Full text of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to America as supplied to CNN

[Jcrowley]

Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans

POSTED: 1646 GMT (0046 HKT), November 29, 2006



(CNN) -- In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity;

Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

Go Here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/

[originalpckelly]

1. While we have problems here in this country, but Ahmadinejad has no place...

criticizing any government anywhere in the world for their lack of civil liberties. Can I go to Iran and shout that I am atheist from the rooftops, and that God doesn't even exist?

I don't believe I can do that, when I can President Ahmadinejad can get back to me.

[theoldman]

3. As long as they know you are Christian, you can do this.

The problem comes if you are a Muslim. Muslims and Christians are held to different standards. Come to think of it, we do the same thing just not in such a harsh manner.

[originalpckelly]

5. Well, I dare you to go to Iran and try it...

I'd be interested if you live to tell about it.

[originalpckelly]

4. Oh this is a gem:

"Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine."

I equally condemn the people of Israel and Palestine for their brutality toward one another, obviously Ahmadinejad is unwilling to do the same. Where was the part about Palestinian suicide bombers?

"We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent."

Well he sure has a funny way of condemning it, considering his government funds both Hezbollah and Hamas.

And those Iranian Revolutionary Guards who've pledged themselves to be suicide bombers are really not terrorists.

:eyes:

I know bullshit, whether it comes from the religious radical President of America or Iran.

[Clark2008]

27. You do realize that Muslims don't consider either Hamas or

Hezbollah as "terrorist" groups, don't you?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and the sooner we realize this and stop projecting our own world view on these groups, the sooner we can dispense with the violence.

Hate breeds hate.

[originalpckelly]

32. They are terrorist groups...

and Israel is a terrorist state. Both sides are barbarians. I will not excuse violence, whether by America or any other nation/group.

[Behind the Aegis]

59. And...

Once we realize that not every "freedom fighter" is fighting under the banner of freedom, but under one of terror and hate, then perhaps we will be able to move along.

[BushOut06]

8. You can't do that here either

If you were to do that in this country, you'd get arrested for disturbing the peace.

[originalpckelly]

13. No, I would not, not unless it was after 11 PM or before 7 AM.

And if you wish me to, I could wear a T-shirt with that message on it.

[mom cat]

9. Or could I waalk barefaced through the streets holding hands with

a lesbian lover?
Pleeeeeeeze! We ain't that dumb. Yes we have our problems,but work on cleaning up your own. I do not like ANY fundamentalist hypocrite telling me what to do.
I seriously do not want a war with you Iran, but it is for reasons that I fear you do not grasp!

[originalpckelly]

14. It's good to see people not fall for this bullshit...

he's not a progressive and he trying to de-legitimize our sound advice for Iraq, so that he can keep our troops they stayin' and dyin'.

[Phrogman]

55. What a silly comment

What you can shout from a rooftop, come on.

[rman]

65. the US has caused and causes problems all over the world,

and all its victims have every right to speak out about it.

I'm sure many Iranians remember the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeq and the installation of religious extremist the Shah - by the US.

[malaise]

68. I doubt that you can do that but

your government has overthrown an elected governemnt in Iran.

[tecelote]

2. The main point of the letter is...

that we are all better than this. Well, should be better than this. At least have a shot at being better than this. Oh wait... Sponge Bob is on. I'll finish this later.

[originalpckelly]

6. Hehe, Sponge Bob! Back to this letter...

Iran's President is purposefully sounding like a flaming moderate because he wants to discredit our opposition to the President. This man does not believe a single word he wrote, well everything except the Zionist crap.

Iran wants us to stay and die in Iraq, and they are helping to inflame the already present tensions between Sunnis and Shi'as.

Maybe if he scares Americans enough by sounding like us, he'll manage to get us to knock off another of his nation's competitors.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. I love how he's picked up on the repuke talking point: "The Dems didn't win, the repukes lost."

:eyes:


<snip>If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.<snip>

[RethugAssKicker]

7. IMO... He is right...

He is basically saying that we should stop our agressive warlike ways.

