Why does Obama want to meet with Ahmadinejad?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, May 31, 2008.

  1. You Can't Appease Everybody

    By Ann Coulter

    After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    While Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the capital gains tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel, deny the existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program despite protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not allowed to compare to Hitler.

    President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more nuanced than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down chanting: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of appeasement toward madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with Adolf Hitler.

    Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B. Hussein Obama's foreign policy -- and that's according to Obama's supporters.

    So to defend Obama, who -- according to his supporters -- favors appeasing madmen, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like Hitler" arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.

    Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support Obama's admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics. It's a strange one-sided argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.

    There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad. We're not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as Nixon was with China. And we aren't in a Mexican stand-off with a nuclear power, as Reagan was with the USSR. At least not yet.

    Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but something you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit suicide in order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole objective with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military power.

    What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?

    We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want that. (This is assuming Mike Gravel doesn't pull off a major upset this November.) We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous dictator because ... well, there aren't any.

    Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad? Using what stick as leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.

    We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something to say. Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of our nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to reach Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes retreat. If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the Huffington Post.

    Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

    The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica").

    Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

    There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to surrender?

    Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table.

    Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle.

    There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an ally or as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Gen. Douglas MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept. 2, 1945. There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press coverage and a lot of talk. It was a regular international confab!

    It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur was officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's what liberals have in mind.
     
  2. Ahmadinejad never made the 'wipe israel off the map comment' that is one of the greatest propaganda hoaxes of the last few years.

    he was referring to regime change... SOUND FAMILIAR???? i would love to see a regime change in this country.. OH NO I AM HITLER... please don't tase me bro! i can't stand the criminals in the white house and i will enjoy seeing them replaced next january. the new ones will be bad too but there is your regime change.

    people, dont fall for these 'hapaless' attempts to paint this as right/left. there is absolutely nothing wrong with diplomatic discussions between govt officials. Ahmadinejad isn't even in charge.. he is 2nd in command.
     

  3. well.. i can't argue with the above submissiveman. Ahmadinejad is a blood thirsty tyrant(not at all):

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOQMOHeyuys&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOQMOHeyuys&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R-r04SQ97_Q&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R-r04SQ97_Q&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
     

  4. Nice try ratboy88, but you are going to have to do a little better than that!

    NETUREI KARTA, PAID AGENTS of ISRAEL'S ENEMIES
    www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/09/neturei-karta-paid-agent-of-israels-enemies.html

    NETUREI KARTA RABBIS ARE ENEMIES OF ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE
    http://www.masada2000.org/Neturei-Karta.html

    NETUREI KARTA: WHAT IS IT?
    http://www.adl.org/extremism/karta/
     
  5. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO i will do better when you don't cite an uber-liar like daniel pipes!!!!!!! lmaoooooooooooo

    and no offense but the adl isn't out there to protect minorities. they have a consistent track record of bashing and smearing anyone that is the least bit patriotic and loves the constitution.

    NEXT !!!
     
  6. "The Bigger the Lie, the More the People will Believe it" - Adolf Hitler

    It looks like you got an A+ in your Mein Kampf course ratboy!


    NEXT!!!


    On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

    Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

    2. ^ a b Fathi, Nazila (October 30, 2005). Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech. Week in Review. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2006-10-17.
     
  7. Osama and Obama are both for change we can beleive in.
     
  8. The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax
    What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war


    Paul Joseph Watson

    Prison Planet
    Friday, January 26, 2007


    Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

    Today it's the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the "wipe Israel off he map" fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

    Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

    The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

    To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

    The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at...... con't: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm
     
  9. NEXT !!!!
     
  10. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel.

    Annan added that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/index.html
     
    #10     May 31, 2008