Well from the letter, at least he supports the removal of Saddam Hussein and in fact thinks it was many years too late. He's in good company there.
hayes your claims are outlandish i said that the position of 'supreme leader' is mistranslated i also said the not all members of the iranian govt were privy to the contents of the letter but you can continue to say whatever you want
Ok, my bad. I apologize if you were misquoted. So you don't have any defense to the article that says the cleric said 'cut that out' and then the government spokesman said 'since he said that we will cut that out.' Thank you. I said earlier that you were mistakenly non-responsive to my article with your translation argument. Yes. You used that opinion to as a retort to comments about the contents of the letter, which you yourself never read apparently. really nothing outlandish there - just giving you the rope to hang yourself.
your article was irrelevant the letter wasnt an open letter, thus, when the news hit, this is the way it was being portrayed by everybody including some iranian officials and the international media....the letter has just now become available to the public but go ahead and continue to say what you want
Iran Ready to Form Nuclear Alliance with Russia Baku. “Tehran is interested in a future development of relations with Moscow and is ready to form a cooperation with Russia in the sphere of nuclear energy within the framework of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),” Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated today cited by Iran News. Ahmadinejad defined Russia as an ally and the relations between Tehran and Moscow as “friendly and constantly developing”.
For those of who you don't want to read the original one in its entirety, here's the NYT's summary on the letter sent from the Iranian President to President Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/w...&en=192709cee68e73bf&ei=5094&partner=homepage Iranian Letter: Using Religion to Lecture Bush By MICHAEL SLACKMAN Published: May 10, 2006 CAIRO, May 9 — With the tone of a teacher and the certainty of a believer, the president of Iran wrote to President Bush that Western democracy had failed and that the invasion of Iraq, American treatment of prisoners and support for Israel could not be reconciled with Christian values. Locked in a conflict with the West over Iran's nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the observations in a letter on Monday that the Iranian government said "raised new ways of solving problems." The 18-page letter, whose text was made available by United Nations diplomats on Tuesday, did not offer any concrete proposals for dealing with the crisis, but suggested that the United States give up its liberal, democratic, secular system and turn more toward religion. "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems," Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote. State Department officials said there was nothing in the letter relevant to current talks with Iran about its nuclear programs. Though the letter was dismissed by American officials, some said it provided an interesting window into the mind-set in Tehran, especially with its emphasis on grievances. "There was not a single substantive proposal in the letter, but it was a revealing insight into their mentality," a senior State Department official said. While the letter laid out a litany of policy disputes with the United States, it was also personal, urging President Bush, who is candid about his religious conviction, to examine his actions in the light of Christian values. As he has done in the past, the Iranian struck a prophetic tone, which is certain to be well received by his core supporters and mocked by his opponents. "We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point that is the Almighty God," he wrote. "Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teaching of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question to you is: 'Do you want to join them?' " The letter was framed entirely in religious terms but also laid out a populist manifesto of anti-Americanism, offering illustrations of what has won the Iranian a following among many people throughout the Middle East. He presented himself as the defender not only of Muslims but of all oppressed people, including those in Africa and Latin America. But his primary focus was on religious principles central to Shiite Islam, specifically the concept of a just ruler and the fight against oppression. With a respectful, if superior, tone, he used a question and answer style to present a case for American hypocrisy. He seemed to try to shame President Bush when he asked: "Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?" The letter marked a significant gesture, the first direct contact between an Iranian head of state and an American president since the revolution of 1979. It also presented some degree of political risk for Mr. Ahmadinejad, who left himself open to criticism that this would aggravate a nuclear showdown, and from those who see his contact with Mr. Bush as a betrayal. The letter focused repeatedly on the notion that America is a sinner. "My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims, and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses. All divine religions share and respect one word, and that is monotheism, or belief in a single God and no other in the world." While sticking to a script of grievances against the United States, the tone also marked a shift from Mr. Ahmadinejad's past discussions. He did not use the terms "Great Satan" or "World Oppressor." And the letter did seek to identify a common ground for starting discussions. "It would be a big mistake if the United States dismissed it or if they only consider it as a philosophical, religious, historical letter," Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University, said by telephone. "It would be a good idea if President Bush responds to it. It can open up some space." The letter also included many standard views of conservatives in Iran, including the comment that those responsible for planning the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were never charged or tried, hinting darkly of conspiracy. "Sept. 11 was not a simple operation," he wrote. "Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?" Since he was elected last June, the Iranian has promised to return to the principles of the revolution, and his letter echoed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who wrote to Mikhail S. Gorbachev in September 1989 that Communism was dead, and then invited him to study Islam. Citing the war in Iraq and reports of secret prisons around Europe, Mr. Ahmadinejad argued that the United States had failed to live up to its own stated values, an argument that resonates in the streets of the Middle East. While the notion that a head of state might write such a document might be perceived as naïve, it is another effort by Mr. Ahmadinejad to demonstrate his Everyman style. "His letter was addressed more to young people in the Islamic world than to the American president," said Wahid Abdel Maguid, deputy director of the government-financed Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. "He wants to play the hero, mobilizing and inciting the enthusiasm of the young people. This is not a kind of letter that a head of state sends to another." Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting for this article.
