Obama 'will talk to Iran'

Originally posted by theblunttruth

Originally posted by ImaNutter


Western Media wants you to believe that Ahmadinejad is the new Hussein/Bin Laden. I hear time and time again that "he said the Holocaust never happened" and "Israel needs wiped off the map" but I desperately ask any member here fluent in Arabic to translate the quotes in question and compare them to what we were told by Western Media. We in the West have hardly any concept of their way of life, their culture, and we sure as well don't respect it.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by ImaNutter]

Well first off, it's Persian or Farsi, not Arabic!!! alot of the language is based on metaphors, in this case "wiped from the pages of time". It doesn't take a scholar in any field to decipher his intentions. He isn't the next Saddam or Osama, he isn't even a head of state.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by theblunttruth]

Thank you for the correction. I beg anyone fluent in Persian or Farsi to translate his quotes for us here and compare them to what we were told by Western Media.

But I do find it interesting you ignored the substance of my post.. but I realize it is blasphemy for some to even consider what I said...

Originally posted by theblunttruth
When you have a country that doesn't think twice about stoning its own people, what makes you think they are likely to be trusted with a weapon when they publicly threaten the anhilation of another state?

Hypothetically speaking, the chance that Iran would even consider using a nuclear weapon is minor. If they would use their weapon (on presumably Israel), not just Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons, but also the West would feel threatened and possibly counterattack Iran with nuclear weapons. This is a scenario in which no one would gain.

The reason I would like to see a regime chance in Iran is for stoning its own people and hanging them for the smallest crimes. They have an extremist government that does more harm than good to its people. If they would have a secular government, Iran could very well be developing like other emerging powers such as India. Most likely, they would be developing even faster, taking into account their geographical position and their huge oil and gas supplies. Additionally, it would bring more stability to the region - especially if that regime would be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

It has become clear that two powers are required to maintain a balance. When the Soviets were defeated, the US could dominate and two terms Bush have shown to what that can lead. In the Middle East, there should be a power as strong as Israel - for the sake of balance. Because in the end it's not just Iran stoning their people, it is also Israel doing whatever it wants because no one can counter them.

Originally posted by ImaNutter
Thank you for the correction. I beg anyone fluent in Persian or Farsi to translate his quotes for us here and compare them to what we were told by Western Media.

But I do find it interesting you ignored the substance of my post.. but I realize it is blasphemy for some to even consider what I said...

I for one agree with your slightly over enthusiastic views.

Ahmadinejad is painted as the bad guy by the US media, not so much in the rest of the west. We don't get subjected to the propaganda, we just get to see it happening on our American tv channels.
Its actually pretty funny at times, it only gets annoying when we are subjected to it in US movies or by US friendly reporters.

Bin Laden is off the Radar and Sadam is dead so a new enemy is needed for the US war machine.. Ahmadinejad makes a good target.

ImaNutter you are absolutely on target.

As for the rest of you who have a hang up over a government's harsh treatment of their own people, you should ask yourself why are we in bed with saudi arabia and china... they have nuclear power and weapons... and as already astutely pointed out, israel also... so why the hypocrisy and lies to distract from these facts?

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;
but one must take it because it is right.
~Martin Luther King

Seems to me that the right thing to do, is to befriend Iran and assist them in bringing progress to their people and in turn the region. Since we own Iraq now, we should make an asserted effort to get along with our neighbors.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

To the OP - you quoted Al Jazeera.
They are totally unreliable and biased.

Considering that Iran is already holding anti-Obama protests - complete with mass public burnings of his pictures, it will be interesting to see if 'The One' can do anything with them. I doubt it.

Times of London

Reuters

Pictures obtained by Reuters showed the president-elect's image laid on the road for cars to drive over it, and other images showed demonstrators burning the Obama poster.

The lobbies are still in power in Washington. You think the Afghanistan build up of troops is just for making pretty?

Troops in Iraq. Troops in Afghanistan. Surrounding Iran.

IMO no war against Iran before Bilderberg approves it, which we will know this spring if Obama have the go-ahead or not.

Until now Bilderberg said no.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Theres anti-obama protests in the USA and on here.

your point is what?

First off.. You do not reason or talk with terrorists. PERIOD.

Wake people this is not disney land. As soon as Obama 'talks' to this guy, he will see a white flag and more attacks will continue.

This Obama tool is weak and will be a lame duck president. This is a dog eat dog world.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by theblunttruth
When you have a country that doesn't think twice about stoning its own people, what makes you think they are likely to be trusted with a weapon when they publicly threaten the anhilation of another state?

