Ahmadinejad interview on CBS

jonny72

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3289581n&channel=/elements/2007/09/23/60minutes/videoarchive3289424_1_videosection_page.shtml

If you ask me, its a pity the US reporters are too timid to ask their own president these kind of questions..

Manic Moran

If you get a chance, watch Columbia University President's introduction on youtube before reading up on it. Almost jaw-dropping.

NTM

User45701

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhcwsnmhaugb/

Thought this was quite good, he is a person you would love to have a good debate with

Dave!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxBEo7DbrsI

Fairly whithering indeed!

RedPlanet

I think it's encouraging, that he spoke and experienced such a hostile reception.
Sometimes it seems Iranian leaders are geniunely naive about how they are perceived abroad.
Iran at times is very cut-off from the rest of the world and that is something that hurts everyone. Reading about the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the student leaders always presumed the American people would/were supportive, they just couldn't believe that American's didn't identify with them and their struggle for self-determination.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

If you get a chance, watch Columbia University President's introduction on youtube before reading up on it. Almost jaw-dropping.

NTM

Yes Bollinger was jaw droppingly arrogant, ignorant and hypocritical.

Sesshoumaru

I love how he denied there were homosexuals in Iran. I guess since they hang gays he might be right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2176958,00.html

Manic Moran

Must...ignore...trolling...comment...

oscarBravo

Manic, don't accuse others of trolling, thanks.

Sesshoumaru, don't troll, thanks.

lostexpectation

I think bollinger was overcompensating, I wouldn't have invited the guy in the first place, but I do think those raining on Iran are in a bit of an outrage competition for their purposes.


there was good discussion going on strangley on the youtube comments will the
event encourage more people to find out for themselves if an attack on Iran would be based on lies or truth? I mean what does one do to dictators.

Ahmadinejad seemed to handle it very well, I just hope the Iranian people can progress themselves without becoming puppets of the USA, along with the people in Burma, Tibet, Sudan Zimbabwe Palestine etc etc

its strange Iraq was part of the UN wasn't it when was the last time saddam spoke at the UN in newyork?

odonnell

ive watched through all of Ahmadinejad's answers and the only question going through my head here is "is he sincere?".

i just want to know how much of what he is saying is 'what we want to hear' and how much of it is fact. Is it possible we see this man and the Iranian government in a light cast FOR us by our own governments and media? Ive no doubt in my mind that public hangings are wrong, stonings are wrong, religious segregation is wrong etc etc etc ... but then I wonder who am i to force what I believe to be wrong upon someone else...?

Its hard to get a true picture of what really is true here...does anyone else care to take a stab at it?

Dirk Gently

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxBEo7DbrsI

Fairly whithering indeed!

Fairly cringe worthy imo.

I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between what he accuses Ahmadinejad of, with what goes on in the US. Fair points if the purpose of the debate wasn't to point out stuff that Americans find unacceptable. If the point was that such things should be universally unacceptable then fair enough but I don't think that was the message. I think maybe the speaker was covering himself from a backlash of protests over allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at the university. (Either that or he is genuinely misguided or deliberately misleading his audience).

I suppose he did qualify his rant by saying "we have not been shy to criticise our own governments failures".

odonnell

I think he did a good job of representing the view of the people.

Not MY view... but it looks like, from all experience anyone really has of the american standpoint, it looks like he said what they wanted him to say - ahab and the white whale.

Its entirely possible he is of the same stance on these matters as the greater american body in that Iran is bad, America is good, Communism is bad (even though there are communist states who seem to work just fine) and Democracy is good (even though 51% isnt democracy its mob rule).

So, yeah - cringe worthy, but very possibly a fair reflection of the media fueled concensus view in America?