The thing that I find most disturbing about this situation is that Ahmadinejad's letter is very similar to GW Bush's own rhetoric in its messianic and patronizing tone. What's worrisome about this is that both parties have become so righteous in their beliefs that they are seeking conflict rather than avoiding it.
I don't see Iran budging on the nuclear issue. They will dare the U.S. to attack. I believe they know that the UN Security Council will not support the use of force. Sort of a win-win situation for Iran.
Ahmadinejad is a nut. during his speech at the UN, he said he saw a devine light guiding him. i think it could have been a light from oe of the cameras. he also said when he was adressing the UN assembly, noone blinked or moved. he might be right, but the Nonsense he was dribbling had everyone in shock hence the shock and no blinking. this man is bonafide uneducated bum who rose to power by election fraud.
this seems like a nice lil incentive. Europeans Work on New Anti-Nuclear Deal for Iran By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 10, 2006; A01 UNITED NATIONS, May 9 -- Britain, France and Germany said Tuesday that they are preparing a package of fresh incentives for Iran -- including affordable energy and greater trade with the West -- that would be granted if Tehran resumed negotiations on its nuclear program and agreed to halt the enrichment of nuclear fuel. The initiative announced Tuesday -- and the fact that it was backed by the United States -- reflected the Bush administration's inability to persuade Security Council members Russia and China to back a United Nations resolution that takes a tougher line with Iran, including an implicit threat of sanctions. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a dinner meeting Monday night with Security Council members in another attempt to gain agreement on a more forceful approach. But diplomats said Moscow remains strenuously opposed on grounds that such a resolution could lead to military action. The latest diplomacy is expected to delay for at least two weeks the U.S. effort to secure a U.N. resolution, according to diplomats. European negotiators plan to work in coming days to fashion a package of diplomatic carrots and sticks, including inducements for Iran to halt its nuclear activities as well as the prospect of sanctions if it does not. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is aimed only at producing energy, but the United States and European nations suspect Tehran intends to develop nuclear weapons. Rice endorsed the new approach, and Tuesday she appealed to Iran to "return to the negotiating table." "I would just like to say to the people of Iran: Obviously, if there is a way for Iran to accept the will of the international community, to accept proposals for civil nuclear power, this is the time for Iran to take that possibility, because no one wants to isolate the Iranian people," she said. Iran made no public reply, and calls to its U.N. mission were not returned. The new diplomatic course was set at the United Nations one day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President Bush, in which he assailed U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and the abuse of detainees. The Iranian leader suggested that Bush's policies are contrary to his Christian values. The Bush administration dismissed the letter, which was laced with religious references, as philosophical musings that provide no opening for diplomacy. Tuesday, Bush told an audience in Sun City Center, Fla., that he remains committed to exhausting all diplomatic options to resolve the Iranian crisis. "I've made the tough decision to commit American troops into harm's way," Bush said. "It's the toughest decision a president can ever make. But I want you to know that I tried diplomacy. In other words, the president has got to be able to say to the American people diplomacy didn't work." Rice insisted Tuesday that the Security Council is in "total agreement on the view that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." She added, "Let's just give the diplomacy a little time to work." European diplomats said they hope that, by offering Iran rewards for cooperation, they can persuade Russia and China to approve tougher action if Tehran continues to refuse. British and other European diplomats have argued for months that new negotiations with Iran are required to break the standoff in the council. They have faced resistance from the Bush administration's sharpest critics of engagement with Tehran. On Monday, U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton questioned the virtue of negotiations with Iran, saying that diplomatic initiatives by European nations and Russia over the past three years have not restrained Iran's nuclear program. But on Tuesday, he conceded it is worth making a fresh effort to maintain a common approach to Iran in the Security Council. After European negotiators come up with proposed incentives for Iran, they are to present them to European Union foreign ministers in Brussels as early as Monday, diplomats said. The package would then be presented to the United States, Russia and China. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told French reporters Monday night that it would offer an "ambitious package" of incentives, which would expand commercial ties to Iran, ensure Iran's energy needs were met and preserve Iran's right to develop nuclear energy. In exchange, Iran would be required to provide verifiable assurances that its energy program is not a cover for building atomic bombs. G ermany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said Tuesday that the decision to offer new incentives reflects a recognition by the United States and European nations that "we use both the Security Council and the negotiating table, because if we draw everything into the council, we will not achieve anything." © 2006 The Washington Post Company
If President Bush replied with a letter of his own to the Iranian President, how many pages would it be? And how would it be delievered?
these so-called incentives are complete bs...affordable energy? greater trade? iran is the 2nd leading exporter of oil and has 2nd largest amount of natural gas reserves in the world...also, iran has a trade surplus with the eu these were the same 'incentives,' which were backed by the us and offered a while back and iran rejected them and they will do the same this time this isnt diplomacy....this is a smoke screen so bush & co. can say that they 'tried' diplomacy a true package of incentives would include us incentives not just eu ones such as the release of $20 billion of iranian assets frozen by america, security guarantees, entry in the wto, lifting of unilaterally imposed sanctions, and few other things...unless these things are on the table, the ridiculous incentives proposed by the europeans arent going to get iran to rethink its inalienable rights as sovereign state
when congratulating iran's technical and scientific achievements causes one to lose his job: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4757695.stm kinda reminds of the viscious attacks directed towards me for trying to have an open and honest debate about iran
But these incentives are just to get them back to the negotiating table. Why should they dismiss these incentives offhand? These aren't offered in exchange for them scrapping their nuclear program, simply to get them negotiating again. Sounds like more of a compromise than the letter Iran sent.
iran has always been willing to negotiate even with the us directly...the europeans and americans have been the stubborn ones suspending uranium enrichment and other related activities for a long period of time, which iran did voluntarily for 2 years, causes the material to corrode thereby making a lot of the supplies and machinery unuseable http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0cfd2c90-1980-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12334553/site/newsweek/ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=2006040612380684 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/76a939b6-c5bc-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html the facts dont lie...iran has been much more flexible than the rest of the international community and has been much more willing to compromise as well...this is a manufactured 'crisis' and is a pretext for the us to try and overthrow one of the few legitimate govts in the middle east...on top of everything else, they havent done anything illegal and are well within their rights under international law....another classic example of the us and other stronger countries manipulating international organizations
Getting heavily bombed or invaded isn't a win. War isn't in the intererest of us or Iran but right now the leadership of both countries seems bent on it. I truly hope the sabre rattling is just a public spectacle while real negotiations are happening behind the scenes but given the record of our and their Admin. I'm very skeptical.