Do we not say the same thing?

As far as the Palestinian issue.... It is true that Israel is committing a horribly repressive occupation of Palestine...

Do we not say the same thing too??


Or is it just too hard to agree with someone who we are be trained to hate??

And as far as the Palestine suicide bombers?...Did these occur before the occupation by Israel?

[mom cat]

10. I can agree with his assessment of our country and our foreign

policy (which I basically do) but still be sickened by the sheer hypocracy of the letter.

[originalpckelly]

16. That's because it's not his assessment, it's ours and he's repeating it to discredit us...

so that Bush will be around to go fuck it up for America once again.

[RethugAssKicker]

23. I guess I don't see the hypocrisy as much as you do...

He is accused of saying that Israel does not have the right to exist by the Western/American media, but he and others say have clearly stated that that was not true.

As to religious opression of his own people, especially women....that I also have a problem with.. But Iran is not attacking other countries and murdering innocent people.... And that is the key for me!

[originalpckelly]

29. I'm far from a fan of Israel's inhumanity in bombing the Palestinians...

with F-16s and helicopters, but President Ahmadinejad is on record saying he wanted the destruction of Israel.

Here is a link to al-Jazeera, which is not exactly a friend of Israel, and here is his remark:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map"

Don't believe me, look:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

[Jcrowley]

31. Never said it

DID AHMADINEJAD REALLY CALL TO "WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP?"
No, but mistranslation makes Bush's "threat from Iran" sound scary

<snip>

It turns out that Ahmadinejad never said what is being routinely attributed to him. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan who reads Persian, explains that he actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must vanish from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel." But Cole explains why the mistranslation significantly distorts the Iranian leader's words. "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

How would it sound if Bush kept repeating: "The Iranian president has quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, who died seventeen years ago, as saying 'the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time?'" Pretty lame, huh? Or if he were to say, "In ten years, Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon to use against Israel, which itself has had a couple hundred nukes for quite awhile?" Pretty lame, too. You can be sure that employees in the current incarnation of the Office of Special Plans aren't being paid to churn out that kind of stuff. They're paid to produce effective propaganda to justify the planned attack on Iran.

More:
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html

Neocon PR spin machine.

[originalpckelly]

33. YOOHOO, the link was from al-Jazeera, last time I checked...

they aren't a neo-con propaganda organization.

He was concurring with the leader of his country, who at some earlier point said Israel should be wiped off the map.

That is not a reason to go to war, but I will not deny the truth, nor should you.

Pay attention to what you are responding to.

[Jcrowley]

34. Filters

He never said it. just lore. It was spun and then regurgitated ad nauseum. No matter how badly one might want it to be the words were never uttered.

The truth is he never said those words as is clearly pointed out by Juan Cole and many others. This is just another of the infinite manipulations to demonize by the Western Press. Pretty standard.

[originalpckelly]

37. So al-Jazeera was filtering?

Please do explain this one to me.

It isn't apart of the Western press, or do I not know something about al-Jazeera?

[Jcrowley]

50. The story was not from al-Jazeera

it was merely picked up by al-Jazeera, big difference: Source: Agencies as it was picked up by NY Times, The Guardian, WaPo etc. It is also true that you probably do not know all there is to know about al-Jazeera.

So who was the source? If you'll look again at the story you'll notice there is no author. Scan through your NY Times tomorrow and note also how many of the stories are simply off the wire. Where do these stories originate? Who writes them? Who edits them? You might do well to ask yourself these questions as you filter out the manufactured news which is precisely what this story was. Remember the Kuwaiti incubator lies in the build-up to Desert Storm? Or remember the "crying" woman in the audience during a Bush speech from wherever, I forget, who was a plant. Or the toppling of Saddam' statue? Etc... Geez there are so many of these stories one gets lost in all the disinformation.

Here's more for your reading:
My recent comment piece explaining how Iran's president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government's intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.

I took my translation - "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole's website where it has been for several weeks.

But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available here.)

Joining the "off the map" crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who attacked my analysis yesterday. I won't waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u).

More:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

[originalpckelly]

45. And that wasn't all he said, from the same al-Jazeera story:

"Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point 'where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come'."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

[Jcrowley]

51. Here's the entire speech in Farsi

http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

Perhaps you can print it out or send it to a translator so that you will see how badly misquoted he was.

This is not at all about giving kudos to Ahmadinejad or demonizing him either it is being clear about how we are manipulated grotesquely by the Western press. Fake Muslim terrorists in Ontario and London, inflammatory cartoons of Muhammad, misquoting and demonizing Ahmadinejad—all of these things are propaganda artifices designed to be used to build a case for further attacks against Islam.

For the record I'm an atheist and can't stand any theocratic leanings anymore than I can stand militaristic states.

[ronnie624]

63. When one reads a news Item about Iran,

including in the English version of Al-Jazeera, containing quotes by the country's leaders, it is likely the translations were provided by an organization called MEMRI (Middle Eastern Media Research Institute). This organization has been linked to both Israeli and U.S. intelligence communities.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html[br />

Here also, is an interesting interview of Ahmadinejad in the German publication, Der Spiegel. No matter how hard the interviewer tries to goad Ahmadinejad into denying the Holocaust, or saying Israel must be destroyed, he never takes the bait. Seemingly, if he thought Israel should be destroyed, or if he truly believed millions of Jewish people were not murdered during WWII, he would have said so in this interview. In fact, in several areas of the interview, he speaks of the Holocaust as a fact of history. He has done the same in other public statements and speeches as well (at least in the ones not translated by MEMRI).

<http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,418660,00.html>

I am, by no means, an Ahmadinejad supporter, as some have accused, but I find deceit and misinformation in pursuit of a political agenda, loathsome almost beyond belief.

[Jcrowley]

71. Thank you for that

that's precisely where this purposeful "mistranslation" came from. However the truth is that it was not a mistranslation it was purposeful misrepresentation. That' leads to an entirely different set of conclusions.

It is necessary for some to pigeonhole you into the falsehood of being an Ahmadinejad supporter so as to avoid the deeper issues at hand and an honest examination of these issues. It is a diversion from the reality.

[cool user name]

49. Thank you,

I was going to bring that up but you brought some truth to something that has been drastically manipulated to inspire hate.

And I'm no fan of Ahmedninajad either.

[mom cat]

46. I agree with you that the statement about wiping Isreal off the map

is a mistranslation and that Iran is not slaughtering anyone through war. We certainly win the prize on that.
I do think however they have a long way to go on human rights. I fully object to inflicting war on them, but I don't buy theirself serving hype any more than I buy ours. Thats all.

[rman]

67. hypocracy?

How many foreign leaders has Iran selfishly overthrown?

When it comes to opposing democracy, supporting dictators and starting wars of aggression, the US has no equal - in spite of all the pro-democracy and pro-human rights rhetoric.

[qazplm]

12. It's equivalent to

Hitler telling Ghenghis Khan to cut it out.

He has zero moral authority. Zero.

[RethugAssKicker]

18. Has he/Iran attacked other countries?

Has he massacred thousands?

Or has it been just his words?

[originalpckelly]

21. Oh well, thanks for educating us about the moral superiority of Iran...

sorry that we bothered you with our petty opinions on the oppression of women and religious minorities in Iran.

[RethugAssKicker]

24. In this case, yes he does have the moral superiority...

Not just him/Iran...but much of the world.
Our actions in Iraq are immoral... Wouldn't you agree?

[originalpckelly]

26. Yes they are immoral, but that does not excuse the immorality of Iran...

I do not support our policy in Iraq, nor do I support any of the other inhumanity our nation has wrought. I do not need to be lectured by a dictator on the lack of civil liberties in my country. The RWers are trying to make America like Iran, Iran of course is already a theocracy. They have no place criticizing anyone else on immorality.

[cali]

35. Like how you're parsing this.

He does not have moral superiority, and beyond that, this letter is nothing but heavy handed propaganda encased in really bad rhetoric. Love the part where he states that "Zionists" control all the power centers in American life. What do you call such statements? Oh, that's right, it's an age old anti-semitic canard. That shit alone, discredits Ahmadinajad.