Hypothetically speaking, the chance that Iran would even consider using a nuclear weapon is minor. If they would use their weapon (on presumably Israel), not just Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons, but also the West would feel threatened and possibly counterattack Iran with nuclear weapons. This is a scenario in which no one would gain.

The reason I would like to see a regime chance in Iran is for stoning its own people and hanging them for the smallest crimes. They have an extremist government that does more harm than good to its people. If they would have a secular government, Iran could very well be developing like other emerging powers such as India. Most likely, they would be developing even faster, taking into account their geographical position and their huge oil and gas supplies. Additionally, it would bring more stability to the region - especially if that regime would be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

It has become clear that two powers are required to maintain a balance. When the Soviets were defeated, the US could dominate and two terms Bush have shown to what that can lead. In the Middle East, there should be a power as strong as Israel - for the sake of balance. Because in the end it's not just Iran stoning their people, it is also Israel doing whatever it wants because no one can counter them.

A star for you! I agree. The problem i fear is that these ultra-religious zealots that are in charge don't give 2 damns about losing their life and country as to bring about the coming of the "hidden Imam"...

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Theres anti-obama protests in the USA and on here.

your point is what?

His point is that, regardless of the leader and/or government the US has, the religious theocracy that you advocate are vehemently against any ideology other than their own.

Sympathisers like yourself are immune to the fact that your ultra-liberalist views are looked upon by the leadership in Iran as nothing but an opportunity to exploit as a means to gain.... Let your agenda be though, luckily the people calling the shots aren't so naive...

Originally posted by Cio88
First off.. You do not reason or talk with terrorists. PERIOD.

Wake people this is not disney land. As soon as Obama 'talks' to this guy, he will see a white flag and more attacks will continue.

This Obama tool is weak and will be a lame duck president. This is a dog eat dog world.

That was the attitude of the last US president and look how that turned out

The US and its people are globally despised, in debt up to their eyeballs and even believing their own bullsh*t because of the amount of propaganda coming at them since ww2.

The "Dog eat Dog" ideology won't help anything.

Obama seems to realize that the US of A is the aggressor, that it is quickly losing power and influence and that they are going to need all the friends they can get in the future.

Also.. when was it that Iran attacked anyone?

Originally posted by theblunttruth

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Theres anti-obama protests in the USA and on here.

your point is what?

His point is that, regardless of the leader and/or government the US has, the religious theocracy that you advocate are vehemently against any ideology other than their own.

Sympathisers like yourself are immune to the fact that your ultra-liberalist views are looked upon by the leadership in Iran as nothing but an opportunity to exploit as a means to gain.... Let your agenda be though, luckily the people calling the shots aren't so naive...

And what about Saudi Arabia? I never hear any of you conservatives, bashing SA or calling for a complete regime change there. Is it because they are in the same untouchable category as Israel?

The people there HATE Americans. I think 9/11 proved that when 15 of 19 were Saudis. Not to mention the fact that they hate Israel as well. They also have gross human rights violations and stone more women than the rest of Arab nations combined. Where is your call to war with them? There isn't one, can you explain why?

You conservative idiots would rather stop Iran from doing whatever it is they are doing under the guise of "the War on Terror", than actually going after PROVEN terrorist nations. In fact your previous President decided it was a good idea to help these people produce nuclear weapons. How dumb do you have to be? These people started the war, and now you are arming them?

Obama should be talking with Iran, working on closing the minor gap that exists, and using the stiff arm of the military on Saudi Arabia

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by Cio88
First off.. You do not reason or talk with terrorists. PERIOD.

Wake people this is not disney land. As soon as Obama 'talks' to this guy, he will see a white flag and more attacks will continue.

This Obama tool is weak and will be a lame duck president. This is a dog eat dog world.

That was the attitude of the last US president and look how that turned out

The US and its people are globally despised, in debt up to their eyeballs and even believing their own bullsh*t because of the amount of propaganda coming at them since ww2.

The "Dog eat Dog" ideology won't help anything.

Obama seems to realize that the US of A is the aggressor, that it is quickly losing power and influence and that they are going to need all the friends they can get in the future.

Also.. when was it that Iran attacked anyone?

The USA is despised because its become media flavour of the month to feel compassion for terrorists and to support the human rights of those who wish to take ours.

GWB didn't help with his lunatic foreign policy either, lets hope Obama uses a more tactful diplomacy without negating the need to address the threat.

