He’s baaaack
A year after his highly controversial visit to the United States, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is back and slated to speak today at the U.N. General Assembly. His appearance follows news that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency could not determine whether Iran is hiding nuclear activities.
Meanwhile, in a series of interviews with U.S. news outlets, Ahmadinejad is blaming U.S. military interventions for contributing to the collapse of global financial markets. He also asserted that he does not want confrontation with the United States but seeks diplomatic relations. During a military parade on Sunday, however, Ahmadinejad warned that “If anyone allows himself to commit even a tiny offense against Iran’s legitimate interests, borders and sacred land, our armed forces will break his hand before he pulls the trigger.”














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top38 Comments to “He’s baaaack”
Why is he back? Didn’t we learn our lesson last time?
Report comment to moderator
I love it when 3rd world dictators come to the UN to bad mouth America.
Quick! Get Fidel on the schedule before it’s too darned late!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: “Third World”? I suspect that Iran’s economy and balance sheet are in a lot better shape than our own.
And…at least technically, he was elected and by recent accounts seems to be having some popularity problems. Probably not as bad a problems as our President…
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I quick Google search shows Iran’s inflation rate between 18-24% and unemployment around 10-11%. Both figures are significantly higher than here.
Amazing how the ‘hate America’ crowd is so quick to defend anyone’s country but our own.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
That was easily the most easily refuted statement you’ve ever uttered. How can you be so ignorant of the situation in Iran? It’s been in the news for quite some time that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been under intense criticism at home for the economic woes of his country and for his fiery rhetoric.
“He also asserted that he does not want confrontation with the United States but seeks diplomatic relations.”
Yeah, so the best way to do that is to fire off salvos of fiery rhetoric vowing to kick butt if anyone so much as gets a toe over the line? That worked for the slimy Sadaam Hussein didn’t it? Good luck on that strategy you nutcase.
Report comment to moderator
If we let Vicente Fox, the former head of Mexico, speak and move freely throughout our country we can let the Head of Iran speak at the U.N.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want either one in the country. Both of those individuals are extremely offensive…
Report comment to moderator
During a military parade on Sunday, however, Ahmadinejad warned that “If anyone allows himself to commit even a tiny offense against Iran’s legitimate interests, borders and sacred land, our armed forces will break his hand before he pulls the trigger.”
I’d rather see ole Mahmoud pull the trigger himself…….when he eats a bullet!
Report comment to moderator
Let me see if I understand this:
Iran is our enemy but Israel and Mexico are our “allies”.
Israel= a country we have given hundreds of billions of dollars to and in return they have caused us nothing but problems.
Mexico= Hordes of Mexicans completely disregard our borders and flood our medical, educational and criminal justice systems and their leaders do nothing to stop it.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a link to the CIA factbook discussion of Iran’s economy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Econ
Once you get past the generalizations and the political portions, a lot of the numbers are a whole lot better than ours. Inflation is bad, but give us a couple of years. Their budget is balanced, they have huge foreign reserves, decent debt levels, and a few other decent indicia.
And their government is, at the moment, not scrambling around in the mud and the blood and the beer trying to come up with $1 trillion from its taxpayers’ pockets. In fact, I’m not sure they even levy any income taxes.
It truly is mind boggling that a country as well-educated and technologically capable as ours has not yet figured out that in order to compete in this world we simply cannot rely on a fossil fuel based economy.
Report comment to moderator
#3 Sawgunner,
Fidel, Putin, and Hugo Chavez are saving themselves to be the keynote speakers at the Inaugural Ball should Obama get elected.
With a little luck Obama will raise Mao, Stalin, Lenin aand Marx from the grave for this fine soiree too.
They might even let Jimmy Carter in.
Report comment to moderator
“If anyone allows himself to commit even a tiny offense against Iran’s legitimate interests, borders and sacred land, our armed forces will break his hand before he pulls the trigger.”
That’s still LESS reactionary than the Bush Doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Well yeah Luke,
But that’s only because Iran is mostly blustering (until they get their hands on the nukes) and Bush isn’t. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had only part of the power that Bush has, half the world would be encrusted in nuclear glass right now.
Report comment to moderator
To Make It
Who has caused more deaths Bush or Ahmadinejad?
If Putin and Russia had done in Iraq what the despicable Bush has done we would accuse Putin of genocide.
Report comment to moderator
Tell me Nick, if you can…
How many deaths has Ahmadinejad caused by allowing/sponsoring Iranian terrorists all over the world?
You don’t know because Iran officially denies any involvement in such things, and the whole deal is meant to be clandestine by nature. It’s not like the terrorists are going to come up to the CIA’s front door and give an accounting. So there’s knowing what conflicts have been started or exacerbated by this, or exactly how responsible Iran has been for deaths worldwide.