[RethugAssKicker]

39. Still just words.... Iran is not murdering innocent people

like the US is and has for decades. Period... Propaganda?... to make us think what?..about Peace?.. How horrible!..peace and good will for all mankind...

But I know, I am purposely trying to focus on the bigger picture...because at this juncture, that is what is really important...

We are being trained to hate this man... and I for one, won't give in so easily. He has flaws, just as Olmert, Sharon and others, but we don't attack them.... Why?... Do you think they don't say controversial statements too?

[cali]

48. Words mean something.

this is classic anti-semitic hate speech, the accusation that "Zionists" control American financial institutions and cultural institutions. Endorse this and you endorse blatant bigotry.

And sorry, I don't hate him. I certainly don't like his hate speech but I don't hate him at all.

He's a bigotl. I thought Sharon was a war criminal. We certainly do say that. I suggest you pull off your blinders. Or stay aligned with this sort of bigotry. No skin off my nose.

[Jcrowley]

30. Historically inaccurate

If the comparison is of Ahmadinejad to Hitler perhaps some evidence to back that up should accompany such hyperbole.

Moral authority? No of course not. Anyone who uses religiosity as a backdrop creeps me out personally but one would do well to step back and consider the context both present and historical. Any nation that considers itself God's chosen people deserves criticism and I can think of a few who have already put those thoughts into action by intervening in other's affairs in very violent ways for decades.

An initial process of at least understanding the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 is essential here. History does matter.

[originalpckelly]

36. Well, of course, we helped the coup against the moderate PM...

but he was not talking about that. While he is correct about the liberties of our country being taken away, those are liberties which his own people do not have, and that is the least of it. Women are oppressed in his country, so is any Muslim whom decides to renounce his faith.

[RethugAssKicker]

41. We didn't HELP.... we initiated and created it!

[originalpckelly]

44. The British didn't want BP to lose it's oil business...

and they came to us.

I'm not saying that to deny any blame we have for that horrible act, just to be historically accurate. (Which is definitely responsible for nuts like Ahmadinejad being in power.)

[originalpckelly]

15. Do you think it is acceptable to solve problem through suicide bombings...

because I sure don't. Both sides have an equal claim to that land, and both sides are equally responsible for the violence which has resulted.

But we should leave that to the I/P forum.

[RethugAssKicker]

17. I'm not the one being victimized...so I won't judge..

This is what happens... Do you expect them to throw orange peels?

[originalpckelly]

38. If they need to fight, they should fight like men, not cowards.

The targeting of civilians by both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict sickens me, and that you would try to excuse those crimes, sickens me as well.

[RethugAssKicker]

40. Well, if the US gave them F-16s and helicopters and a few

billion dollars a year, maybe they would have an army just like Israel...

and then they can kill innocent women and children just like the Israelis!

Just like men!.... Not a very smart comment you made there.

[originalpckelly]

42. So you're actually arguing that the Palestinians haven't killed...

innocent children?

[RethugAssKicker]

47. Of course they have, but Israel has killed much more

innocent children....

A proud and DESPERATE people will fight back with any means neccessary, and unfortunately
one of the methods they chose is suicide bombers... No wonder, look at the shock it causes.

When you think of it, the ME people waited a long time before they fought back..if you consider from WWI.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. So, is it all "numbers" to you?

Your response is nothing more than terrorist apologist-speak.

"A proud and DESPERATE people will fight back with any means neccessary, and unfortunately
one of the methods they chose is suicide bombers... No wonder, look at the shock it causes."

The same could be said of the Israelis, with the one exception...they don't deliberately target innocents. Unless of course, you are willing to "give a pass" to the recent deaths and the ones at the beach.

[Gwerlain]

19. While I applaud some of the sentiments...

my problems with this individual are:
1. The policies his government uses (and he is the leader of it) with regard to his own people are oppressive of the population his government purports to represent, and particularly oppressive of women.
2. His government's negative characterization of the state of Israel, and refusal to recognize its bare right to exist, are at the heart of the dispute that has divided our countries for so long; better relations would have resulted long ago had his government not maintained this position continuously.

