It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World leaders' quotes on Obama election win (including Iran's!)

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

World leaders' quotes on Obama election win (including Iran's!)


www.reuters.com

ALI AGHAMOHAMMADI, CLOSE AIDE TO IRAN'S MOST POWEFUL FIGURE

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI

"The president-elect has promised changes in policies. There is a capacity for the improvement of ties between America and Iran if Obama pursues his campaign promises, including not confronting other countries as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also concentrating on America's state matters and removing the American people's concerns."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
So I can't like to my comment unfortunately, but a few of the very chagrined Christian Republicans I know are extremely Upset that Obama was congratulated on his win by Iran.

To them it's a slap in the face, indicating that Iran is glad to have a Muslim president in the White House.

Of course it hasn't got anythign at all to do with the fact that he's the first president in decades to show a willingness to actually talk with the 'enemy' instead of spout on about his willingness to blow them away. No. He absolutely must be Muslim.

Personally I am glad to see that all of the world leaders quoted here, in addition to Iran's spokesman, are demonstrating a willingness to work together to solve world problems.

Maybe that will get us the NWO. Time will tell. I just hope that these quotes hold true and that the focus shifts from military intervention to diplomatic agreements during Obama's presicency.

It's also interesting to me to note the different ways that different leaders are titled in this article. Those who are "Friendly" to us are simple called by their position, but those who are "Enemies" have a more imposing description.

I also have this quote from a CNN blog:

Iran's Deputy Parliament Speaker Mohammad Hossein Abutorabifard:
"Obama can change the defeated Bush policies and in so doing can play an important role in the future relations between the U.S. and Asia and the Middle East.

"… If the United States takes into consideration the realities of the world and chooses suitable policies, America can play its (proper) role in the relations between the United States and the countries of the region and theworld of Islam."



www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Of course it hasn't got anythign at all to do with the fact that he's the first president in decades to show a willingness to actually talk with the 'enemy' instead of spout on about his willingness to blow them away.



Total Crap. Every president since the revolution in 1979 has offered formal relations, and been refused.

Source: Seattle Times, OCT 24, 2008


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will announce in mid-November, after the presidential election, that it intends to establish the first U.S. diplomatic presence in Iran since the 1979-81 hostage crisis, according to senior Bush administration officials.....

...... The U.S. and Iran don't have formal diplomatic relations, which were broken by President Carter in April 1980, following the November 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian students.


And this UPI piece


Relations, however, remain severed, and there have been no diplomatic relations between the two countries since shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, when 52 American diplomats serving in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage and held for 444 days.

"Packets of incentives have been sent to Tehran in the past," said Jafarzadeh. The problem, said the Iranian opposition figure, "is not with the U.S. administration. The problem is with the ayatollahs who have no interest or intention of establishing normal relations."

emphasis added by strangcraft



That is all. we now return you to your regularly-scheduled screed.

.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
That's enough for me. If Iran loves obama, then I'm changing my mind and embracing obama, too.


Not.


During the cold war, we - well, most of us - were smart enough to understand that if the soviet union liked a particular U.S. presidential candidate, that we should vote for the other one. Somehow that wisdom has been lost ...



[edit on 11/6/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Starred yah Dr. Iran has not had a sit down meeting with a US President since Carter...Carter now talk routinely with many leaders that won't give the US the time of day...maybe he should counsel Obama on how not to piss off foreign leaders?



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
Starred yah Dr. Iran has not had a sit down meeting with a US President since Carter...Carter now talk routinely with many leaders that won't give the US the time of day...maybe he should counsel Obama on how not to piss off foreign leaders?


Whatever his policies are, I would like him take the option that results in the least loss of human life.

I would think that everyone could appreciate that.

So much talk about wanting to end terrorism, but when someone indicates that he is willing to hear their side of why they feel propelled to such violence instead of just giving them more reason to fight, he is labeled as one of them.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
Starred yah Dr. Iran has not had a sit down meeting with a US President since Carter...Carter now talk routinely with many leaders that won't give the US the time of day...maybe he should counsel Obama on how not to piss off foreign leaders?