Im new to political discussions, i stand to be corrected and educated of course!

moe_sizlak

you have to take into account that bollinger took a huge amount of stick for inviting the iranian president to speak at columbia in the 1st place
fox news have been on the war path over this , this past week , it was hilarious how when fox news interviewed those students who were opposed to his appearance ( they didnt show any student who was in favour) almost all of them were jewish complete with skull cap

its not surprising fox would go into over drive in there demonisation of the iranian presideent , just a few weeks ago , a journalist from a lesser known american newspaper wrote how dick cheney had ordered a pr blitz for an attack on iran to begin after labour day in the u.s . all the usual suspects were to be involved , the weekly standards , the new york post and of course the republican party,s chief propoganda machine FOX NEWS
according to the article , the white house feels they only need about 40% support to launch an attack on iran , considering that almost everyone who watches fox news are republican voters and republican voters make up half of the electorate , chances of an attack are growing steadily

odonnell

I would think that the civil and sensible person in us would wish to sit down and actively seek a conversation with the Iranian president... I would never object to him speaking here, or Strathclyde University say as im a firm believer in talking in order to understand what someone, or their regime, is all about.

I get the impression that nobody really knows for sure what Iran is all about just now since the only real reports we have to go on are those of the propoganda machine as you put it. It concerns me that people would be willing, or indifferent on the subject of going to war with a country based on nothing more than bias reporting of a media company.

This guy should be invited to MORE forums and given the chance to either A) convince people his intentions are good and that hes actually been misrepresented to us by our own people, or show himself for the war mongering hitler-MkII that they say he is.

He certainly seems to WANT this opportunity to speak, thats for sure. what will come of it though. I found myself nodding with a few of those things he said in the Columbia interview, but i seriously wonder if we were being fed what he knew we wanted to hear.

wes

I doubt Iran is making Nuclear weapons, its a possibility sure, but I don't think there is enough info to justify a war. Hell, even if they were making Nuclear weapons, its a bit much of the US/UK/French axis to complain considering at least 2 of those nations are working on upgrading there own nuclear arsenal. Strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. Also, it should be noted that the recent illegal invasion of Iraq, hardly fills me with trust when it come to the US/UK axis.

Secondly, Adminjaed (a repugnant person to be sure), is no Hitler, he is no dictator, he isn't in charge in his country, that would be the Supreme Leader (you would think with a name like that people would know who is really in charge).

So a lot of the crap against Adminjaed is just bull ****, the guy isn't a dictator due to the simple fact that he isn't really the one in charge, I would expect the president of the University to know this before calling him one, or is the title of Supreme leader not clear enough for some people? Honestly it made him out to be at best mis-informed. Now I do agree with everything else he said about Adminjaed, but just because Adminjaed is a horrible person is no excuse to state blatant false hoods.

Finally the Iran, which has some terrible human rights abuses and should be condemned for that and I fully agree with the condemnation of there abuses, but I do not think its a good case for war. I have read that even the Iranian opponents to the regime want no outside help and that an attack would help the regime, as the nation would be swept up in a jingoistic frenzy, similar to that which has been seen in Western nations. We should help the opponents of the regime within Iran, not attack there country and harm there cause. I know for some people doing nothing may not seem like helping, but the people who we should ally ourselves with in Iran say it would be counter productive to interfere and I agree with them on that.

donaghs

wes wrote:

I doubt Iran is making Nuclear weapons, its a possibility sure, but I don't think there is enough info to justify a war. Hell, even if they were making Nuclear weapons, its a bit much of the US/UK/French axis to complain considering at least 2 of those nations are working on upgrading there own nuclear arsenal. Strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black.

Every state that wants power and influence wants the Bomb - India, Pakistan, Apartheid South Africa, Israel, Iran, North Korea. Iraq and Libya made attempts at it too.

US/UK & France? The victors of WWII created the United Nations and the Nuclear situation thereafter, and the rest of the UN signed up to this. Isn't it blindingly obvious that its more important that no more countries get the Bomb than they deal with theirs. There's been no use of these weapons since Nagasaki. I'd expect the present Iranian leadership to fling these weapons the first chance they get.

wes

donaghs wrote:

US/UK & France? The victors of WWII created the United Nations and the Nuclear situation thereafter, and the rest of the UN signed up to this. Isn't it blindingly obvious that its more important that no more countries get the Bomb than they deal with theirs. There's been no use of these weapons since Nagasaki. I'd expect the present Iranian leadership to fling these weapons the first chance they get.