Now, that said, the current administration had the opportunity to engage in a dialog with Iran a long, long time ago. The groundwork had been laid, and the Iranians were prepared to come to the table. And at that time, the Iranian administration was considerably more liberal than it is now. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that skillful negotiations would have made Iran feel that it would be wise to abandon their negative characterizations of Israel; and with a stake in better relations with Iran, the US could easily make it clear to Israel that problematic practices needed to cease if Israel wished to participate in a better, more peaceful Middle East.

This administration rejected that opportunity, despite the fact that it had been carefully worked on for years. Their only reason was that it was the policy of the previous administration. This was selfish, unwise, and generally despicable. As a result, Iran elected a hard-line administration. So if this administration doesn't like what Iran is doing, they have only themselves to blame. And if WE don't like what Iran is doing, then we have no one to blame but the current US administration. They had the opportunity to do better, and they squandered it- just as they have squandered every other resource we had before * came into office. Including the money the middle class had. Including our military. Including our self-respect, and the respect of most other countries and peoples around the world. Including our good relations with our allies. Including our Constitution.

[itsmesgd]

20. Am I paranoid? Divine?

<snip>
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart
<snip>


I wonder if the use of "Divine" has any connotation that could be tied to Divine Strake, the proposed bomb test in the Nevada desert to simulate how large of a nuclear bomb would be needed to destroy Iran's underground weapons facility. Let's hope that this is not Ahmadinejad's way of saying that he knows what the Cheyney Machine has planned.

[spillthebeans]

70. Of course he knows what is coming

for two years or more there have been Special Ops creeping through Iran marking targets. He isn't stupid

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/


This was a year ago, also Iran had plans to ration fuel but abandoned them now. Either the risk of an attack is now minimal because Ahmadinejad could speak with the rulers of the US in the CFR and thwart an imminent attack or because the Neocons are in trouble anyway.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11498/ahmadinejad_spars_with_cfr_members.html

TEHRAN (AFP) -
Iran's parliament has abandoned plans to ration fuel and instead increased the budget for the import of petrol and allocated a billion dollars towards improving the public transport system.
ADVERTISEMENT

The parliament had on Tuesday given tentative approval for the spending of an extra 2.2 billion dollars on petrol imports, slashing by more than a third the 3.5 billion dollars requested by the government, and mooted the rationing of fuel effective December 22.

On Wednesday, however, the rationing option could not obtain sufficient yes votes from lawmakers in an intense polling session and was abandoned.

Other fuel-saving measures such as a dual-pricing mechanism, an increase in the petrol price and payment of direct subsidies to consumers were also not able to muster enough support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061101/wl_mideast_afp/iraneconomyenergy_061101115625

[Sapere aude]

22. Well I approve of dialog over war. This may be a start of dialog.

Sure many of us will not take this as perfect speech but it is speech and not fighting. Now tell him your view point and have a give and take. Maybe we will prevent a war. Why not give peace a chance?

[ShaneGR]

25. I agree with what he's saying except for all the "zionism" parts...

Sorry, the hatred of the Jews just doesn't cut it for me. Of course we shouldn't blindly follow what Israel wants, but the truth is that while Ahmadinejad's letter doesn't discuss it, he's openly called for the destruction of Israel.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. He's a crazy theocratic fucker.

Hopefully we'll talk with him, because we sure as hell can't bomb his country.

[bdamomma]

52. at least this guy no matter what you think about him, is reaching

out to all of us, not like the jerk we have in the WH, who is delusional and will not talk to anyone, just my opinion.

[H2O Man]

43. While I do not

find him an attractive figure in the effort to resolve international conflicts without violence, or the threat of violence, the fact is that he is in a position of power. The US needs to begin to open communications with other nation's leaders, even if our leaders consider them our enemies. I do not believe that the Bush administration has anyone who is capable of conducting a meaningful conversation with this type of leader .... I had once hoped that Powell might reach that level of ability, but he has disgraced himself and our country.

