My Thoughts on the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

No matter what many of you may think about Iran, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you have to give the man credit for visiting the U.S. to speak in front of Columbia University students.

The good news is that a poll conducted shows that 72% percent of Americans believe Mahmoud should have been allowed to speak, while only 28% thought he should not be allowed to speak. This means those of you who don't want to hear anything he has to say, and who wants to blow Iran off the map are in the minority.

The vast majority of the American people want to hear what he has to say. Personally, I'm glad the president visited. There are a number of reasons why I say this. Some of them are:

1. By coming over to the U.S. to speak at Columbia Ahmadinejad showed that he wishes to negotiate with the U.S., and does not want war.

2. By giving the American people his views, they hear TWO SIDES of a story rather than one. They can listen to him and compare his views with those expressed by the White House.

3. By visiting the U.S., Ahmadinejad makes himself out to be a negotiator and diplomat, in stark contrast to the jingoistic attitude of the Bush administration. The world will consider the U.S. to be even more of a bully if they attack Iran.


Despite all the controversy, the reality is that Mr. Ahmadinejad is a very smart man. By coming to the U.S. to speak at Columbia, he is playing a very smart diplomatic position. While I do find it hard to believe that there are no homosexuals in Iran, since some stay in the closet(and in Iran, thats a smart thing to do), I think that by coming to the U.S. he shows he is willing to negotiate.

 

tesla, next you will tell us that Islam is a religion of peace. Keep up the good work and who knows the Iranians may not kill you in the end. They may let you convert to their religion of peace.

 

it is...
i wonder if bush dare to come to iran... and speak in front of alzahra university students...

 

i agree that ahmadinejad's visit to the US should be cautiously seen as a good thing. we cannot go on with this legacy of hatred and revenge that is just tearing this world apart. and as for his intended visit to ground zero to pay his respects, i know that many are against this, and personally i think it is still too soon for this kind of gesture, but we must remember that iran played no part in the terrorist attacks on new york, and were amongest the first to condemn it, as well as holding candle lit vigils all over iran to show their solidarity at a time when neither politics or religion have anything to do with it. that is not to let the president off the hook, for we are all aware of the crimes against humanity taking place in this country on a daily basis, and are equally aware that the iranian government support hamas and hez bollah. but when one person takes a step in the right direction i believe we should take two more, for it is only by talking to these people and finding some kind of compromise that this world will ever find any kind of enduring peace.

 

He visited to give a one finger salute to Bush & used the visit as a propaganda opportunity, theres no credit given to him on those accounts from me.

No actually it doesn't mean the 72% Americans don't want to go to war with Iran or don't see Iran as a threat, the 72% of American's polled simply think no matter how much of an asshole the guy is that he should be allowed to speak, this shows what a great country the USA are.

I don't have any doubt that you didn't appreciate his visit.

By coming over he promoted himself & used the visit to his advantage.

Fair enough.

That's what he wanted everyone to believe & some are so anti-American that they buy this, whilst at home in Iran he promotes anti-American views

Yes it's a smart thing to do, so smart he's out smarted others

 

Hum, I might have heard that talk somewhere before?

Fact of the matter is if the US wants to cripple Iran - STOP USING OIL - its about the only thing Iran has to sell.

 

He might want to negotiate but Bush will not so
Stale mate

Bush as usual will cause disruption and terror

 

i think it would be a little premature to suppose that ahmadinejad is in the US to negotiate with bush, but at least it is a good sign, the very fact that he is not boycotting all trips to western countries etc.
the more that some sort of dialogue can be established the better for everyone.
at least 'jaw-jaw' is an improvement on 'war-war'.

 

I'm quite surprised by people like yourself, tesla. You amaze me.
Whether it be naiveness or sheer stupidity, i don't know.

That is incorrect. People that were born yesterday might think so, but most of us were not born yesterday. He has a very specific agenda, and he's playing his cards to pursue it on the mass idiot crowd.

That is understandable, actually.

Now this is where the stupidity comes into play. Negotiator and diplomat ?

