The full text of Ahmedinajad's letter to the United States

[Space Tycoon]

Okay, I'm not saying I expect to see Bush, Blair, Olmert and Ahmedinajad holding hands and singing "Kum By Yah" around the campfire.

But is there any reason we have to keep rejecting out of hand these olive branches from the elected President of the Islamic Republic of Iran? This is where dialogue starts, and when solutions are made available.

At least give the offer the benefit of the doubt. We've negotiated with bigger and badder characters in the past, no? USSR, Red China to name a couple. And whether you choose to believe it or not, we have regularly done business with even worse tyrants. Such as, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Algeria, etc...

'Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking'
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/)


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.



.

[DarkJedi]

I lost respect for Ahmedinajad when he agreed with wiping Israel off the earth. I totally lost respect for the man when he denied the holocaust as a way of gaining respect with his peers whether it's his belief or not. Denying the holocaust is throwing the olive branch out the window in terms of my thoughts straying even alittle towards what he has to say.

This was also in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to the Noble Americans:

"Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world. "

See above:I lost respect for Ahmedinajad when he agreed with wiping Israel off the earth.

More from the letter:

"We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief. "

See above: What kind of olive branch is this, Space?

More from his letter:

"The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices. "

See above: This 3 page letter from Mahmoud is a letter based quite a bit on his hatred towards Zionists as well as the US administration. In the quote above, he has enough gall to say..."Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity"????

This man is a shit-head and that's my take on his olive branch to the "American" people.

He wants talks to occur between the US administration and Iran over their nuclear rights and other issues. He's wanted this for quite sometime. Well, Mahmoud, insulting Israel and the "President" of our country isn't exactly the right way to go about getting those talks. Neither is giving the "Noble Americans" a letter riddled with Zionist/Israel bashing.

That's why this guy is a shit. Denying the holocaust a long time ago did it for me personally but all his speeches lately have that "I'm a hypocrite" aura about them..

I like the people of Iran and I think really soon, there's going to be a revolution and a new era of ideas rolling out from there. I just hope when this revolution comes, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad and his party are the first to go.

[Space Tycoon]

"We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief. "

See above: What kind of olive branch is this, Space?

All he's doing there is stating facts. None of it this is in dispute. And unconditional US support for Israel's attacks reflect very badly on the American people as a whole, thereby increasing terrorist recruitment and leading to the electoral success of people like Ahmedinijad.

But as long as we're talking about hypocrisy, why is it allright to have regular, if sometimes rocky relations with regimes that are far worse abusers than Iran? Well, it's because they choose to ignore or softpedal the Israel/Palestine issue, which everyone in the region is concerned about.

I lost respect for Ahmedinajad when he agreed with wiping Israel off the earth.
I believe these statements have been taken out of context. In any event, you have to take this statement for what it is: rhetorical bluster. That's all. Any serious observer of the mideast will tell you Ahmedinijad is simply "playing to the base," using fiery talk to appeal to his supporters.

He wants talks to occur between the US administration and Iran over their nuclear rights and other issues. He's wanted this for quite sometime. Well, Mahmoud, insulting Israel and the "President" of our country isn't exactly the right way to go about getting those talks. Neither is giving the "Noble Americans" a letter riddled with Zionist/Israel bashing.

I would remind you that we have heard worse. Kruschev declared "we will bury you!" yet when his time came to stand up to America, he blinked. And this was a former Red Army Colonel. Mao said that he had no problem killing millions, as long as the survivors were communist. And yet, when it was advantageous, he too could negotiate-- with Nixon, of all people. Ahmedinijad is simply the latest blowhard who will say anything to anyone to consolidate power. No different. In fact, the man is a lightweight compared to what we've seen before. He's not a Hitler. He's not even Slobodan Milosevic.

More like Lex Luthor in Superman IV.

The trick is to get him to acquiesce to at least some of our terms, while providing him with a face-saving cover that makes it appear as though he has gotten the upper hand. To use an old saying in salesmanship; "Make the customer think they're getting laid, when they're really getting f---ed." :anismirk: There's an entire profession devoted to making these sorts of things happen: they're called diplomats.

But as we speak, US naval forces are concentrating in the Persian Gulf just off the coast of Iran. It has been revealed that Israel has agents operating within Iran, stirring up ethnic hatred and division. CIA and possibly British SAS as well. Bush's presidency is weakened, and there is still the option of a go-for-broke pre-emptive strike against Iran's facilities.

Is it any wonder they want the bomb? People have this notion that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon on Monday, they will immediately use it on Tuesday. Wrong. Nuclear weapons are the best security available to weaker powers. All Iran has to do is look to it's east--and it's west-- to see how differently nations are treated when they either possess, or lack nuclear capacity.

