Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Ahmadinejad

HERE

I think Bush is badly misreading this guy.

8 comments:

Ron said...

Addendum: I watched today on CNN when Ahmadinejad offered Bush 1/2 on Iranian TV to say anything he wanted, and he said "the people will listen".

My bet is Bush doesn't take him up on it.

God, Ahmadinejad keeps asking for a talk with Bush directly--and Bush just insists on putting conditions before he'll talk.

And how fucking stupid is that? That's a kindergarten tactic. "I won't talk with you unless you..."

Fuckhead, the brother wants to talk. Talk with him! Jeeziz.

I heard Ahmadinejad right there on the TV...on CNN fer chrissakes...asking again and again to talk with Bush. And I'm sure Bush won't take him up on it.

Fuck.

Anyways, go listen to/read to what Ahmadinejad is saying--and make up your own mind. And don't stop at the linked interview.

Dig a little. It'll be an eye-opener. It was for me.

I'll say this: if there is a war between the United States and Iran, it'll be one of the most unnecessary wars in history.

Scout said...

congrats on winning the contest ron!!! email me, scout_vagabond@yahoo.ca so i can send a prize.

bush won't go near ahmadinejad, he's far more intelligent. not that i trust him any more then any other politician, but the brain factor is too scary for doubleya.

Ron said...

Thanks for the kind words on your site, scout.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad fully but I do think he's someone that can be reasoned with. "face to face" worked between Gorby & Ronnie and I think it'd be best if they met privately away from advisors and the press for the first while.

I'm not fond of Chavez; in contrast to Ahmadinejad, he's just needlessly confrontational and I don't think he's near in Ahmadinejad's league intellectually.

Bill-Muskoka said...

Hi Ron,

I commented on last night's interview over at you know where! LOL.

These were my observations of yesterday.

Chavez represents a new era in politics. The Good Old Boys (read that G-8) now have to deal with NAM, Non Aligned Movement, and it will be what finally breaks the hold I think. Castro and others have joined together against the American Imperialists and have the resources to make them listen.

Iran's President exhibited a depth of knowledge and intelligence Bush will never have on Anderson Cooper's 360 last night. The interview showed this Civil Engineer to be far better equipped intellectually than the entire WH staff, or our own PMO.

Cooper tried playing him and got a gentle slap on the hand each time. It was fascinating to listen to the real person be free to speak without all the spin-doctored propaganda against him. I could readily see the aged Persian wisdom playing Cooper like a mandolin!

The issue of Israel and Palestine naturally was raised by Cooper. He made the mistake of linking the Holocaust to the issue and Iran's President refused to accept the linkage. He was correct to do so. They are two entirely separate matters, and are unlinkable, except in the minds of the Zionists.

Funny how when we get to actually hear what a foreign leader has to say we get our eyes opened, if our ears and minds are as well!

Then, again, today Chavez called Bush by the correct term 'A wannabe John Wayne'. Totally accurate...Maurice aka John, Wayne was an actor, not a real cowboy.

He did hold a significant stake in the Red River Land & Cattle Company in Stanfield, Arizona.

It's a nice little 850,000 acre cattle ranch. You can smell the BS three miles away as they usually have about 500,000 head in their feed lot getting fattened up for slaughter.

So, there are my two cents worth.

Oh, and I will say this for Harper's UN speech, not bad, not bad at all! he could actually come forward if only he had a genuine, believable personality! (or he has good speech writers?)

John T. Kennedy said...

I think Beck's view is better supported...

"Now, there is an ethical hook here, upon which Wallace must be hung out to dry, excepting only the prospect that he is a complete imbecile, and everyone knows that he isn't. He knows very well what Hezbollah is doing with these weapons with the explicitly-stated sanction of Ahmadinejad. And for Wallace to characterize him as "an impressive fellow", "interesting ", "rational" (to any degree), etc., is to define him according to any or all attributes except his essential attribute in the context of international politics today. I propose to you, ladies and gentlemen, that no imbecile could perform the discriminations necessary to this sort of mental gymnastics. This is a deliberate equivocation of attributes which would be laudable except in the character of a murderous degenerate, with the essential characteristic that he is a murderous degenerate, by way of ignoring the fact that he is a murderous degenerate. That, however, is not what matters to Wallace.

This is a very good portrait of depravity: the moral agnosticism that can shrug its shoulders in the presence of a monster, and then offer, "It's a crazy world."

Well, no: it's not. The "world" simply is what it is. It is people who're "crazy", and Mike Wallace is one of them."


...at least by the evidence I've seen.

Ron said...

John,

I very much respect Billy's take on it.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Bush or Ahmadinejad, all I go on is what I hear them say in front of me with tape rolling. I fully trust neither of them and I trust none of the propagandists on either side.

I think Ahmadinejad is like me--opinionated and firm in convictions, but willing to be swayed by a better argument. Of course I could be very wrong.

Still, I see no harm in Bush taking up his offer of speaking face to face or to appear on Iranian TV and I think placing conditions on even the first, preliminary talking is just face-saving on Bush's part.

Don't get me wrong; at this point I suppport Israel's continued and future existence and I have no truck with militant dogmatic exteremist Islamic folks who see this entire situation as a playing out of some religiously ordained master plan leading to a world-wide Islamic state, but I don't think Ahmadinejad is that kind of guy.

We'll see.

John T. Kennedy said...

"Still, I see no harm in Bush taking up his offer of speaking face to face or to appear on Iranian TV and I think placing conditions on even the first, preliminary talking is just face-saving on Bush's part."

Perhaps, but doesn't the TV offer implicitly speak volumes? Ahmadinejad doesn't have any trouble getting on American TV. Bush can neither keep him off American TV or demand that the networks put him on.

I think there's a whole lot of sandbagging in the offer, but yeah, a better man than Bush might take him up on it anyway to show what happens.

The fact that someone can rhetorically out-maneuver Bush doesn't impress me much though.

"Don't get me wrong; at this point I suppport Israel's continued and future existence and I have no truck with militant dogmatic exteremist Islamic folks who see this entire situation as a playing out of some religiously ordained master plan leading to a world-wide Islamic state, but I don't think Ahmadinejad is that kind of guy."

He does say Israel should be wiped off the map when talking to those people, though of course he has a different schtick for western consumption.

Ron said...

John:

Yes. Ahmadinejad does have a different schtick for western audiences but what I don't know is whose side he's playing. Gorbachev talked two games as well, and that worked out. The question is whether Ahmadinejad is a pragmatist looking to resolve things or a pragmatist looking to fool westerners into losing their resolve.

As you said "a better man than Bush might take him up on it anyway to show what happens. and that's what I would have hoped for--and you are exactly right that a Ahmadinejad is free to talk in the United States with no one's permission except the TV station or whoever, and things are not near the same in Iran.

My main point in all this is mainly that it Bush should take Ahmadinejad up on his offer of TV time in Iran, and should speak with him face to face if possible. Not talking directly gets us what we've got. Either or both of the actions I suggest would at least serve to clear some things up.

Unfortunately, one of the things really muddying things up has been really foolish western diplomatic decisions in and around Iran (throughout the middle east) since WWII--and we'll be paying for that for a good while I expect. I'm not speaking of malevolence on the part of the west--more like just an astonishing and short-sighted thoughtlessness when it comes to the rights and plights of Arabic people.