Iran sees Obama 'on wrong path'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says the new US president is following the same misguided track in the Middle East as his predecessor.

Barack Obama is on the same "wrong path" as George Bush despite his pledge of new thinking, the Ayatollah says.

When he was sworn in, Mr Obama said the United States was ready to talk to Iran if it unclenched its fist.

But Ayatollah Khamenei says although Mr Obama came to power with slogans about change he is still committed to Israel.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7923169.stm

[WriteDown]

1. Must be a mistranslation.

:sarcasm:

[ShockediSay]

2. That's the kind of crap you get with a nation led by

some Ayatollah

[infidel dog]

7. To be condemned by murderous, irrational theocrats is a mark of honor.

[thewiseguy]

3. Was not it Hillary who said two days ago that she did not see a change in US Iran relations?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. What does Ayatollah Khamenei expect from this country?

Do we have to declare war on Israel?

[Chulanowa]

10. That's a silly idea...

The United States? Go to war with a country that has a military? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, I suspect Khamenei would simply be happy if we stopped taking Israel's word for everything with regards to Iran. Which I guess to some people, is about the same as declaring war on Israel...

[tom_paine]

13. That's so very funny, because it's so very true.

When's the last time we fought someone who could FIGHT BACK?

1945? (WWII)

1953? (Korea)

Surely no more recently than that.

[Psephos]

17. Vietnam (and the Red Chinese Army) seemed to do a pretty good job. n/t

[tom_paine]

18. Undoubtedly true. But Red China never directly fought us, as in Korea.

And while the VC did an excellent job fighting us, it wasn't because they had a comparable military.

I should have been more specific and said something like "with a military that was anything besides fully overmatched from the start", which the VC were.

In spite of that, they fought us and defeated us.

[fbahrami]

5. I hate to admit it,

but Khamenei is right. There is no fundamental change in America's (imperial) foreign policy.

[formervolunteer]

6. I actually enjoy correcting this

But there is.

The paradigm, while close, is fundamentally different. Would Prez O' use a sorry and blurry excuse such as the wtc attacks to launch wars and help vp Biden & friends make profit?

Nope.
Even if the foreign policy is still imperialistic, it has changed, for the better.

And Khamenei uses that. Because, like all theocratic leaders, he is full of sh**.

[readmoreoften]

14. Of course Obama's using the WTC attacks. Why else would he be ramping things up in Pakistan and

Afghanistan if it weren't for 9-11. Same policy. Different strategy in yet more countries.

[formervolunteer]

16. By any standards

He would be a fool not to use them. What ever angle he's got.

My point was the difference of paradigm between Obama and *. Which is ultimately the one, slight as it may be, between the GOP and the democratic party.

Unless you're one of these guys who think they're ultimately the same, but that's another debate, ending up in readjustment of opinions from people who think that.

[harun]

12. I don't see any change either. I hope time proves me wrong.

[Deja Q]

8. Yes. At least Obama hasn't drooled and shouted about blowing countries off the face of the map,

or kidnapped, or engaged in other acts deemed hostile...

[thewiseguy]

9. Sorry but who did Iranians kidnap?

[Chulanowa]

11. Except for bombing Pakistan, of course...

And of course, I too am curious about the whole kidnapping thing. You mean the Embassy? The embassy that was conducting espionage?

And who the hell said anything about blowing a country off the face of the map?

[Psephos]

19. "who the hell said anything about blowing a country off the face of the map?"

Why, that would be Iran.

...Ahmadinejad was speaking to an audience of about 4,000 students at a program called "The World Without Zionism," in preparation for an annual anti-Israel demonstration on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

"The establishment of Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said, according to the press agency. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, in contrast, proposed a dialogue among civilizations and pursued a policy of détente.

International Herald Tribune, October 27, 2005
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php


More statements from Ahmadinejad:

On Israel's 60th birthday, Ahmadinejad gave a speech, in which, according to the official IRNA news agency, he stated "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg


In a subsequent speech, Ahmadinejad stated "The Zionist regime is dying," and that "The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations (...) they can save the Zionist regime from death." Ahmadinejad also stated that "They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)".

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHOS43245220080514?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews


While speaking at a gathering of foreign guests marking the 19th anniversary of the death of Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as stating that "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH23449220080602

etc., etc.


PS - Those who insist on "debunking" Ahmadinejad's direct quotations, despite their having been supplied by the official Iranian press agency, should read the relevant and comprehensive Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[Chulanowa]

21. Thanks. I was thinking of his "wiped from the pages of history" comment

Thanks for the extra sources

So for someone so knowledgeable about Ahmedinejad, surely you're aware of all the powers his position entails, and that "President of Iran" is quite different from say "President of the United States"?