If you were old enough to have lived during Carter's presidency, you'd know he was worthless then, and nothing more than a senile old fool now.

The best you can say for Carter is that he gives Bush hope that in a few years he will be looked on as someone that can be put to a good purpose.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by justgeneric
Starred yah Dr. Iran has not had a sit down meeting with a US President since Carter...Carter now talk routinely with many leaders that won't give the US the time of day...maybe he should counsel Obama on how not to piss off foreign leaders?


If you were old enough to have lived during Carter's presidency, you'd know he was worthless then, and nothing more than a senile old fool now.

The best you can say for Carter is that he gives Bush hope that in a few years he will be looked on as someone that can be put to a good purpose.



LMAO I know I look young darlin but I WAS alive and well during the carter years and yep he was a soggy man...BUT in his defense he has become quite a humanitarian in his aged years. Bush should be so lucky to be considered anything but a criminal after his term is up.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by justgeneric
 


But my point is that when Bush is as old (and senile) as Carter is now, people will forget and look upon him differently than his legacy really deserves - just as they do for Carter now.

BTW, IMO Bush's legacy IS obama - as in being such a lousy president that he made obama even possible ...



[edit on 11/6/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


It's far too early to say how Bush will be remembered by history, but any honest historian would be hard-pressed to call him a humanitarian.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Very True Centurion very true. It will be something to watch and HOPE for with Obama. I wonder though if a meeting with Iran is even a possibility with the way things are. Even if they could establish some dialogue over distance it'd be better than not at all.

And you're right...Carter did some serious damage through his inaction. he was a very non committal President. Weak ideas and weaker actions. Funny how it's benefited him years later though.

We differ on Obama though
I do think he will have a very hard time cleaning up the mess...this may be an issue as he is not very experienced. A wonderful speaker and very strong I think but...shoot I hope he fills his cabinet with a HECK of a lot of experience.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by justgeneric]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Edit: Oops, meant this post for Just Generic:
I thinK i have to agree with you... while I am not old enough to remember Carter, I think he is overly villainized in many ways... it has become popular in recent years to point the finger at him as the example of all that can go wrong with a presidency.

He had failings, as you pointed out, but some strong points as well.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Edit: Oops, meant this post for Just Generic:
I thinK i have to agree with you... while I am not old enough to remember Carter, I think he is overly villainized in many ways... it has become popular in recent years to point the finger at him as the example of all that can go wrong with a presidency.

He had failings, as you pointed out, but some strong points as well.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by asmeone2]


Agreed...sadly for Bush I think many will have a VERY hard time remembering any good he has done...there has to be some but danged if I can find it.

Even Reagan, another wishy washy President had positives, and Clinton same thing...loved his policies and they sure looked good on paper apparently.

Anyway I am a bad Canadian...I know more about US politics than I do my own dang system...but could come in handy with all this talk of NAU


Good topic BTW...I think people forget that Iran hasn't been involved in talks with the US for a couple of decades.

They are a proud people, and really given what they have to work with over there they have attained an amazing level of modernization and wealth. They have also been relatively peaceful in the past few years with no major skirmishes. If they are treated with respect and not trod on the way other middle eastern countries have been they may just surprise us all.

I don't blame them for being cautious and suspicious...Israel is constantly on them, Iraq is blowing up beside them and Afghanistan is a nightmare, the "stans" above them are always in turmoil and Pakistan is a hot bed...US is all over the place over there and they are basically surrounded.

I think talking at this point in time might be a good starting point.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by justgeneric]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
Very True Centurion very true. It will be something to watch and HOPE for with Obama. I wonder though if a meeting with Iran is even a possibility with the way things are. Even if they could establish some dialogue over distance it'd be better than not at all.



Whenever the animals of the jungle hold a parliament, it's always the tiger who complains that the lambs are unwilling to compromise......