I like the people of Iran and I think really soon, there's going to be a revolution and a new era of ideas rolling out from there. I just hope when this revolution comes, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad and his party are the first to go. I often hear about this coming Iranian revolution. It's all very well-intentioned, but where is it? What makes you think it would even be advantageous to us? What if the religionists were replaced with ferocious secular nationalists all hell-bent on more violence, this time directed inward? Iraq in reverse.

Revolution is a messy business. Rarely goes according to plan.

Better to deal with Ahmedinijad, while it is still possible to do so--while quietly encouraging the rise of Mohamed Khatami-like moderates.

[DarkJedi]

I believe these statements have been taken out of context. In any event, you have to take this statement for what it is: rhetorical bluster. That's all. Any serious observer of the mideast will tell you Ahmedinijad is simply "playing to the base," using fiery talk to appeal to his supporters.

There's nothing to be taken out of context with Ahmadinijad saying "wipe Israel off the map". It's been covered pretty clearly by his own words and in most of his speeches...

He addresses this subject last year which is covered in NYTimes, LATimes Associated Press, Al Jazeera even. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816)

Or is this what you mean by "out of context"? Here's where he backs down publicly on what he said after he pisses off Europe and leaders across the world by the hate speeches..

Out of Context? (http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18752)

Even in the letter addressed in your intial post, the letter to the American people, his pages long speech has copious amounts of Zionist bashing. Nothing has changed with his hatred of Israel.

Any serious observer of the mideast will tell Mahmoud Ahmadinijad that in order to be taken serious in bringing some amount of stability to that very region of the world....he needs to stop making hate speeches on Israel and start listening to his own words of "cooperation and empathy towards all humanity" as he so poeticly says above in his letter to the Noble Americans, Space.

Smells of hypocrisy to do otherwise.

Diplomats who want to extend olive branches on the basis of encouraging talks between their nation and another should not send out letters & speeches which bash the elected Leader of the exact nation they want to have discussions with.

Diplomats who want to be taken serious in the mideast and in the United Nations as well as around the world shouldn't encourage the eradication of a very well known Mid East Nation such as Israel.

Mohmaud Ahmadinijad doesn't help his cause of being heard in the worlds' political circles by continuing to encourage this kind of crap.

I cannot respect any ass-hole who looks like another mass-murdering Dictator incarnate especially with all the Israel bashing.

[Kaeos]

Blatant agenda's, double talk, misinterpretation, historical precedents, it's all hooey.

The fact is the guys is stepping up to make himself into some kind of uniter and is "reaching out" to America as pure propoganda to try and better position himself in our eyes, likely with the hope that we'll get our leader to back off.

The problem I have is that he can pontificate all he wants, but he has zero credibility and does not deserve the attention of the American people, or frankly the American media. When he says this:

Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.

He's about as full of shit as a guy can be. Justice seeking? Certainly. recently his country brought "justice" to a 19 year old girl, mentally challenged girl with a mental age of 8 perfection who was sold into prostituion by her mother. See she was found guitly of seducing a 50 year old man both seek dignity. Because she could not produce 4 male witnesses to speak on her behalf. So she will be summarily stoned to death respect for her transgressions. Article here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_25_56/ai_n13619662)

Another girl, 16, who gave in to her sexual urges. She was was sentenced to death, hung from a crane in the main square of Neka, and stoned to death. Now, the punishment doesn't typically include hangin from a crane while you are bludgeoned with rocks, but the judge said she "undressed" in court......she took her head scarf off. So the sentence was expanded.

Oh and the guy she had sex with? Well of course he needed to be punished too right? 100 lashed with a rope. I'm sure it must have stung. Aritcle here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/29/do2903.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/29/ixportal.html)

There are many more examples of this from Iran. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=6&start=90)

My point is there is no room to discuss anything with this guy. Historical precedent aside, this letter means nothing.

Oh wait, historical precedent? Didn;t I hear that Hitler wrote similar letter to Europe and America before WW2 started?

[Space Tycoon]

So can I assume then that you're both in favour of starting the bombing campaign? Or at least, you'll both find excuses when it happens. We don't like their internal politics, so they had it coming.

I can see there's no point in trying to change the minds of hate-filled warmongers, so why even bother.




.

[Al-Dog]

Spacey, I don’t think anyone is recommending starting a bombing campaign.

I believe they are saying that Iran is a nasty little country whose religious fanatics have way to much power and their political leaders can’t be trusted as far as you can throw them.