I would look to some other Americans. Maybe a combination of Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson.

[DemonFighterLives]

53. Good answer

Our administration has done nothing to cool down threats to war around the world. Colin was the closest to an attempt. This Bolton fella is so revolting, I wouldn't want him to represent the square dance club or whatever. Condi has done very little and there has been no attempt to solve the I/P problem by Bush either and that leads to all of the other strife.

[Hell-A Liberal]

54. I hate to say it....

But the man has a point. Ok, OK, I'll grant that he is no saint, and certainly isn't moderate. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM or his policies. However, the fact of the matter is, the central thrust of mid-east hatred towards the US lies in the continued (and illegal) occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. Our $3B annual support of Israel and their violation of a SIGNED UN treaty does not look good from the Arab and Persian point of view. Let's face it --it does not look good to, oh, say 99% of the world POV. My fellow Americans, in our hearts we KNOW better. What sucks is we have handed this crazed lunatic the very weapon with which to spank us in eyes of public opinion via Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (among other things)

Zionism -- is a touchy word but from the mid-east POV, there is a sense of betrayal. At beginning of the 20th century, Zionism was a bold idea but one relatively welcomed by the Palestinians who graciously GAVE land to the Zionists to settle, farm and live. No one speaks of the arrival of the original settlers and how they lived in relative harmony with the Palestinian neighbors. Granted, Jewish heritage in the land goes back thousands of years. I honor and respect that. Israel has a right to exist. However, does 700 years of Palestinian heritage in the region mean nothing? It's their HOME too dammit. Look, if someone I invited into my apartment, home, country for a visit...eventually started to crowd me..I'd be annoyed. If they kicked me out, I'd be pissed. If they barred me from setting one foot on the apartment complex without severe personal restrictions I would be livid! It's a small (and not so elegant) allegory but hopefully you get my meaning.

It's time to put our $ where our mouth is. If we truly believe in peace, justice and the AMERICAN way, we simply must begin to look at this issue dispassionately and ......well...fairly. The Palestinians are not to be excused their part in the violence at all--but for god's sakes, don't you think we'd see a reduction of the violence and bloodshed if the Israelis would just got the hell out and abide by the signed agreement of 1967????? OK, if they can't manage that, couldn't they STOP building settlements for chrisssakes? Pause a little. Take a break...would it kill them? Would it kill us to demand better and more honest behavior from our friend and ally? Come on, now....we know better. An earlier poster stated -- one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. This is exactly te point. Many do not see Hamas, Hezbollah, et al...as terrorists, that is a fact.

If some took over my home and everything with it -- I'd fight tooth and nail to get it back. My own personal values draw the line at murder and destruction, but, yeah, short of actually hurting someone, I'd do anything. I'd be homeless and desperate...right?

Defuse the Israeli-palestinian conflict (to any degree at this point) and you defuse the main recruiting argument for Al-Queda, Iran , etc.......Will they find something else to be peeved about -- maybe. but why hand them the ammo? Why hand them the illegal prisons, the lack of due process, the rendition, etc....

I am a new and proud member of DU and the American Family having been naturalized 2 weeks ago. An avid reader of your articles and opinions for many years -- I am honored to add my voice to yours. thanks for the time :)

[chknltl]

56. Well put and welcome to DU Hell-A Liberal (N/T)

[StrictlyRockers]

57. I agree with you. Well said.

It's hard to get this argued well without something about anti semitism coming up. I love everybody. I think the Palestinians should get a break by now. They have been the losers in this deal for a long time. Israel deserves to live in peace, too. There has to be a way to work that out.

SR

[StrictlyRockers]

58. And welcome to DU!!!

:)

:toast:

[Behind the Aegis]

61. There are a few things wrong with your statements.

Your analogy is not very accurate, but does have a few elements of truth to it. What I find so disturbing is that so many people think that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is central to the problems of the Middle East. While it is certainly a factor, it is not pivotal except that it is useful propaganda to "rally the troops" as it were. Also, there was no agreement signed by the Israelis in 1967. And why must the demands always be made on the Israelis? When demands are made on Palestinians to participate, then people seem to have an issue with us trying to tell them how to act.