Sometimes, holding peace talks can be disastrous. The European powers had originally refused to meet with Hitler about the German occupation of the Sudeten. Hitler spent time talking to the US press about how England and France were being "unreasonable." Mussolini promised that he would referee. France ended up "gauranteeing Czech sovreignty"---and then didn't go to war when Germany annexed not just Sudeten, but the whole republic.

A czech representative was not even allowed at the conference where the western democracies dismembered czechoslovakia in the name of "peace in our time"---a peace that lasted less than 11 months.

------------

Compare that with Jimmy Carter, who, in a conference with Israel and the PLO, reached a plan for "peace in the middle east." Under the private threat of a cut-off of US aid, Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and parts of southern Lebanon; they also agreed to eventual palestinian autonomy in those areas and the west bank. What has Israel gotten for its compromise?

So when I hear Obama say that he wants to talk with any and all world leaders, pardon me if I wonder whether he possesses the cunning of a Machiavelli, or merely the egotistical naivete of a Carter or Chamberlain---selling out someone else's country in the name of peace.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Some of your responses are border line stupidity

'' beacuse russia likes a candidate meant we vote the other one ''

Jesus, id be ashamed to say such bullplop!

BULLPLOP!

Obama is not MUSLIM! get that through your skulls.

Now, for 8yrs Bush has alienated leaders, has really taken America down the wrong path.
I think its about time some Americans pull their heads out of their collective behinds, and accept a few things.


like

1. Nations like Iran deserve nuclear weapons, if they havent attacked anyone, and if they have the scientific know how to get their, because thats what the USA did, and thats what the USA allows Israel to do.
2. America is not the world police
3. Being Black, doesnt mean being Muslim, a terrorist sympathiser or a disgrace.
4. America messed up going into Iraq


What the hell is wrong with Obama wanting to talk to people, and overcome differences the peaceful way?

Would you rather he put sanctions on them, and aggrevate them in the world media like we have for the past 8yrs?

Because that worked so bloody well didnt it!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   


I think talking at this point in time might be a good starting point.


Or a mute point as the good Dr pointed out. Also a very good point is that the angle is now very extreme in the middle East...the middle ground has evaporated or been annihilated. After reading that I did have a moment of apathy though Dr. but my optimistic brain cannot compute
There has to be dialogue established...even if just for show.

Thanks again Dr. as I now have more things to look up and remind myself on. As for Machiavelli. Genius. Unabashed and quite brutal. Although he did promote a LOT of dialogue between rulers... yes I have read The Prince...and apparently so did many leaders of the world, including Bush.

Most of the above mentioned leaders BTW (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler...) were strategical genius'...however I hold out hope for someone with a bit more "heart" to balance things out.

AND - at least ya'll don't have Harper leading you into the abyss. He's apparently a magician cuz he can borrow 25 B to infuse into the Canadian mortgages without it costing the gov OR the people anything...sheesh.

Off to google I go now thanks.

edit for typo

[edit on 11/7/2008 by justgeneric]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


What the hell is wrong with Obama wanting to talk to people, and overcome differences the peaceful way?



It's not a problem, as long as the people you are talking to want the same things you do. But if you have indications that they are insincere, or plan to use you to further their own ends, then you have to be really careful about what is really being achieved.

Dictators often manipulate democratic states through diplomacies. The examples I just gave are of totalitarians who pretend to offer peace, in order to get the democracy invested in the "progress" of the peace talks. Then when the leader (carter or chamberlain) has a level of personal investment in the progress, the dictator yanks the rug out from under further discussions. And to get the peace talks going requires a price, which is what the dictator wanted in the first place.

Hitler used this tactic to acquire both Austria and Czechoslovakia, as well as the German chancelorship in the first place. Saddam used the same tactic in his parrying with Clinton over arms inspections. The North Vietnamese used similar tactics against the Johnson administration, to delay US military escalation in the war.

Because of the deliberative nature of democracies, totalitarian governments can respond to changes in talks much more rapidly. And since totalitarians are not really interested in peace, they have no personal investment when the talks collapse---they are not blamed by their own people when they return home with dashed hopes.

