Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview

Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview


Then why is Iran supplying Hezbollah with weapons?
Why are they supporting terrorism?

Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview


Yep, this guy is a gem. The Holocost did not exist and he wants to kill every Jew in Isreal. Your kind of guy, Blue.

Tell you what, you like him so much, move your ass to Iran and there, you can have him and live in peace and harmony.

mysteryman, Hezbollah is a resistence movement born out of Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The Lebanese certainly have a right to defend themselves. Ahmadinejad is willing to accept the state of Israel the moment Israel accepts a 2 state solution and the 1967 borders. Like most of Islam he says the atrocities committed against Palestinians beginning in 1948 must be acknowledged and such acknowledgement would go a long way towards a settlement. The failure of the western world even to admit the wrong done to Pazlestinians shows a huge ego problem. Palestinians were chased out of their homes to make cway for an Israeli state. As bad as the holocaust was it did not give anyone the right to seize property of others who certainly did not take part in the holocaust.

"mysteryman, Hezbollah is a resistence movement born out of Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The Lebanese certainly have a right to defend themselves."

A resistance movement that crosses its boarder to kidnap their rival nations soldiers, after that nation had stopped pursuing the policy which the resistant movement was resisting? That's "resistance" all right.


"Ahmadinejad is willing to accept the state of Israel the moment Israel accepts a 2 state solution and the 1967 borders."

When has he ever given such a statement?



The way you speak of him is appalling. He is not a good man, he will bring nothing but troubles to the Iranian people.

Brookings, you ignore that both Israel and Hezbollah have carried out raids along tghat border. The capture of 2 Israeli soldiers should have led to a prisoner exchange and not the overkill Israel carried out. Now there will be a prisoner exchange proving the war baseless and needless. "When has he ever given such a statement?" He said that in the interview with Mike Wallace.

Here's the letter Ahmadinejad sent to Bushie. Bushie didn't have the decency to answer. What's said in the letter is what must be said if a better world is to be built. Bushie does not belong on the same stage as Ahmadinejad except to show a contrast between one who cares and understands the plight of humanity and one who dont give a flying f*ck for the human race. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Ahmadinejad%20letter.pdf

Blueflame1, if the forum had a reputation system, I would give you points.

It is really good to see that the Americans who are suscetible to television brainwashing are becoming less and less. And of course every comparison of Ahmadinejad to Bushie is impossible.

Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview


You should move to Iran as fast as possible. That way you can have him as your president asap.

Ahmadinejad has Democrat talking points down pat, things like Bush's approval ratings dropping, people without health care in America, blah, blah, blah. You could tell Mike Wallace just adored the guy, I don't know why he didn't just get down on his knees and lick his shoes. After all, what a prize catch, a prize interview, with one of the pre-eminent leaders of the world, and he is so informed, so cool, so unlike what most people think of the man as. An historic interview, on par with getting to talk with the great Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, or Hugo Chavez, etc. Just imagine it!

Enough to gag a maggot. No wonder some of us do not take some main stream journalists serious anymore.

okie, he has Christ a lot more down pat than Bushie by far. His remarkable letter to Bushie shows that.

Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview

Um, probably because the U.S. supplies Israel with BIGGER weapons, jets, and all kinds of other stuff that have killed FAR more Lenanese than Israelis.

And to many Lebanese eyes, the Israelis are the terrorists.

See, it's all a matter of perception. It is also a matter of actually understanding the history behind the conflict. The slaughter of thousands of Palestinians by Israel only intensifies the resolve of those like Iran who look to defend their brothers.


When Iran held Americans hostage, did we go in and kill hundreds of innocent Iranians to attempt to free them?

Honestly, with all the Western incursions in the history of the Middle East, it should come as no surprise what we have sown with the help of other Western Empires in day past.

It's truly amazing how unbelievable ill-informed some neoconservatives are on this forum.

Israel's response was disproportionate, of that its hard to deny. I doubt this exercise will lead to its longer term goals (disarming Hezbollah). However, Israel's actions were taken as part of broader strategic and military concerns. Hezbollah has been launching rockets into Israel since the IDF left the country in 2000. It was also amassing large stockpiles of weaponry in obvious preparation for a future conflict with Israel. If Hezbollah were indeed seeking the independence of Lebanon, they got it. But their goals extend beyond that, which is evidenced by their continued aggression against Israel since Israel's evacuation.

Hezbollah took this action right as the Israeli's were preparing for a prisoner exchange with HAMAS, who are a main political entity among the Palestinians, in which Hezbollah's is a supposed advocate. Hezbollah took advantage of the impending HAMAS prisoner exchange in order to extract concessions from Israel with an exchange of their own. The Israeli's now in a much more fragile position politically, were forced to cancel arrangements with HAMAS. Hezbollah screwed over HAMAS and the Palestinians in order to pursue their own agenda. They were undoubtedly looking for a strong response from Israel to reinforce their identity as Lebennons protectors, and justification for their own continued armament. (after all, why should Hezbollah be armed if the Lebanese no longer have to struggle against Israel?) though I imagine the response was stronger than they had anticipated.

As for the disturbing adulation some posters in this thread have of Ahmadinejad, it truly baffles me. Especially among the so called "liberals", as his governing ideology is completely antithetical to Liberalism's intellectual and historical foundations.

"Ahmadinejad has Democrat talking points down pat"

Can you at least try to have intellectual integrity and refrain from brainless hackery?