I’m sure you are going to say that’s like the US and Bush, but we can at least vote the people we don’t like out. Or vote in people who can counter them. Not to mention, as much as they would like to, our religious fanatics aren’t running the country (thank God).

But I think you are right in that we do need to figure out how to deal with them without resorting to force, or abandoning our friends.

[Kaeos]

Not to mention, as much as they would like to, our religious fanatics aren’t running the country (thank God).



Umm.....:headscratch:

[Space Tycoon]

I believe they are saying that Iran is a nasty little country whose religious fanatics have way to much power and their political leaders can’t be trusted as far as you can throw them.

I’m sure you are going to say that’s like the US and Bush, but we can at least vote the people we don’t like out. No, I would say it's a lot like many countries in the world today, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. We all know about the shabby treatment of women in certain parts of the Muslim world. Yet all throughout Asia, and the developing world in general, you will find communities that tolerate, or turn a blind eye towards the violations of women's rights.

For example, what about other third world nations like India, where there is a brutal sex slave industry, (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=FtqDhkXpjXpJ0jGQp1j2xRBVThnJcpqJ cKLqQHz11T9NYyD1qXW7!621580145?a=o&d=5002257271) well-known but largely ignored. Horrible, right? But it doesn't stop us from having massive trade and defense ties with that country, including a sharing of nuclear weaponry technology.

Because they play nice with Israel and otherwise do what they are told.

Yet for some reason Islamic countries are singled out, to the point where "Islam" and "misogyny" have almost become synonymous. I only mention this because somehow the discussion about negotiating with Ahmedinijad became an argument about the status of women in Iran. As is often the case when this sort of topic comes up.

But I think you are right in that we do need to figure out how to deal with them without resorting to force, or abandoning our friends.

Thank you. That is the essence of what I am saying.

[Space Tycoon]

Or is this what you mean by "out of context"? Here's where he backs down publicly on what he said after he pisses off Europe and leaders across the world by the hate speeches..

Out of Context? (http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18752)

Even in the letter addressed in your intial post, the letter to the American people, his pages long speech has copious amounts of Zionist bashing. Nothing has changed with his hatred of Israel.


Oh, and thanks for the link, DJ. I completely agree with Mottaki's statement here:

"Our friends in Europe stress that such a crime has taken place and they have stated certain figures that were actually suffered. We have no argument about that, but what we are saying here is to put right such a horrific event, why should the Muslims pay a price?"

[Space Tycoon]

"]There are many more examples of this from Iran.[/URL]

My point is there is no room to discuss anything with this guy. Historical precedent aside, this letter means nothing.


Isn't it interesting how so many of the cases you present are brought to us by the National Review online edition, the same propaganda organ that regularly calls for the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries. There's no agenda here, is there? Naaaah....

Good of you to do the neocons's work for them though. Maybe they'll send you a Christmas card.


Oh wait, historical precedent? Didn;t I hear that Hitler wrote similar letter to Europe and America before WW2 started?

Yes, and we had no business entering the war in Europe, either time. We should have gotten Hitler's generals to take him out early on. Then we would have had a strong counterweight to Communist Russia, instead of collaborating with Stalin, who was every bit as much a killer as Hitler.

[Kaeos]

Good of you to do the neocons's work for them though. Maybe they'll send you a Christmas card.


You are a cranky pants this month man, what gives?

Usually you're our stoic level headed philosopher from the great north, smart remarks like that are usually my M.O.

Just cause I lean slightly left doesn't I want to coddle ruthless dictators.

Sheesh. Can't a guy call it down the middle?

[Space Tycoon]

Diplomacy doesn't equal coddling, sir. I would hope the experience of the last five years would have taught people the difference by now.

The big picture is what is called for here. What works, and what doesn't.

[Kaeos]

And while your at it, where the heck is your avatar?


:Smirk:


Kaeos: exit cranky Iran argument.......nnnn..Now.

[Space Tycoon]

I'm considering a new one, or returning to the old one.

I may put it to a vote.




.

[DarkJedi]

I can see there's no point in trying to change the minds of hate-filled warmongers, so why even bother.




.


.....................................

[Nostromo]

You know ... it's funny what the French were saying early in the New Year .... N

http://www.ucm.es/cgi-bin/show-prensa?mes=01&dia=20&ano=2006&art=24

[tstone]

Well said. The Bush Admin pretty much has been an almost across the board class on DON'TS as far as international relations goes, with very few exceptions.



Diplomacy doesn't equal coddling, sir. I would hope the experience of the last five years would have taught people the difference by now.

The big picture is what is called for here. What works, and what doesn't.