Think of all the effort wasted by Jim Baker, Madelaine Albright, Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice on a "middle east peace process" which has been in limbo since the carter administration. blame who you want, Israelis or palestinians, or both; it seems like the only people invested in peace in palestine are the Americans.

Maybe O'bama knows what he's doing. But it's hard not to watch a man who's never been elected to an executive office, talk about "meeting" with our most intransigent foes, and wonder whether he's thinking outside the box, or merely has his head in the clouds. Especially when I've spent more time over there than he has.

all the best.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Quoted by the good Dr.


Because of the deliberative nature of democracies, totalitarian governments can respond to changes in talks much more rapidly. And since totalitarians are not really interested in peace, they have no personal investment when the talks collapse---they are not blamed by their own people when they return home with dashed hopes.



This is an awesome point and good to remember. We have seen it happen repeatedly and it is true that the Dictatorships really have no one to answer to when things go south.

Still people are expecting (as he has already said it) that Obama extend a courtesy of dialogue with the countries that have been purposely isolated (or allowed to isolate themselves).

I have no doubt that Obama will have stringent and consistent counsel. I do agree that his inexperience may be damaging to relations, if not to his own image at home. He's putting together a fairly experienced team so far...it'll have to be a "wait and see".

I still as many do have hope for peaceful negotiations over seas



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I think, Obama needs to sit down with
Israel, Iran, Iraq, China and Russia

sort out all of the crap Bush created between us,
then simply say

'' what do you want, what do you need, and how do you feel the world is moving forward at the moment ''

... wouldnt that one sentance say volumes? show that we are listening, that we are concerned and we are together?

When two nations disagree, you ask others what they think, why they think that. This one to one behind closed doors is just crap!

I think, the action of ignoring and alienating only pushes people who have quams with America into become more 'anti-american' and furthering their position.

If someone is against america and its values, and America sits down and tries to talk through the differences, so that the other state can see that indeed America's position is for the better of the world as a whole, then there's only 2 possible outcomes

1. The other state changes its notion, and works together with the US
2. The other state alientates itself, and at the same time shows the rest of the world just who is the stubbon aggressor.

True, some things you just cannot change your position on, but this doesnt mean you should expect every other state to do as you say, especially when what youve done is one of the worst acts committed in the last decade.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think, Obama needs to sit down with
Israel, Iran, Iraq, China and Russia

sort out all of the crap Bush created between us,
then simply say

'' what do you want, what do you need, and how do you feel the world is moving forward at the moment ''

... wouldnt that one sentance say volumes? show that we are listening, that we are concerned and we are together?

When two nations disagree, you ask others what they think, why they think that. This one to one behind closed doors is just crap!



First, you do know that "the crap" predates bush by several years, right?


Second, do you really think that no one in the history of the earth has ever thought of a "sit down" until last year when O'bama came up with the idea?

Third, you do know, don't you, that Russia, Israel, and China all have an embassy in our nation's capital, right? And that in addition, they each have a consulate or legation in every major city? Seriously, look them up in the phone book, sometime.

Fourth, you do know, don't you, that every one of these embassies and consulates has diplomats who work full time to broker trade deals, establish travel and international business policies, etc.? That even with respect to Iran, where we don't have an embassy there nor they here, that our diplomats in other countries attend the same functions as theirs do, right?

Fifth, which do you think is more effective, having a head of state announce to the world that he's going to travel for a week around the globe and talk in front of cameras through an interpreter, to a foreign leader he's never met---or to have our diplomat say a little something to their diplomat, over a conversation with a few witnesses present, over coffee or drinks, or a game of golf or backgammon?

Sixth. Bush has had Putin to his ranch to hunt, and likewise has gone to moscow multiple times. The two are reputed to enjoy each other's company. And that has fixed everything, right?

Seven. Do you think O'bama doesn't know any of the stuff I just typed, or is he just playing on the naivete of the average american?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join