Ahmadinejad interview , Mike Wallace, and an open mind...

[xiamiam]

I watched the interview twice on Cspan. Its important. Far too important to let slip into the back pages here at DU...I've never seen an interview with this president before but I listened carefully to his words and not the words distorted by the media...even as Mike Wallace embarrassed western journalism and even the western mind from my standpoint.

Ahmadinejad called America the great oppressor...he talked about the current administrations attempt to build an empire with energy as the controlling force..(Cheney, Cheney, Cheney?)....Mike got him to admit that he despised the zionist government but he stood firm that he did not hold either invidividual Israelis or Americans or Europeans responsible for the antics of their government...thank God..I have struggled with the actions of this administration on my own personal karma because are we not responsible if we do not stop it?...are we not all horrified daily as we watch them steal our hope and pride and dignity?..

I liked all of Ahmadinejads answers that spoke to the present...when asked about Saddams government in Iraq, he said it was history..and he said the same of a world with the mindset of bombs...that it was the old way of thinking ...he wrote an 18 page letter to Bush which Bush has not taken seriously enough to answer..yet every day, there are steps taken toward destruction of or sanctions with Iran... an 18 page letter!!!...asking for and praising the teachings of Christ, peace and love..I dont believe anything from mmm since they are complicit in lies but I did appreciate hearing and watching the point of view from the president of Iran ..I had to laugh when Wallace asked him a loaded and very long question and demanded a simple yes or no answer..he was gracious and firm and kept asking Wallace to be patient..I wanted Wallace to be patient because I wanted to assess his answers myself...without the spin...

Ahmadinejad is obviously well read and forward thinking, he used the words peace and love genuinely throughout the interview even though Wallace mocked him by saying he sounds like he loves everyone except Israelis...immediately after the interview, Bush was on Cspan talking about the ceasefire..the juxtaposition of the two presidents made my head spin... according to some, the Israeli/Hezbollah/Lebanon conflict is just setting the stage for a major conflict with Iran...the timing of this interview is wise and every american needs to see it...without any rw pundits or biased journalist..I kept thinking as I watched the interview that we need a president who reads...who is wise and who wants to resolve world issues with diplomacy and dialogue...thats what We need..

[Branjor]

1. I thought Ahmadinejad

made a lot of good points too.

But when are they going to stop hanging and executing gay and lesbian youths?

[AntiFascist]

34. My thoughts as well...

I was going to post a link to the unedited interview, then I thought better of it. I never quite trusted the whole Iran-Chalabi-Likud network of connections.

Color me paranoid, but Ahmadinejad gave a very polished performance stressing all the (DU correct) points against Bush, yet he is really working to prolong ME conflict which is exactly what neocons want, and he is very skillful about tying all Islamic cultures together for one purpose, which is also precisely playing into the hands of the neocons. I'm sure he is between a rock and a hard place trying to act like he wants to bring about peace to appease many of his fellow nationals, yet pushing ahead with the war rhetoric. I don't feel that he is being sincere, and history may prove not to be on his side.

[elliswyatt]

37. i agree

have you seen the brutality posted on gayegypt.com? I wish Mike would ask about that.

[RethugAssKicker]

2. I thought Wallace wasa poor example of a journalist...

It became a debate with Wallace espousing the Bush admin point of view!!

[elehhhhna]

30. Mike CountryTisofThee, Patriot!. Shutup already--we GET it.

I'd rather have had Rather.

[eallen]

3. Ahmadinejad is what Bush would be, if Bush were smart.er

A smooth, well-spoken defender of religious, fundamentalist rule.

Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad's government executes girls for adultery, and men for homosexual liaisons. I wish Mike Wallace had asked him about that, and pressed him also on Iran's other human rights abuses.

[xiamiam]

4. he said that wallace could ask ANY question he wanted...

at least there is more insight into a few issues ...certainly, I didnt hear anything which would justify invading Iran...perhaps another journalist like Amanpour could interview..and pose those and other questions..Im dreaming probably...but I feel we desperately need a dialogue before this admnistration escalates us into another war

[Strelnikov_]

19. She Did

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/17/ahmadinejad/index.html

[xiamiam]

51. thanks, this interview with amanpour the basis of a potential invasion..

and i will probably get torn apart for asking this, but ...does he not pose legitimate questions regarding the development of uranium for energy?..regarding the us guessing their intentions and imposing our will?...could he be right when he says that it is the intention of some to control energy for profit?..im asking questions here, not defending...so please no personal attacks about how naive i am...

a lot of profit has been made under the guise of spreading democracy...my instinct tells me that those same players are pulling the strings here...and they dont give a hoot about human rights...

[ComerPerro]

10. and if Bush didn't have laws restricting him

Bush has to spend his first eight years getting rid of all that before he can get to that point.

But that's the only real difference,

[H2O Man]

15. Well said. n/t

[cali]

5. You might keep in mind

that Iran's government is oppresive. Dissent is not an option. Hardly a form of government to be admired, and as titular head of the government, Ahmadinejad represents and endorses this oppression.