[Space Tycoon]

Okay, I've had a day to think it over, and "hate-filled warmongers" was a little un-called for.

I see the American public being fed the same line of reasoning that led to the disaster of Iraq. And it's frustrating to hear people who clearly know better to retreat to the fallback positions.

2002:

"We can't talk to Saddam Hussein. He gassed the Kurds, sponsors terrorism and seeks weapons of mass destruction."

2006:

"We can't talk to Ahmedinijad. Iran abuses their women, sponsor terrorism and seeks weapons of mass destruction."

Etc., etc.

We have little choice but to consider talking, now. ran has stepped up it's presence and may one day emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Middle East.


.

[Space Tycoon]

Well said. The Bush Admin pretty much has been an almost across the board class on DON'TS as far as international relations goes, with very few exceptions.

And I think that Pakistan is one of those exceptions. I would say that Bush and Cheney have more-or-less gotten it right supporting Musharraf.

Meaning, they had little or no choice, realized they had none, and proceeded logically. And clearly, the presence of a nuclear arsenal made the difference, made Washington accept something closer to a realist posture in South Asia.

Now Pakistan is booming, they're talking to India again, and things seem to be holding level for the time being.


Let's face it, people take you seriously when you can vaporize stuff.


.

[DarkJedi]

They've already become a power in the Middle East, back when Imam/Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was in on the hot seat. They were certainly "noticed" by the world community, albeit not in popular terms. The effect of Ahmadinijad taking Iran anywhere new for his country than Khomeini's reign really depends on how Ahmadinijad & Iran approaches the future of politics in regards with Israel and other powerful neighbors. It would be nice to see Ahmadinijad follow his own words of "peace towards all humanity" that he preaches others to follow. If he does, good for him & welcome to the bargaining table. If he doesn't, he has no bearing on any discussions with the true leaders of the Mid East nor does he belong in any seat of power in the UN.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, remember that Ahmedinijad is not a dictator. He does not in fact wield supreme power in Iran, as there is a sharing of power between the clerics and the elected officials. Meaning that his rule is by no means permanent or long-lasting.

I don't know when the next round of elections are in Iran, but there is no reason to assume that the next President will be another Ahmedinijad. Our own actions have had, and will have a great impact on which direction the Iranian people choose for themselves.

I suggest engagement, tentative at first, but ultimately leading to some restoration of normal relations between Tehran and Washington. If Iran has all this influence we keep hearing about in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, then surely they could be enticed to use that influence to assist in restoring some semblance of order to Iraq and Lebanon.

In return, the US should step back and take an honest broker role, influencing Israel to make some real concessions to the Palestinians. Olmert has recently said he is willing to do so. Russia and Europe could be of some use here as well.



.

[DarkJedi]

Well said on those points, Space. I agree with all the thoughts you state in your last post.

[Space Tycoon]

Excellent. That's what I like to hear. :)






On a somewhat related note, Iran sure has produced more than it's share of beautiful women:

http://www.bodazey.com/MODELS/ELHAM_GHASS/elham2.jpg


http://www.bodazey.com/MODELS/VIDA/vida8.jpg





All the more reason not to bomb.




.

[Space Tycoon]

Speaking of engaging the Iranians in the interests of promoting stability:


Saudis Threaten to Back the Baathists (Again) in a New Iraq Proxy War (http://tonykaron.com/2006/12/01/rehabilitating-osama-and-other-iraq-remedies/)



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41363000/jpg/_41363549_afpfahdhussein300.jpg




Maybe it's time we got on that....


.

[tstone]

True. And we'll know we have made real progress when it doesn't take that to get someone to listen to you.






Let's face it, people take you seriously when you can vaporize stuff.


.

[Space Tycoon]

You know ... it's funny what the French were saying early in the New Year .... N

http://www.ucm.es/cgi-bin/show-prensa?mes=01&dia=20&ano=2006&art=24

Molly Moore .- PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.


Yeah, but... this is the key part of that declaration: "prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. " For that to be the case, the order for the attack would have to have come from the very top. That's basically the same as if that government had used it's own forces to conduct a military strike.

That's not the same as holding that same government responsible for attacks carried out by militant groups that were using that country as a base. Taliban allowed al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base. al Qaeda carried out 9/11, an operation which was international in it's planning. Does that make Taliban directly responsible for 9/11 and deserving of punishment? It certainly seemed so to most of us at the time.

Now, however, to me at least, the answer would have to be no. There is no evidence that I am aware of that implicated Taliban in the planning or the financing of 9/11. If we had responded with nuclear weapons we would have been guilty of a great crime.



.