I'm very skeptical as well, of both the Iranian and US government's motives. Creepy would have everyone believe that, "Poor Iran," is getting crapped on, left, right and center. He dismisses the European proposals out of hand as insulting... as he would put it, "these so-called incentives are complete bs...affordable energy? greater trade? iran is the 2nd leading exporter of oil and has 2nd largest amount of natural gas reserves in the world...also, iran has a trade surplus with the eu." OK, if that is true, why on earth should the rest of the world believe Iran when she claims her atomics program is simply for "peaceful purposes, and to produce nuclear power." Why should we believe them, based on Creepy's own interpretation of the stuff coming out of Tehran? Creepy wants it both ways... he wants to believe Iran is having an atomics program for "peaceful purposes, and to produce energy," and wants to insult European proposals that seek to insure that's exactly what Iran can do, as long as the world can insure that Iran is not also working to produce atomic weapons. It would be laughable, if the subject wasn't so serious... nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocracy that has shown a willingness to turn Israel into what amounts to a parking lot, using their own words, and shows every willingness, in my opinion, to use them to intimidate countries in the region to advance it's own theocratic-based foreign policy. Iran, and Creepy, want it both ways. The West won't allow that to happen. If Iran truly wants to join organizations like the WTO, and get back within normal relations with the rest of the world, a good start would be to tone down the rhetoric, open it's program to full inspection by the international community, and strive to improve relations with the rest of the world. With any luck at all, if Iran does that, we should be able to normalize relations between our two countries, certainly after Bush leaves the scene. Keep D&D Civil.
How come this 2nd letter to the WH is not a splash in the news? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249455,00.html Experts: 2nd Iran letter ground for talks with US President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush was rejected by Washington, but second letter sent to White House by aides of spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei includes 'hopeful signs' for launching negotiations The White House rejected a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President George W. Bush in which he suggested "new ways for getting out of the current, fragile international situation" over Iran's nuclear program. American officials said the timing of the letter was meant to coincide with and influence Security Council talks and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed it as unserious, saying "this letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort." The two-page letter, Hassan Rohani, defends Iran's resolution to acquire nuclear know-how but makes an offer that the issue be taken off the UN Security Council and be dealt with by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Rohani wrote that Iran would "consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections," and that it would also "address the question of preventing 'break-out'," Time reported. Nuclear experts consulted by Time said the letter offers "hopeful signs" that Iran may be willing to resolve the dispute over its nuclear activities. As for US demands that Iran freezes uranium enrichment activities, which could allow the Islamic Republic to develop nuclear weapons, Rohani said Tehran would only agree "to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment." Although Rohani promised that Iran "Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium" on Iranian territory, that would not alleviate the concerns of the US and most of its European allies. "In the context of Iran's domestic politics, which is the driving force behind Iran's the nuclear initiative, Rohani's proposals are significant because they have the imprimateur of the Supreme Leader, who would have approved them in advance," William Samii, the longtime senior Iran analyst at Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, told Time. Ahmadinejad: Western concerns – big lies "The important, if implicit message to Washington in Rohani's declaration," Samii said, "is you may not like hardline President Ahmadinejad, but we do have more pragmatic leaders with concrete proposals, like Rohani, whom you have known for years, and whom you can deal with now if you want. His proposals amount to recognition of Washington's concerns." The letter is in contrast with remarks by President Ahamdinejad who lately said that western concerns over his country's nuclear activities are "big lies." He also accused Western powers of trying to control the world's oil resources and creating a climate of fear that he said was forcing countries to stockpile weapons. "The root cause of this is...the excessive demands of certain ruling powers over certain parts of the world," said Ahmadinejad, who arrived in Indonesia last Wednesday on a three-day visit. (05.10.06, 18:53)
Deckard, your hatred of iran knows no bounds the nuclear program has broad-based support amongst all iranians the reason they would want the nuclear program for energy purposes is to be able to sell more of their natural resources such as oil and natural gas instead of consuming them also, oil isnt going to last forever either and iran, being an energy providing nation to the rest of the world, wants to become an exporter of nuclear fuel as well in another 20-25 years iran's program is already under international inspection, which is a lot more than i can say for most of the rest of the world and they haven't done anything illegal iran has also been the victim of invasions, terrorism, and wmds and never attacked a country in its modern history thus, most of what you said is irrelevant no one...not you, not hayes, not any of the other iran bashing posters on here on here can stop iran's technological and scientific advancements and the 'international community' and the international organizations that are being manipulated by the west cannot stop iran from exercising its inalienable rights as a soveriegn state
