperation and unity worldwide, and I have no tolerance for bungling about with ancient land feuds. I think that having them reign in Hezbollah would be a fair exchange for giving their requests fair and serious consideration. They'll also have to taste many other medicines they are unaccustomed to before actually getting anything their way.

Take away the bungling of ancient land feuds and well you have a whole different ball park. As much as I may agree with you, I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Flappycat · Sep 20, 2006

Victor said:
Take away the bungling of ancient land feuds and well you have a whole different ball park. As much as I may agree with you, I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Realistic or not, it's necessary, and something needs to be done to convince Iran of this as well. The speech presents a great many opportunities for leverage, and they should be taken advantage of in the best possible way.

kai · Sep 20, 2006

Flappycat said:
Yes. Iran should be more inclined to support a diplomatic solution for the conflict, and they'd seed more trust with their contemporaries if they did. I also want more cooperation between them and their neighbors. It's a general rule that I want to see cooperation and unity worldwide, and I have no tolerance for bungling about with ancient land feuds. I think that having them reign in Hezbollah would be a fair exchange for giving their requests fair and serious consideration. They'll also have to taste many other medicines they are unaccustomed to before actually getting anything their way.

i must ask reigning in Hezbollah will be a fair exchange for what requests?

and the very idea that you can set up a semiautonimous military organisation in another soveriegn state to spread your own doctrine shoudnt lead to political appeasement

Booko · Sep 20, 2006

Super Universe said:
Why do we need this trouble in the world? Why does Iran need to go down this path?

Who is a threat to them? We took out Saddam. There is no threat to them, they should put their money into their own society, build gardens and waterfalls but instead they see a small nation a thousand miles away from them as a threat?

They believe they have good reason to believe the US is a threat to them. Look at a map and see where our military bases are in the area. Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west. We have them in a pincers, and they are not so stupid that they haven't noticed.

They also haven't failed to notice that since 1979 we have refused to speak to them on any level. They take that as a sign that we cannot be reasoned with, and I must say, I don't know why they reasonably should conclude otherwise.

We have basically backed the Iranian gov't into a corner, and now we are upset because they think they have no better option than to defend themselves.

One can believe this is a correct conclusion on their part or not, but correct or not, I cannot call it an irrational conclusion.

Super Universe · Sep 20, 2006

Iran does not want a diplomatic solution unless this diplomacy has to do with the annihilation of Israel. They want blood, not peace.

Booko · Sep 20, 2006

Djamila said:
I also liked how he spoke of tolerance, and working together, and companionship between the Abrahamic faiths, and all of that.

I would think much more about his comments on tolerance if he practiced it at home.

Super Universe · Sep 20, 2006

Booko said:
They believe they have good reason to believe the US is a threat to them. Look at a map and see where our military bases are in the area. Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west. We have them in a pincers, and they are not so stupid that they haven't noticed.

They also haven't failed to notice that since 1979 we have refused to speak to them on any level. They take that as a sign that we cannot be reasoned with, and I must say, I don't know why they reasonably should conclude otherwise.

We have basically backed the Iranian gov't into a corner, and now we are upset because they think they have no better option than to defend themselves.

One can believe this is a correct conclusion on their part or not, but correct or not, I cannot call it an irrational conclusion.

Neither the U.S. nor Iran have attempted to talk to each other since 1979. It's not all the United States fault. We did not capture their embassy personnel and hold them hostage.

People complain about the current President Bush including Iran in the "Axis of evil" but twenty years ago Iran was calling us the "Great Satan". Reagan could have wiped them off the map then.

The only reason they take the sign that we cannot be reasoned with is because we will not convert to Islam. How do we reason with a leadership who calls for the annihilation of Israel?

If we wanted to invade Iran at anytime in the last 61 years we could have done it and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

How is Iran in a corner? If we truly wanted to destroy them we could start tomorrow with an air campaign and four months from now it would end and the entire country would be in the stone age.

Nuclear weapons are an excuse for power. They think they will have more respect from the U.S. and that we will bow to their opinion once they have them. They will only get more sanctions and cause an increase in the U.S. defense budget.

Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defender of God

Active Member

Through the Looking Glass

Following Christ

ragamuffin

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Through the Looking Glass

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

ragamuffin

Deviled Hen

Defender of God

Deviled Hen

Defender of God