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

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]

Originally posted by asmeone2


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.

So you must absolutely be a "Republican Christian" to despise Ahmadinejad? You cannot simply be an American who despises an enemy, and a Hostage taker of American Citizens? You cannot hate Ahmadinejad for the multiple acts of war he has declared through his complicity in attacks on American Service Personnel engaged in OIF?

Not to mention that the last failed President who believed he could "Talk to Enemies" was Carter, and his actions lead us to the "Iranian Hostage Crisis", and a rise in Radical Islamic Terrorism around the Globe.

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 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!

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]

As you admit, you aren't old enough to know what it was like to live in Carter's presidency - 20% interest rates, high unemployment, iran hostage crisis, plus the demeaning of the office of the president. There was no "good". That's why he only lasted 4 years. His brother Billy was infamous for taking a piss off the roof of a federal building (State Dept. (?)) in DC. History can sometimes have rose colored glasses andit sounds like you're using them now.

Oh, and were you the one that called Reagan "wishy-washy"? People, if you weren't alive during the times you want to speak about, get out some history books instead of relying on the internet for your education.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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!

Check your own mirror first.

However, I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your statements are due to age-related naivity.

When a country has threatened to "bury you" and builds the military to do just that, and then says they like a particular candidate in your country, anyone with a functioning mind would decide to choose the opposite.

First off I am glad Bush is gone...he would be one of the greatest idiots that ever held the presidency...Secondly forget the dialogue with so called 'enemy states',if Obama truly wants to make a difference then first he must ensure that domestically America becomes strong again...it's people content and happy knowing the future is secure...then and only then can he start meaningful dialogues with the 'terrorist' nations to try to rectify the damage down by the previous administration. He can then go about the world having the backing of his people,showing the rest that once again internally America is strong and prosperous....this in my opinion will gain him more respect. more of a willingness on other nations parts to listen to him knowing that America is not a divided nation. But....dealing with countries whose heads are basically religious zealots will yield emptiness....until the needs of people are put above the ideals of religion this world will forever chase its tail. Religion and politics have never,will never work....only for the detriment of all concerned.
I sincerely hope Obama can change the political structure but I really don't think so......

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?

Carter is a treasonous wing nut who drove this country off of a cliff politically and economically. I'm sure Obama could find him a spot in his cabinet.

Originally posted by justgeneric

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

Or a mute point as the good Dr pointed out.

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

Check this link for correct usage:

articles

This is an excellent thread with some outstanding posts. The greatest common denominator however is our history of trying to "talk" with nations who have a completely different agenda from our own nation.

Iran is a perfect example of a once peaceful nation (under the Shaw) that succumbed to the power of hate under the Ayatollah (Carter missed the boat). How can you talk rationally with a nation with such a deep seeded hatred for the Western World. It becomes nothing but lip service and pandering. We've been dealing with this monkey on our back ever since the fall of the Shaw. They will never go away peacefully.

My god we have rogue Congressman (Kucinich) and Hollywood celebrities (Penn) that think they can just fly to Syria and have a sit down, sing a verse of Kumbaya and everything is cool. Yeah that really worked. The only thing gained from those visits was a photo op and some autographs from Jeff Spicoli. Now we have love fests with Chavez who is barking at our back door.

When will we ever learn from our history.

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 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 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 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...

My current favorite world leader quote comes from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berluscon while in a meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Evidently, he doesn't take Obama that seriously and jokes that he's qualified because he young, good looking, and has a nice tan.

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 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".

Wow the lack of understanding in this thread is quite comical. In regards to Iran I have heard multiple disses on Jimmy Carter and his handling of the hostage crisis. If it wasnt for our imperial policies ie overthrowing and elected Iranian government in 1953 and installing the Shah the Iranian Hostage Crisis would never have come to pass would it? Also all the promises that was given to Iran in the early 1900s by the British and the French and the insertion of tool governments then also. The western powers have been meddling in Iran's business for almost 100 years now. Can anyone tell me the last country Iran has invaded?

The fact is we need to talk to these guys and there really isnt a reason why we shouldnt. I dont think you war mongers have to worry about Obama. He isnt going to do anything. Israel has Obama in his back pocket and you can see this with his early picks of Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden both very pro Israel and in Rahms case once a citizen of Israel. The powers want war because they need Iran's resources thats how the game works. So dont worry you guys will get your war.

In regards to the world leaders once again there really is no difference between Bush and Obama. Obama made a lot of promises but Im willing to bet a steack dinner with anyone here that nothing changes. We will be bankrupt in less than 3 years and in WW3. Any takers on this wager?

Originally posted by mybigunit

If it wasnt for our imperial policies ie overthrowing and elected Iranian government in 1953 and installing the Shah the Iranian Hostage Crisis would never have come to pass would it?

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.
.

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.