Of course... Israel will cease to exist, very likely within the lifetimes of people now living. It's not a threat being made, there is no "We're coming to kill you". Simple statement of fact that the last great experiment in colonialism and eugenic nationalism will cease to exist. Demographics paired with political pressure.

I understand that some people are upset at the idea of there not being a racist nation based entirely on what some mythological genocidal sky-person is claimed to have told a couple dudes with goats a few thousand years ago. I shed a tear for these people.

[Psephos]

25. Food for thought there

Thank you. I appreciate civil and stimulating discussion. :)

Although I don't agree with your opinion regarding Israel, it's certainly plausible, especially should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, you're quite correct about the limited powers of the Iranian president vs. those of the American president. Behind the scenes, the supreme mullahs, under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, run the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad's extreme religiosity and eschatological obsessions are a reflection of his obeisance to the mullahocracy.

[Chulanowa]

29. Now maybe you should try for "informed" or "logical"

No. Iran obliterating Israel with nukes is not the least bit plausible, no matter how much the pro-Israel crowd desperately wishes it would happen.

First, Iran is not looking to get nuclear weapons. Doing so would violate numerous treaties and invite retribution
Second, if they were, a nuke is a really stupid aggressive weapon. They're almost purely defensive by nature.
Third, if Iran launched anyway, the only way it would hit is if the Israeli military allowed it to - they have a nice defense system.
Fourth, whether it hits or or not (and it'll likely be "not") Israel launches a number of its own nukes and bakes Tehran

So that's four levels of exponentially-increasing unlikeliness that still probably doesn't touch a hair on Israel's head and ends up bad for Iran. Please. Ditch that dumb fucking fantasy. I know, it's good rant material, the evil Muslims in their evil turbans with their evil hooked noses throwing evil nukes at evil innocent Israel... But it hasn't got a fucking shred of reality behind it.

And no. There is no "behind the scenes". There is no pretense that the president of Iran is a power in Iran. The Ayatollah and his council of clerics rule quite openly, make absolutely no secret of it, or of their governing policies. Again we fall into the "evil muslims in evil black robes ruling an evil theocracy with an evil conspiracy" sort of shit. Knock it off.

Contrary to what poor products of our propaganda culture such as yourself think, Iran is not the new answer to the old Evil Empire, with faceless automatons adhering blindly to whatever the commies islamofascists crank out. There are significant differences in the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad and the policies of the government he works for. He does not set policy. He rants incoherently most of the time. And I wonder, what the fuck will you guys do with yourselves after the next Iranian elections put in a moderate?

[Psephos]

31. I was obviously wrong about your abilities to be civil and tolerant of opinions other than your own

so long

[Chulanowa]

33. You were wrong about several other things, too

But thanks for only acknowledging the one and ignoring the many others.

[Alamuti Lotus]

22. Who is talking about it, and who is actually acting it out?

For crazy reasons, I find the latter more relevant.

[Psephos]

23. I think that will be more clear once Iran has a working nuclear weapon n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

24. speculation on the hypothetical, potential future vs. the ongoing, very real present

once again, which is more relevant?

[Psephos]

26. You tell me. 6,000 centrifuges running 24/7 as we speak.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/25/content_10897379.htm

I'd like to see an easing of tensions in the present. Iran's nuclear program is having the opposite effect.

[Alamuti Lotus]

27. more on the future, no comment on the present?

not that I would actually expect the response I am hinting at.

[Psephos]

28. Those centrifuges are running in the present - please set aside the straw bale

Those centrifuges, along with Ahmadinejad's regular, unprovoked bellicose and anti-Semitic threats are making many countries unhappy in the present. (By the way, I'm a post-Catholic, so we can avoid that strawman right now, too.)

All of which makes the present more unstable than it need be.

The US has undergone a change for the better recently. Perhaps the Iranians will follow the example presently. ;-)

[readmoreoften]

15. Khamenei has drooled and shouted about blowing countries off the map? I don't remember that.

I also don't remember him kidnapping or engaging in hostile acts either. OH, you must be talking about the Iranian Revolution in 1979 when they ousted the dictator we put in place after assassinating their democratically elected official. Right...

[Chulanowa]

30. Well, we didn't assassinate him...

We just deposed him with the threat of assassination...

Psephos is operating on the idea that no matter what, Iran is wrong and evil. It's kind of like if you were to isolate a child with nothing more than Ronald Reagan campaign speeches to learn language from.

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. Correct assessment, mostly "more of the same" where it counts

as should have been expected.

[Doctor_J]

32. Hmm...So do Boner and the Limbeciles

How interesting

[spanone]

34. well if he thought the us was gonna dump israel, he's really out of touch