I doubt they would. There nuts, but they like ruling over a country. I will reiterate it smacks of hypocrisy for nations, building more nuclear weapons, than anyone else to say to anyone else that they can't have them. Also, there more than willing to make exceptions to the rules whenever they feel like, for other nations that shouldn't have nuclear weapons. So if they at least applied the rules fairly, I would find there hypocrisy palatable, but they don't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i thought it was pretty funny that when he was talking about how useless the bomb was in international affairs he didn't even mention north korea, and neither did the interviewer..which I thought was strange

of course it's possible I had a stroke and missed all mention of it

odonnell

Whilst there can be hypocrisy in the notion of dictating to someone what they can and cant be allowed to do - the world wars helped develop weapons out of necessity - now they are arguably no longer necessary yet we cant UNinvent them - should other countries be allowed to pursue a weapon that is deemed so terrible that everyone wishes it hadnt been invented at all? whilst i see the vague hypocrisy in saying "no, we have them, but we wont let you have them", i cant for the life of me agree with you Wes that these decisions are made willy nilly, nor whenever ANYONE 'feels like it'.

The rules were made by people who agreed to follow them - one of the countries to have signed UP to these rules is.... IRAN.

The question isnt whether or not we think they should have nuclear weapons, that was never relevant - the question is, "are they developing them, or trying to develop them, when they signed up to a treaty stating they wouldnt - are they lying to us, and if so - why!??"

Thats the question, and there in lies the danger. Theres no hypocrisy in suspecting youre being lied to in good faith.

The other way to view it is to think of the world as a huge neighbourhood with a few disruptive families. All the families who wish to live in peace will not put up with the disruptive ones, hence - if the disruptive ones want to live problem free and integrate with the entire neighbourhood - they need to prove they wont be bullying our kids, causing trouble with our neighbours, or letting their dogs crap on our lawn. Theres nothing hypocritical about the decent many standing up to the vile few. Obviously, im not saying the UK or the US are flawless angels when it comes to their governments, but the international community cant allow 1 state to dictate the actions of the many, nor can they allow 1 state to be an aggressor - surely?

wes

odonnell wrote:

Whilst there can be hypocrisy in the notion of dictating to someone what they can and cant be allowed to do - the world wars helped develop weapons out of necessity - now they are arguably no longer necessary yet we cant UNinvent them - should other countries be allowed to pursue a weapon that is deemed so terrible that everyone wishes it hadnt been invented at all? whilst i see the vague hypocrisy in saying "no, we have them, but we wont let you have them", i cant for the life of me agree with you Wes that these decisions are made willy nilly, nor whenever ANYONE 'feels like it'.

The rules were made by people who agreed to follow them - one of the countries to have signed UP to these rules is.... IRAN.

The question isnt whether or not we think they should have nuclear weapons, that was never relevant - the question is, "are they developing them, or trying to develop them, when they signed up to a treaty stating they wouldnt - are they lying to us, and if so - why!??"

Thats the question, and there in lies the danger. Theres no hypocrisy in suspecting youre being lied to in good faith.

There is still no proof Iran is developing weapons. Hell, the UN resolution is punishing Iran for something there allowed to do under the treaty they signed up for. The US is looking for a new enemy in the Middle East. There not above blatant lies themselves. Iran is not exactly trustworthy as well, but the the US/UK axis has shown itself to be untrustworthy with cases exactly like this and seem to be more interested in there war mongering plans for the Middle East and the worlds last oil resources, more than anything else. As for the treaty the Iranians could easily pull out anytime they wanted to and they haven't. They even offered a deal in 2003 which the US rejected which would have settled this mess a long time ago. The US/UK axis is looking for a new fight.

Dr_Teeth

Obviously he's the president of an islamic republic, so I don't agree with him on a lot of things like civil liberties and religion.. but calling him a "petty dictator" was just laughable. He heads easily the most democratic country in the gulf region.. in stark contrast to all the "kingdoms" that the Americans are such pals with.

It's also funny how much flak he's getting for his comment on homosexuals.. you can bet there are legions of right-wingers in the states who'd dearly love to be able to say there were no gay people in their country too!

odonnell

wes wrote:

There is still no proof Iran is developing weapons. Hell, the UN resolution is punishing Iran for something there allowed to do under the treaty they signed up for. The US is looking for a new enemy in the Middle East. There not above blatant lies themselves. Iran is not exactly trustworthy as well, but the the US/UK axis has shown itself to be untrustworthy with cases exactly like this and seem to be more interested in there war mongering plans for the Middle East and the worlds last oil resources, more than anything else. As for the treaty the Iranians could easily pull out anytime they wanted to and they haven't. They even offered a deal in 2003 which the US rejected which would have settled this mess a long time ago. The US/UK axis is looking for a new fight.