Regarding Iran (post Islamic revolution) :

1980 - 1988 Iran - Iraq war (chemical and biological warfare included)
1994 - Iranian sponsored bombing of Buenis Aires (Argentina)
2003 + countless attacks in Iraq

not to mention the thousands of lives costs in Israel, Afghanistan and Lebanon as a result of Iranian sponsored proxies and militias....

Why is diplomacy or "talking" with Iran a bad thing?

If a war can be avoided and Israel can be held back from instigating war with Iran, and somehow Iran can be convinced to accept the offers from nuclear powers of assistance with their 'peaceful' nuclear programs in exchange for Iran signing on to the IAEA non-proliferation treaties, as well as ultimately accepting international monitoring of their nuclear programs which will not affect their sovereignty as a nation. Then the world collectively wins, peace prevails, people do not have to worry about a war it is a GOOD thing!

Iran felt threatened by the west particularly the Bush administration, with that out of the way now, perhaps a peaceful solution is much more possible.

Lets hope they find a way to 'talk' and keep talking, for as long as they are the innocent people will get to live.

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by theblunttruth

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Theres anti-obama protests in the USA and on here.

your point is what?

His point is that, regardless of the leader and/or government the US has, the religious theocracy that you advocate are vehemently against any ideology other than their own.

Sympathisers like yourself are immune to the fact that your ultra-liberalist views are looked upon by the leadership in Iran as nothing but an opportunity to exploit as a means to gain.... Let your agenda be though, luckily the people calling the shots aren't so naive...

And what about Saudi Arabia? I never hear any of you conservatives, bashing SA or calling for a complete regime change there. Is it because they are in the same untouchable category as Israel?

The people there HATE Americans. I think 9/11 proved that when 15 of 19 were Saudis. Not to mention the fact that they hate Israel as well. They also have gross human rights violations and stone more women than the rest of Arab nations combined. Where is your call to war with them? There isn't one, can you explain why?

You conservative idiots would rather stop Iran from doing whatever it is they are doing under the guise of "the War on Terror", than actually going after PROVEN terrorist nations. In fact your previous President decided it was a good idea to help these people produce nuclear weapons. How dumb do you have to be? These people started the war, and now you are arming them?

Obama should be talking with Iran, working on closing the minor gap that exists, and using the stiff arm of the military on Saudi Arabia

I totally agree, please see my above post regarding the lunatic foreign policy of Bush... Saudis are as guilty as Iran of human rights abuses and should therefore be treated the same way as Iran...

If this is true I am very happy to see that finally we have a president in Washington that is going to use his brains rather than catering to his profiteers wishes.

I am very please with what I have seen so far coming from the Obama administration.

Originally posted by Harlequin
Theres anti-obama protests in the USA and on here.
your point is what?

It should be obvious.

He's acting like you can talk to those people on an adult level.
You can't.
Obama wasn't even in office yet and they were already burning his picture.
They were already protesting him, calling for his DEATH, and he hadn't
even done anything yet.

Just the fact that he's an American is enough for those people to call
for him to die. That's not a group of people that can be reasoned with.

For Obama to think he can just step in and magically talk to them just shows a severe lack of experience on Obama's part. Or just more political posturing. Or both.

As I said - I won't hold my breath.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Iran felt threatened by the west particularly the Bush administration, with that out of the way now, perhaps a peaceful solution is much more .

Did ya' miss the links I provided? Bush is gone. Obama is in. They were protesting Obama - calling for his death - and he hasn't even done anything with them except to say 'let's talk'.

Those people can't be reasoned with.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Iran felt threatened by the west particularly the Bush administration, with that out of the way now, perhaps a peaceful solution is much more .

Did ya' miss the links I provided? Bush is gone. Obama is in. They were protesting Obama - calling for his death - and he hasn't even done anything with them except to say 'let's talk'.

Those people can't be reasoned with.

I think that is the media's fault. They will never tell the truth, unless it is in their best interests. Sure there was a protest, but how many people there were celebrating? We don't know because the propaganda machine didn't feel the need to show us. Iran is not some back water country, they are one of the more Western countries in the Middle East. The problem is that when all we get shown is the crap, tend to think that is all there is.

No the people that were doing the protesting can't be reasoned with, but in the same breath the Western people who continually call for the Iranian president's head can't be either. They refuse to look beyond what their idiotbox is telling them and find out for themselves that this is not the way things are. Probably because they don't want to see the human side of "the enemy"

reply to post by The All Seeing I


iran is a country you need to destroy the current goverment and replace it, since its run by crazy muslim fanatics. i hope Obama does not make this mistake