Is the transcript of this interview online? I missed the report.

I cannot really see how the kidnapping of two more Israeli soldiers (which Hezbollah claimed was in support of Hamas' kidnapping of a soldier) put Israel into a more fragile position politically, or that Hezbollah planned the kidnapping knowing that it would provoke that kind of response from Israel and that this kind of overreaction would be benefitial for its own ends...

Otherwise, really good post. Yes. I don't understand how anybody could possibly consider Ahmadinejad trustworthy. Off course he would echo the usual anti-American platitudes. That's a world apart from honestly discussing various aspects of a society in a search for improvements.

Oh, and welcome to a2k, Brookings!

I'm not so sure. Israel has a new, relatively weak government that very likely needed to reinforce its internal security credentials. The hostage provocation was likely to elicit a strong Israeli military response, and the political reaction from Western Europe and much of the U.S. electorate was quite predictable. The IRA knowingly used similar tactics to provoke the British and reduce their political support in America and other coubntries early in the 20th century, and it seems plausable to me that Hamas might have opted for the same tactic.

Hamas certainly demonstrated a high degree of operational readiness for what followed. Hard to suppose that was spontaneous.

It can just as easily be argued that the disturbing adulation for Bush by some posters in this thread is completely antithetical to Conservatisms intellectual and historical foundations. I believe Ahmadinejad adequately pointed that out. But I fail to see such adulation being espoused by "liberals" on this thread. One country's "patriots" are just as easily"terrorists" to others who don't see things eye to eye. Let's no forget, Israel is the one with the planes that can drop bombs and kill innocent civilians at a much higher rate.

And, of course, the endless culture of sabre rattling is readily apparent throughout that region. Many Middle Eastern leaders make outlandish statements (i.e., denying the Holocaust ever happened) in order to placate their religious extremists who still have influence in their respective societies. It is also designed to demonstrate bravado and hubris in a culture which takes such displays to heart, rather than laugh at them as many in Western cultures do. Saddam deviously rattled his sabre in keeping his enemies at bay, both foreign and domestic, by effectively using the ruse that he was armed to the teeth with WMDs. Afterall, Saddam was only a thug interested in his own best self-interests. This is why he pilfered the "oil-for-food" money in order to build his palaces and starve his own people. But he was never a threat to the U.S. in the broader war on terror.

I don't condone Ahmadinejad and his comments, but at least I understand the intent behind them. Saudi Arabia teaches their youth to hate us, despite the fact that we do billions in business with them every year. And it was mostly Saudi nationals who attacked us on 9/11.

What you describe as "adulation" is actually a Middle Eastern leader calling George Bush on the exact same hypocrisy you are accusing liberals of espousing. There have been many internal wishes both within this administration and amidst other foreign and domestic leaders to strike a dialogue with Iran, rather than accuse it of being "evil," attacking it's neighboring shiite country, and in essence both enabling them and emboldening them to continue with their nuclear programs and ability to influence Iraqi politics.

Israel's response was of course disproportionate. But I wouldn't use that word exactly. It was encouraged by the U.S. and seems to be timed nicely with the current political comate in this country. And as long as Israel continues to hold lands taken after the 1967 war, they will always have enemies surrounding them.

Your argument regarding Hezbollah and Palestinians is worthy in that Hezbollah was looking to increase their political influence and popularity, and both Israel and the U.S. played right into their hands. Hezbollah knew exactly what they were doing. It's too bad George Bush doesn't have a clue in regards to this. Conservative pundits across the country are extremely p*ssed at him right now.

There is much I disagree with regarding Ahmadinejad. It is the letter and his call of hypocrisy on the Bush camp which is the most glaring aspect of this thread.

"Ahmadinejad has Democrat talking points down pat."

In condemning such stupid remarks, I applaud thee.

EDIT: post directed at George, of course...

That's a very good point. Yes, I think the disproportionate response (if I may say so) was mostly due to Olmert's weak standing. Anyways, I don't think that this kind of response was foreseeable for Hezbollah or anyone, for that matter. Partly because Olmert would have had the chance to play all of this as a Palestinian related issue and just continue his tough course re Gaza, partly because the idea of bombing Hezbollah into disarmament seemed to be illusional at best even at the outset of this war.

The reaction among Arab countries, European countries and others may have been predictable, but in that case I really have to wonder why Olmert would have chosen this course at all.

Anyways, if he tried to establish his credentials as the guy who's big on security issues, he very likely achieved the exact opposite.

Brookings, are you waking up to the apparent fact that some people really don't like their own country, while they apparently have an affection for terrorists, thugs, and dictators?

I thought you implied that Democrats rather than just some people hate their own country and have an affection for terrorists, thugs, and dictators...

Maybe you really just wanted to say "some people" as in: a few lunatics. Then again, maybe you really believe that the "War on Terror" is a code word for keeping the Democrats out of the White House...

One thing Ahmadinejad seemed most proud of in the interview is that Iran has not attacked another nation in over 200 years. His letter to Bushie is remarkable. He kinda reminds me of Gorbachev when he first came on the scene. It would be nice to hear a lot more from Ahmadinejad. He calls for a nuclear free ME and of international arms treaties. Bushie on the other hand has destroyed international arms treaties and talks of resuming underground nuclear testing and a new generation of nukes. No wonder other nations feel the need for a deterrent. I think Ahmadinejad is more trustworthy than Bushie imo but that aint hard to achieve. More dialogue would be helpful.