I do actually agree with what youre saying, im just arguing the point that whilst vaguely hypocritical - its also necessary to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. Just my opinion like....

Id like to think the UKs part in all this wasnt fueled by oil reserves and the like. I prefer to think we (im british by the way) got roped along with the US in one of them "and you call yourselves our closest allies....prove it" kind of situations.

Tony Blair - nice guy im sure, but no backbone.

wes

odonnell wrote:

I do actually agree with what youre saying, im just arguing the point that whilst vaguely hypocritical - its also necessary to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. Just my opinion like....

I agree that limiting as much as possible the people allowed to have nuclear weapons is a good idea, but in this case, it really seems to be motivated by something besides nuclear weapons. Basically its smacks as manufactured Casus Beilli for another war.

odonnell

I suspect so. Ive always thought our intelligence services were far better than to make a quite blatant and obvious mistake in saying there were WMD's in IRAQ, or they had evidence that IRAQ was developing such weapons when it became clear there never WAS any such evidence.

Either the intelligence services arent so good and fed the government false information, or the government lied.

I know which i believe mate... and its scary to think they can go to war based on a lie and remain in power! Which, yes, raises the suspicions when it comes to Iran now, and N. Korea next?

theres far more to this story than any of us know, but i strongly doubt the Iranians are capable of causing us any grief other than by proxy. christ - their new fighter plane, just recently brought into service, is no better than the UKs planes of the 70's.... yet we believe them capable of destabilising the entire mid-east?

lostexpectation

there was motion put to the UN last week to call for nuclear free middle east a ban on testing and a removal of current nuclear weapons, it was put forward by arab countries and it was aimed at Israel, the only current holder of nukes.

ireland was the only eu country and one of the few western countries to vote for the motion, nice to see a bit of independence and reality from ireland on this issue.

this syria - NK weapons research thing is still a mystery...

lostexpectation

Mordeth wrote:

i thought it was pretty funny that when he was talking about how useless the bomb was in international affairs he didn't even mention north korea, and neither did the interviewer..which I thought was strange

of course it's possible I had a stroke and missed all mention of it

well they eventually came to the same conclusion as him after a bit of bribery?


thats good point about him not being the leader let alone dictator, no wonder he looked puzzled, mr educated rational university president looked a bit silly doesn't it.

Ahmadinejad isn't really playing the MAD game very well if he says he isn't developing nukes, is he? thats the main reason to have these weapons, thats how NK was playing it.

sovtek

wes wrote:

I agree that limiting as much as possible the people allowed to have nuclear weapons is a good idea, but in this case, it really seems to be motivated by something besides nuclear weapons. Basically its smacks as manufactured Casus Beilli for another war.

Lest we forget that the US and the UK have also not lived up their obligations under the NPT as well blatantly violating it. Bush is actually developing new nukes. So it is completely hypocritical to slate Iran and invading it's neighbor has made it more likely that Iran as well as other countries will want them. I say...get your own house in order before bombing someone else's.

sovtek

Here's a reaction to Bollinger completely rude, ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical speech presage to Ahmadinejad's appearance.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ross09252007.html

Pretty much sums up what I would say about it.

ceidefields

Here's a much better quote from Ahmadinejad:

"And to the rest of the Columbia University students: What was with the uncomfortable silence after my joke about nuclear weapon-seeking leaders being retards? Was there a translation issue? That joke kills in Iran! Then again, in Iran, there does not exist the phenomenon of retards. In America, I hear that you have one as your leader! Hahahahaha!!! (In Iran, there would be immense laughter.) I want to go home."

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

Ahmadinejad isn't really playing the MAD game very well if he says he isn't developing nukes, is he? thats the main reason to have these weapons, thats how NK was playing it.

Doesn't it make more sense to say you don't have them, until you do? then you're presenting a fait accomplit.

NTM