Anyway, there are many factors to the issues of the Middle East, and there are many factors to the situation between Israel and Palestine and is not as simple as some would like it to be (or make it out to be).

[GreenZoneLT]

60. Thanks, Sonny Bono, but that's OK.

When we need the advice of an autocratic religious nutjob, we'll call Pat Robertson. Now, go back to figuring out how 1400-year-old religious poems are a basis for contract law.

[eridani]

62. Juan Cole makes a very persuasive case that Ahmadinejad is a lot like Bush

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/ahmadinejad-uses-bushs-tactics-supreme.html

Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei gloated Saturday that the Iranian public had "humiliated" Bush by electing hard liner Mahmud Ahmadinejad as president. But in fact, the campaigning style of the two men suggests that in some ways they are soul mates.

Newly elected Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad won in some part by using the same electoral tools as George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

[chknltl]

64. My 2 cents

From my own leadership I hear that options for Iraq are all bad and worse. All of the bush plans so far seem to hinge around a failing government standing up for itself and letting our troops leave. I do not think that the present government of Iraq will be around long enough for that to happen. The American people are sick of this war, a growing number of Americans want our troops home soon or sooner. More and more Iraqi's are telling us to leave. Eventually we WILL have to leave, like it or not. As I see it bush's grand scheme of Democracy in Iraq is close to going the same way Democracy in Viet-Nam went.

Lately I have been hearing that Syria and Iran are offering their assistance in resolving the Iraqi fiasco. The problem for Americans with this is all the bad things we believe about Iran and Syria. The sad thing is that most of this stuff we believe we have gotten through the same sources that successfully convinced most Americans that Sadam had WMD and was plotting to use them against us.
I am left to wonder why? Likely I will never know the truth, but this much I do know: bushco has lied about everything else so I am quite ready to disbelieve anything they say about Iran and Syria.

There has been a pattern of demonization going on: disagree with bushco and you are demonized. Syria wasn't such a bad sport when they added their military to the coalition of the first Gulf War.
When bagdad bush came along and threatened to invade Iraq again, Syria decried doing that, next thing you know they are "loyal supporters of the terrorists" and they still have "Saddams WMD" and etc. Now Syria says it wants to help. So whom am I to believe?

It seems to me that if we "stay the course" we will witness another regime change, one far more bloody than the last one. When it is over America's grand plans for the middle east will be trashed. We will have "failed" again like we did in Viet-Nam and I wonder if the middle east will be so nice as to forgive us as Viet Nam has. (Viet-Nam doesn't have the same resources, (oil), that America is so addicted to.) I wonder if diplomacy with Iran and Syria, allowing their leadership in resolving this could result in a better solution for America.

When one looks at the posts in the free republic one gets a sense of hatred and mistrust, one I know comes from choosing to believe the horse-shit bushco has fed them all these years. What I see from many of my fellow DUers is that same hatred and mistrust being leveled toward Iran and Syria. My "bushdar" is ringing. What I am saying: What can it hurt to enter into diplomacy with someone willing to help out? Diplomacy does not mean "caving in" and I suggest we do this while we still have some leverage. Let us reconsider the primary source of our mistrusts here. If Iran and Syria are willing to help and can do so, I can overlook their internal religious policies toward women for the time being. (The one REAL problem that I have with either country).

Lastly: Thank you for sifting through and revealing the bullshit for us Jcrowley. You are one of the reason's I tune in to the Democratic Underground. I suspect that if Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could read this thread they would strongly support what you are doing for us. :patriot:

[VenusRising]

66. I miss this America.

"Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies."

Maybe this letter is a ploy to boost his poll numbers for the Time's Person of the Year.

Seriously, though. I think that he makes a few good points. However, it is hard to swallow that kind of message from someone whose practiced principles don't match up with his written ideals. One must be able to give the same as they ask of others.