World leaders' quotes on Obama election win (including Iran's!), page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 02:17 AM by justgeneric
Quoted by Agit8dChop

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


Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be? But where is Iran's representation at the UN? They have refused and been refused.

If the UN were used as it was intended it might not be the Fluffy organization it's often seen as. No one really takes it seriously unless there are legal issues to be promoted or denied. It has ceased to be the entity it was meant to be. A center of dialogue and discovery and pro action!

I do agree with you that if talks are to happen it should be a PUBLIC affair with input requested from a variety of people and organizations both Governmental and Public.

Baring that a complete overhaul of the UN might be a great idea. It seems to be more of a Multi-national Legal think tank than anything else.

Lobbying sanctions for infractions. No real dialogue or pro action coming out of it lately it all seems to be after the fact reactionary tactics.

Sure there has been good stuff but with so many countries NOT participating (and these are countries we NEED to be in contact with) it really misses it's mark.

Edit to add: I hope to heck Obama would know of all the Consulates LOL he's a fresh'un but not that fresh!

[edit on 11/7/2008 by justgeneric]
edit to add: US dialogue with Iran/UN sanctions

UN and Iran

And as for Israel...they talk a good talk but what REALLY goes on over there is a totally different thing. Words don't mean much with some countries.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by justgeneric]

[edit on 11/7/2008 by justgeneric]


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 04:44 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by centurion1211


You think it's maybe not that the Iranian partcicularly endorse Obama, but rather that the other option made singing jokes about 'bomb bomb bombing Iran' ??



reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 06:03 AM by Agit8dChop
reply to post by justgeneric


The UN has become as uselful as Bush himself.
Its now a contaminated entity, because it couldnt stop the Iraq war.

And for the record, the world has changed this past 8yrs.

All those methods and systems that were in place BEFORE 2002, will not work now.
When the world leader/super power fools the world and launches a war for no reason, all the benchmarks go out the window.

diplomats, embassies, Un.... its all useless if its not coming from the Man himself.

Why send a diplomat to speak chinese whispers?

Send the president, to sit down with all the leaders involved and work out a way to fix the Bullplop.

Its time to let it hangout out and take some chances.

Send Obama the Iranian president, the Russian president, the Iraqi president, the Israeli president, the chinese president and the english PM, to the UN.

have it broadcast live on Television, and have them discuss all the current issues affecting the safety and prosperity of mankind.

When there's no diplomats to hide behind, or no double speak, no media bias you have to be honest.

thats what the world needs!


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 09:21 AM by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by centurion1211

Sorry, but someone saying "mute point" instead of "moot point" is a pet peeve of mine.



Dood. It's the same difference, irregardless.

Maybe that was used to make a point. I often do this to talk about how "banal" somethng is, but I pronounce it "BAY-nal." Mostly, it drives my wife nuts.

It might indeed be mute, when you consider that Clinton and Bush both spent incredible energy on a "roadmap to peace" in the M.E., and no one will even remember they even bothered, once my alzheimer's begins to manifest.


Seriously, though. While the republicans definitely have some deficits, one of the major problems that Democrats have had for 50 years is a startling naiviete when it comes to international affairs.

Kennedy's screw up in the bay of pigs permanently damaged our reputation for mounting a blitzkrieg style military operation (the only kind that have worked since WWII), which gave the Soviets reason to believe they could mess with the US and win.

His further screw up, now called the "Cuban Missle Crisis," nearly nuked the earth.

And yet democrats cheer up at the thought that the POTUS might make a pilgrimage to see Achmadinejad (who isn't even their head of government!). When in islamic culture, the person who comes, the guest, is seen as acknowledging his inferiority before his host.

Hosting in Islamic culture is to assume the role of pater familias, the senior and mature presence in the room.

Did you notice when Achmednejad came to the US 2 years ago, it was very carefully described as a "tour" rather than his "coming to visit america." Because if he had visited the white house, in the eyes of his arab neighbors, he would represent the "client state," paying homage to the President.

But the real problem, beyond the culture-bound implication of who sits on whose sofa, lies the real problem:

Liberals always assume that they are smarter than everyone else.

Liberals have trouble admiting that "evil" actually exists.

Since they don't believe in the reality of evil (outside of the USA), they imagine that international problems are caused by someone's "lack of communication," rather than the fact that some of the other nations are run by people who really are what liberals only wish George bush was.

Most of them don't even realize that less than 36 months ago, Chavez of Venezuela openly talked about seizing the Dutch-owned carribean islands of Aruba, Bonnaire, and Curacao. Now, they noticed when Connie Rice said menacing things back at Venezuela, and were suitably horrified. None of them were the least bit bothered by the fact that Chavez was talking about annexing someone else's property, and the Dutch said they couldn't hold their islands without "international" military aid.

Webpage of the Dutch ministry for foreign affairs
The situation as described on a pacifist(!) website

But then, the problem must have been a "communications breakdown," right? It must have been the evil George Bush, thinking he runs the world...