Oh, and regarding homosexuals in his filth ass country, there you go tesla, this is what is being done to them:

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274175.html

 

Well, I guess they should have stayed in the closet. Each country has its own laws, and if you break them........you have to suffer the consequences. In Singapore, you get caught with Marijuana, you will also end up just like the guys in the photo you posted. Should we attack Singapore to?

Get caught stealing in Saudi Arabia, your hand gets sawed off. Exactly what is your point? How about we go try to invade Saudi Arabia to, since they have harsh laws. You can't go marching around the world demanding countries to follow your laws and your way of life. It just doesn't work.

One more thing, we've got torture going on in prisons right here in the U.S., yet you're worried about whats going on in Iran. The U.S. has plenty of government corruption. Please stop acting like our country and our president is an angel, because its a load a crap, and if you believe it, you're the one who is naive.

Don't get me started on the drug dealing, black ops, regime changes, and all the other stuff the U.S. government has done. No government in this world is an angel, thats why the Constitution and Bill of Rights was created, to keep governments in check. While you're worried about the threat of Iran, the U.S. government is taking away more of your freedoms each day under the guise of "fighting terrorism."

Not once did I say Ahmadinejad was an angel. I said that by him coming to the U.S., he has expressed interest in having his views held. Maybe if George W. Bush had a set of balls, he would meet with Ahmadinejad directly.....of course that didn't happen, now did it?

If Ahmadinejad had no intention of potentially talking to the Bush admin, he wouldn't even have bothered to come over to the U.S., because it would have been a waste of his time, and he could care less what the American media thinks.

 

Your comparison is pathetic. You compare crimes such as getting caught with Marijuana and stealing to being homosexual ?
You think that's morally right to murder 2 little boys, age of 14 (!) and age of 16 in a brutal way for being homosexuals ?
It makes me furious to see such bullshit going on.
On top of that, by their law,

Under article 1210(1) of Iran's civil code:
15 years for boys and 9 years for girls are set out as the age of criminal responsibility.

Now, we're not even talking about the 9 years for girls (which is absolutely disgusting, but i bet you accept that as well), but we're talking here about the 14 year old kid.

Disgusting.

 

I think it is pathetic that you get hung in Singapore for getting caught with Pot, when the government there has no problem with prescription drugs, because they are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies. I think Singapore's law is very tyrannic and big brother, and even though I don't smoke Pot, I think this law is ridiculous. When you really think about it, executing a man because he is gay is just as bad as executing a man because he has pot on him. Both are equally ridiculous.

But this is only from an American point of view. When you talk about Iran, you're talking about a whole different culture and set of laws. What we call "ridiculous" here in the U.S. is not so ridiculous over there. It is common law for them.

However, I do have to respect Singapore's law. I don't like it, but I have to respect it. I don't think Iran should execute gays or minors(what we in U.S. term as minors). Because I was born in a country that has a foundation of freedom and liberty, I can't support Iran's decision to execute gays. However, I don't wish for our government to bomb Iran off the face of the map either. We should set aside the differences to begin diplomacy.

However, like Singapore, the laws of the country must be respected. If you're gay, you obviously don't want to be hanging out doing the wrong thing in Tehran.

Also, those guys should have known the laws in the land. If they wanted to carry on that lifestyle, they should have left(or kept it very well hidden).

 

Well, you go on and respect the murder of little kids for committing a "crime", because i don't.
I bet you respected the laws that didn't give black people the same rights as you have. I bet you respect the law that filthy pedophiles can marry 9 year old girls in these countries. You have to respect that, tesla!

Be grateful of the way your country progressed over the years, and that was no thanks to people such as yourself.
If it was up to people like you, you'd be sitting in your house while 3 black slaves are doing what you command them to. Because you respect the laws of a country, of course!

 

Comparing Black slavery here in the U.S. to the situation in Iran is ridiculous, and I will explain why. First off, the slavery of Black people here in the U.S. was a contradiction to everything the Constitution and Bill of Rights stood for. The founding fathers talked about "all men being equal" yet this only meant "all white men being equal." Many men such as Washington realized the hypocrisy of slavery in light of the Constitution, and knew that slavery would have to be eliminated.

There was "no law" in the Constitution that allowed slaves to be held, but it was something that was socially acceptable at the time. In Iran, as you have already implied yourself, "there is a law" against being gay or homosexual.