Your question is like the guy who wants to know why you are firing him. My answer is usually that he fired himself by not showing up, or showing up late, or not working when he does show up. The question is framed the wrong way because it puts the responsibility on the wrong person…
Bush didn’t fire Sadaam, Sadaam fired himself.
Report comment to moderator
dizzy yet?
Report comment to moderator
Most of the Iranians I met in California were actually Jewish. Even though they are a persecuted minority in Iran, many of them travel back and forth to that country. It is after all the site of Esther’s Tomb.
Report comment to moderator
So MiM’s whole argument has come down to conceding that Bush shows less restraint than an Iranian dictator and saying, “Well, at least we have admitted to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” Not a great day for you, MiM.
Report comment to moderator
ahminejad is a dangerous man presiding over a country that is an economic disaster area with a nuclear weapons program that threatens the existence of Israel and the stability of the Middle East. Anyone who doubts this should read Everyone Needs to Worry About Iran by RICHARD HOLBROOKE, R. JAMES WOOLSEY, DENNIS B. ROSS and MARK D. WALLACE. Holbrooke and Ross were high-level diplomats during the Clinton yeas; Woolsey is aformer head of the CIA. They write:
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United Nations in New York this week. Don’t expect an honest update from him on his country’s nuclear program. Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability.
Such developments may be overshadowed by our presidential election, but the challenge Iran poses is very real and not a partisan matter. We may have different political allegiances and worldviews, yet we share a common concern — Iran’s drive to be a nuclear state. We believe that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons.
Those who soft soap this threat are in denial.
As to Arcadia’s absurd notion that Iran is ahead of the U.S. economically, simply note that Iran’s per capita income is abou t $11,000; the U.S. figure is $46,000. Arcadia should live in Iran for awhile and experience its brutal represion of free speech along with a present inflation rate of 28%
Report comment to moderator
Let’s recap:
Iran is years away from developing a rudimentary atomic weapon (if they are developing one at all)
Israel has a state-of-the-art military with hundreds of nuclear weapons (thanks to you American taxpayer)
To think that Iran is then going to attack Israel is so utterly preposterous how can anyone in the right mind believe it?
Report comment to moderator
Get us out of the UN (Unified Nationalists).
Report comment to moderator
An apocyphal anecdote (the only kind suitable for wmb) runs as follows about the brilliant playwright George Bernard Shaw and the beautiful but nutty dancer Isadora Duncan (probably nuttier and more tragic than Madonna, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears all wrapped up in one beautiful body):
“A big believer in eugenics, Duncan suggested that she and Shaw should have a child together. “Think of it!” she said, “With your brains and my body, what a wonder it would be.” Shaw thought for a moment and replied, “Yes, but what if it had my body and your brains?”
I am imagining Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad contacting the (possible) new Israeli Prime Minister Tzipi Livni.
“We should merge our countries so we can counquer the world,” Mahmoud woos Tzipi. “With your brains and and our oil we would be unstoppable. Furthermore, anyone who tried to pronounce your name and my name in the same breath would suffer a brain stroke and fall dead.
“The two of us together would be Nick Peters’ worst nightmare!”
“Unfortunately,” Livni responds, “What if the country that resulted had our unpopularity and your death wish. No one would be restrained from just taking us out, and you would welcome it with open arms.”
Report comment to moderator
Hey, look, demonizing Saddam worked so well, and made the military industrial complex hundreds of billions, why not try it again.
Peter Leavitt: A nuclear armed Iran is surely not desirable, but with Pakistan and India already toting nukes, it does seem inevitable. And with our worldwide moral authority at a very low ebb, and our military not even close to being capable of invading and occupying Iran, what are the alternatives?
I suggest that talking to them, which is exactly what may happen at the UN, seems like the only reasonable course of action? Or do you have another one in mind?
As for the per capita figures, once one takes out taxes (which they don’t seem to have) factors in state benefits like education and health care (no idea how good either is) and throws in very cheap energy costs, I suspect that the difference is nowhere near as dramatic.
And, while you make brave speeches about suppression of free speech, here are some of your compatriots arguing that the elected leader of an important country shouldn’t even be allowed to enter this country to speak at the world’s foremost international forum.
llama: While I hate to argue on your level, you can bet Ahmadinijad is praying fervently for McCain to be elected. His country and Israel (perhaps Saudi as well) were the only beneficiaries of the Iraq war, which McCain seems to wish to continue forever. And having US troops on “Muslim soil” is, by most accounts, the chief rallying cry for bin Laden, Al Queda and others who think like them. Now I’m sure Ahmadinijad hates every inch of his rival, Iraq’s soil, but that doesn’t mean he won’t use the US presence there to his advantage, both domestically and internationally.