By all means, lets have Obama go and hold a press conference with Chavez.

Oh, does Obama speak spanish? No? then we'll need a diplomat or two .... to translate. Oooh, no, we can't do that, or we'd be back to the "old fashioned" way of international relations, that is the whole point of this thread.

Maybe Obama could just smile and wave. Maybe that would fix things.



all the beast.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 10:58 AM by asmeone2
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


Please don't try to type for me.

I put an example of something in my personal life that was bothing me. Those comments were as I said directed at them and not the entire populace of America.

Nowhere did I state that my dislike for them extended to all Republicans or that I thought everyone for/against the war was inherantly on faith or another.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 11:02 AM by asmeone2
reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Your points are good ones Dr. but there are limits to what a diplomat can do to influence the turn of world events.

They can't absolutely speak for the person in charge of the country if the decision-making is laregely his, or whatever voting party would have to actually decide to enforce whatever policies he suggests.

Plus, at least I think, it shows much more comittment to peace or whatever the dispute is when the leaders themselves show up, instead of talking thorugh their middle-man.

And as noted, letting the talks be in public is both corteous and important to ensure that all views are equally considered.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 11:06 AM by asmeone2
reply to post by centurion1211


Not intentionally rose-colored. It's almost impossible to get a "Good" grasp of history that recent enough to be rememberd by the population but still before one's birth. I can read the historical accounts and find people who say that it was a good period or a bad period but don't have the ability to judge from my own experience.


And that wasn't me that said Regan was wishy-washy... I think he had a heck of a set of brass ones, for better or worse...


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 12:05 PM by jibeho
reply to post by dbates


Priceless comments. Apparently not out of character for him. Certainly not the kind of comments you would expect to hear from an allied nation. Obama will have a tough row to hoe in regards to gaining respect from abroad. Our enemy nations are licking their chops.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 01:25 PM by justgeneric
reply to post by centurion1211



Moot Mute...yes yes. So allow it to detract or move along to the content?

The point being it could very well be as effective as being MUTE LOL so it's an appropriate typo. Dialogue should be established however the effectiveness of it as pointed out by Dr., has historically, not always worked.

Pet peeves of mine: people who nit pik over spelling or grammar when the point can be easily understood and comprehended just the same. LOL.

And I called Reagan wishy washy. And yes I remember the Reagan years well and what it meant for Canada. Wishy Washy applies to many of his policies...he was also another one who suffered from inaction hense my reason to give him the pet name Wishy Washy...Combine that with the then, Prime Minister Brian (who) Mulroney and you get inaction X 2....climate changes, North American Unity, Free Trade, Reducing the Third World Debt...many other topics during that period and what do we have today? Same Smell different pile...

Reagan made many advances in some areas while ignoring others entirely. He also left office in a rather large mess for his President Elect.

I wouldn't call Obama a "World" President...But the fact that the populations and various races of the world feel they may be able to identify more with him is definitely a plus for the American people isn't it?

We'll see how he does. Very shortly I think he'll have a chance to either shine or fizzle.

Bush has enacted policy changes and amendments to so many charters and changed the wording of so many bills and Acts and Resolutions that Obama, even during his first term, will barely even scratch the surface toward "righting" things. If he gets a second term (I predict he will) he still won't be able to undo much of what has already been done. Indeed he may opt to leave many things as they are for the sake of "practicality".


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 11:04 PM by mybigunit
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Ah yes, America's chickens...........coming home to roost.

Is the US responsible for Achmedinejad's seething anti-semitism (not merely anti-zionism, mind you), and his glowing letter to the Chancelor of Germany, suggesting that the german people should draw closer to their fellow Aryans in Iran?

And lots of tyrants stay popular by hurling invective at the USA. But most of the rest of them, like Chavez or Ghaddafi, don't feel the need to pursue nuclear technology, when they sit on one of the earth's largest oil supplies, but no uranium.

Or maybe what you're saying is, any hope reconciliation is now lost, because of events 55 years ago. In that case, it hardly matters which course America takes. Especially seeing as how the USA can do no right in your eyes.

It's a wonder you bother posting in this thread at all.
.


So he is an Anti Semite eh? He wants all the Jews dead eh? Ok then why doesnt he start with the 3% that is in his own country? Why would he drop a nuke on Israel when it has the holiest of Muslim sites there? No the difference between you and I is I understand propaganda when I see it and I understand war has been used all throughout history for the same damn purpose and you know what that is? To make someone rich. The peons who fight the wars get nothing except the dirt nap. No I dont think that America can do no right I think that America needs not to be put on some mystical pedestal that we can do nothing but right. Because if we do everything right then why improve anything correct? I urge you to read up on some history before scathing me the facts are simple. Iran has invaded NO ONE in the past 100s of years. We have been screwing with them heavily for the past 100 even giving Sadam Hussein chemical weapons to drop on them when Iraq invaded them. Call me what you want but dont forget to call me this...... right.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^