Do you see the difference? There is a law against being gay in Iran, but there was no law in the U.S. which says slavery was the right thing to do. You're mixing up acceptable social norms with laws.

If you go to Iran, you must accept their laws. If you don't, you will pay the consequences. As an American living in the U.S.(I'm assuming you're an American) you have the right to disagree and even not respect Iranian law.

But if you take a trip to Iran, I highly advise you to follow the law and respect it. I may not like the laws of Iran, Singapore, or any other nation, but if I have to go there on a business trip, you can be rest assured that I will respect and follow all their laws...and if I have a big enough problem with their laws, I just won't go there.

Is there actually a law in Iran that specifically states that men can marry 9 year old girls?

 

I disagree with most of the things Ahmadinejad has to say, but I also believe allowing him to speak was the right thing to do. It may appear like it's a chance for him to spread his propaganda, but it really shows the rest of the world something about the freedoms we enjoy in the United States. One of our enemies was able to not just travel to the United States, but also receive protection from American security and the chance to speak to Americans in a public forum. How many other countries would give their enemies that opportunity to express their ideas?

I would not expect Bush or any other sitting U.S. president to be go into hostile territory and give a speech to people who hate America, because most other countries do not champion the same ideas of freedom as we do. Bush himself does not seem to understand this, and neither do any of the talking heads who were calling for Ahmadinejad to be executed on the spot when he stepped on U.S. soil.

 

in britain during 'the troubles' in northern ireland the government refused categorically to speak with the IRA even going so far as to have actors dub speeches made by adams and mcguinness on the news. but despite thirty years of active terrorism by the IRA on mainland britain in which countless innocent civilians were slaughtered, with thousands of deaths caused by the ongoing conflict in northern ireland itself, the british government finally agreed to speak with the political wing of the IRA - SinnFeinn, and 'the good friday agreement' was signed by all those who had once been sworn enemies, SinnFeinn, the Loyalists, and the british government.
nobody ever envisioned an end to 'the troubles' but now northern ireland is free of the bloodshed it witnessed on a daily basis not so long ago.
if they can find a way to talk then so can any two nations presently at 'daggers drawn' with each other.
the way is not easy, but there is always a way.

 

I think you're a bit naive Tesla. But I do agree that letting him speak was a good thing, even if he has an agenda.

 

1. Ahmadinejad did not come to negotiate, he came to gather sympathy for when we have to go to war with him, the news reports will recall the nicer him as shown here. With a media as self destructive as our own, it is a good plan.

2. We can get the same side from our media while he is in iran (they are on his side one way or another)

3. Bush is worse then Ahmadinejad? You either know nothing about either of them or you are just plain ignorant.

Tell me, why would Ahmadinejad not answer the question on 60 minutes regarding him suppling terrorists? Its because he is, he wants a war against him to be as unpopular as possible.

Lastly, will he let our people in his controlled media country to do the same? No, he came in though a free media but doesnt give his own people one. This is clearly a smart attempt to gain sympathy. With a media as anti-american as our own it will work also.

Should he have been able to come in? Only if he lets bush tour Iran spreading hes word.

 

so is your comparison using slavery of blacks the same as saying that people should be allowed to be whatever religion they want to be, without being forced to convert to islam?? after all, islam is a religion of peace, right? They would never force anyone or kill any false believers, right tesla?

 

Tesla's primary point is that Iran is far from the only country in the world that has incredibly harsh, unfair restrictions on certain groups or the entirety of its people. He brought up some examples, and rather than accept that as true, you all try to rationalize the Iranians as the MOST horrible. The fact remains that while Iran shows civil rights abuse, it is far from the only country in the world to do so, and it is still far from being the #1 spot on the list.

He also makes a point that some of our allies practice terrible civil rights violations, but yet, we don't speak about that or talk about invading those countries to spread our American righteousness and freedom upon the world.

His primary point is to demonstrate that while civil rights issues are important in today's global society, we will never be able to police all the wrongdoing in the world, particularly when we practice/have practiced it at home. As such, we should also not attempt to use it as a justification for our ongoing, sinking relations with Iran, and further involvement militarily in the Middle East. Would this be a good synopsis, Tesla?