Report comment to moderator
What a joke it is that Ahmadinejad gets to speak at the UN when Iran is still ignoring several UN resolutions?
Report comment to moderator
Well, the UN itself is a joke, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia those per capita figures for the U.S. and Iran are perfectly comparable. America is among the leading nations of the world economiclally, while Iran even with its oil income is a struggling third-world nation.
As to the threat of a nuclear Iran you ought ro read the Holbrooke, Ross, Woolsey article that I linked to above. Both Holbrooke and Ross are advisers to Obama. They write:
By continuing to act in open defiance of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran rejects the inspections mandated by the IAEA and flouts multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions.
At the same time, Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be “wiped off from the map,” while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.
I am afraid that like many ideological liberals you have developed such a corrosive attitude toward the U.S. that you have lost the capacity to recognize a very dangerous enemy.
Report comment to moderator
MICHELLE (1): Why is he back?
Frank: Because the U.N. resides on U.S. soil.
(Unfortunately.)
Report comment to moderator
Well, during Ahmadinejad’s speech, in the midst of his typical “We hate America, we hate Israel” rant, he echoed some of Obama’s talking points. Scary…
Report comment to moderator
Vincente Fox came to speak at my university today … and I went to hear him. (Incidentally, I would go hear dear ol’ Mahmoud too if he came to speak, for the boasting factor).
He …
1) encouraged us not to build a wall btw. Mexico and the USA
2) encouraged continuing free trade & NAFTA
3) urged a US and Latin American solution to the drug problems
4) wanted us to recognize Mexico’s rising place in the world
It wasn’t completely far out … maybe he was worse in office?
Report comment to moderator
So I’d be interested to get opinions on his politics (MIM especially, since he was so outspoken above) ….
Report comment to moderator
Iran is years away from developing a rudimentary atomic weapon (if they are developing one at all)
Israel has a state-of-the-art military with hundreds of nuclear weapons (thanks to you American taxpayer)
To think that Iran is then going to attack Israel is so utterly preposterous how can anyone in the right mind believe it?
Islamic extremists such as Hezbollah have long been launching rockets and stuff against Israel. If they (”they” meaning Islamic extremists such as those in Iran) had a chance to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons, they just might take it. I don’t see how someone can count on Iran to show restraint, when Iran-supported Hezbollah continues to attack Israel with what it currently has. They’re unpredictable and dangerous.
Where are you coming up with “hundreds” of nuclear weapons for Israel? Not that it’s a big deal to me, just asking.
We should all rest more easily knowing that Israel does indeed have a state-of-the-art military, and yes, including nuclear weapons.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I meant to post the following as well.
Iran could have nuclear capability by 2009.
However, “Israel Defense Forces intelligence analysts say they are unconcerned about the danger of Iran’s immediate use of nuclear weapons against Israel, but are concerned about the sense of security nuclear capabilities will give Tehran. According to MI, Iran’s support of terror, which is delivered in partial secrecy, will become more open.”
Here is a more recent source: Iran will likely reach the nuclear tipping point in late 2009 or early 2010.
Report comment to moderator
Fox is full of it Michelle. I’d bet a $50 that what he means by those things isn’t the same thing we mean by those things.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him in fact. When he was in office he was taking all he could get from us and stabbing us in the back.
Just look up the Merida Initiative and see just how Mexico is taking care of the drug and illegal alien problem. A joint effort just means that Mexico wants to dump all their problems on us. I can’t believe Bush was behind all that. What the heck is he thinking?
Report comment to moderator
“Iran is years away from developing a rudimentary atomic weapon (if they are developing one at all)”
And just where are you getting your figures on this? From the IAEA? Those guys don’t know squat, and don’t want to know squat. I’d trust Israel to give better stats because it’s their fannies that are on the line… And just recently they said Iran was about 6 months from having an atomic bomb.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Kimberly, I meant to address #33 to you.
Report comment to moderator
“So MiM’s whole argument has come down to conceding that Bush shows less restraint than an Iranian dictator and saying, “Well, at least we have admitted to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” Not a great day for you, MiM.”
Your premise that Bush has killed hundreds of thousands is utterly preposterous. For one thing, you don’t have the figures to back that up. For another, you totally fail to credit the Iranian influence largely to blame for the escalation of violence in Iraq. Thirdly, to ignore the responsibility that congress and our allies also have for this war is a glaring error on your part. So to pin the blame solely on Bush for “hundreds of thousands” of deaths there were, is a shallow and transparently vindictive assertion.
Report comment to moderator
A joint effort just means that Mexico wants to dump all their problems on us.
I could sense this in his speech … he raised the question of Mexico as a site through which drugs passed (from Columbia to the States) and then moved on to what the US needs to do about it.
And he encouraged us to show compassion & love to illegal immigrants within the borders.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!