[liam_laddie]

65. Iran has plenty of reasons to be wary

of US-Western intentions. After all, the US assisted Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war via
intel and sundry weapons, including gas. As well, the big blot is our CIA/Big Oil-
orchestrated 1953 overthrow of popular Prime Minister Mossadegh. We then re-installed
Reza Pahlavi as Shah; his autocratic reign ended in 1979 with Khomeini and the mullahs
taking over via revolt. (Ahmahdinejad is assumed to be under the Supreme Council's control.)
I was impressed with his patience with "Sound-bite Mike's" aggressive "ugly American"
demeanor. IMHO, shrub would have his butt handed to him by Mahmoud in a neutrally
moderated one-on-one debate/panel situation. A PhD in engineering doesn't come without
some intellectual vigor. A gentleman's C from Yale just takes family influence.
BTW, I taped the 90-minute C-Span program; it'll be useful in the future...
Agreed that the uncivil rights, Sharia-based laws, are reprehensible; ya got those mullahs
running the show from behind the curtain.

[Annces]

6. Wallace may have done some good

journalistic reporting in his career, but I think he likes to have his ego massaged more than anything. He didn't support Dan Rather, when Rather really needed him. He ridiculed Shirley McLaine on an interview with her, (I wish she would have walked out on him).

Do give him credit for presenting this interview with the Iranian president though. We sure don't get much of those kind of interviews.

[LiberalEconomist]

7. Iran is what the United States would be if...

we let the pseudo-Christian fundamentalists get their way and we replace the Constitution with THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Make no bones about it, it was not so long ago when American women wore dresses that came down to their ankles, with sleeves that went to their rists and collars that went to their jaws.

[imax2268]

8. Yes...I saw that interview...

but unfortunetly...the local station here in AZ decided to throw up a "amber alert" message and muted almost 10 minutes of the interview...so I missed some stuff...

Great timing...

[rinsd]

9. Yeah let's hear for the theocrat!

Hitler could rise from the grave and give a speech about American imperialism and someone on DU would say ya know he killed 10 million but he's got some damn good points.

"Ahmadinejad is obviously well read and forward thinking"

Well read I will give you. But forward thinking? The leader of a theocracy?

There's spin here alright and its not being done by MSM.

[xiamiam]

12. give me a break..im not spinning and maybe im not as savvy as you

im just a regular person...and i asked for a discussion re this because ive never seen any interview from this president before...i dont know very much about iran...do you? really?...where do you get your news?...i saw a man focused in the present...what did you see?

[rinsd]

14. I saw a man who knows how to tickle some of the left

How else could a thoecratic despot who shouldn't engender anything but revulsion among what would be seen as his natural adversaries(ie: liberals) not just respect but praise?

My sources are Amnesty and HRW. Feel free to read up.

[wtmusic]

25. 98 executions so far this year

whoops! there have been 84 in the US this year too...

They torture, we torture. They deny civil rights we have; we start wars which kill hundreds of thousands.

They're ahead.

[Catrina]

28. Thanks ~ it's amazing that some Americans think we are in any

position to point fingers at anyone else. As you say, Iran certainly has problems with theocracy, but they were moving toward a more moderate government until THIS ONE decided to threaten them.

As you pointed out, we torture, we execute, and our prison system is one of the worst in the civilized world, if not THE worst.

I'd say we're ahead of Iran in the 'evil' department also, certainly the people of Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan must think so.

I didn't see the interview but a friend told me about it and she was also impressed with the Iranian President. At least he can speak intelligently, so they're ahead of us there also.

Iran was a country that could have been helped toward democracy. But could they ever again trust this country, even if we get a decent administration over the next few years?

The world has learned the damage that one bad administration like this one can do and there's no guarantee it won't happen again.

[question everything]

35. Questions for Ahmadinejad (That Mike Wallace Didn't Ask)

The Wall Street Journal

Questions for Ahmadinejad (That Mike Wallace Didn't Ask)
August 15, 2006; Page A13

The time of the bomb is in the past. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges.

-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace, Aug. 13, 2006

Q: A follow-up to that, Mr. President: Are you aware of a man named Mansour Ossanloo? He is the leader of the independent trade union representing the workers of the Vahed Bus Company in Tehran. A year ago, your security forces raided one of their meetings and cut out a piece of Mr. Ossanloo's tongue. Now he speaks with a lisp. Is this how "dialogue" is conducted in the Islamic Republic of Iran? A:

Q: Let's talk a bit about your government's relationship to Iranian political dissidents. A few weeks ago, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a member of the Guardian Council who is reportedly close to your boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned in his Friday sermon that Iran will execute en masse all dissidents if the U.N. Security Council votes to sanction Iran for your refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The sermon was broadcast on Iranian state radio. Does Ayatollah Jannati speak for you, Mr. President? A:

Q: Please be specific about the fate of one man: Ahmad Batebi. Mr. Batebi became the face of Iranian dissent when he appeared on the cover of the Economist during the brutally suppressed Tehran University student uprisings in July 1999. After serving six years of a 15-year sentence, Mr. Batebi was furloughed last year and rearrested on July 29; his whereabouts are unknown, which is of special concern because your government recently tortured to death student leader Akbar Mohammadi (www.iranpressnews.com1). Can you tell us where Mr. Batebi is and give us assurances for his safety? A:

(snip)

Q: You are known to be a religious disciple of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi. Among the Ayatollah's teachings is the view that slavery is justified. Do you agree with your mentor? A:

Q: Your views about Israel are categorical and well known; your views about whether the Holocaust took place have been ambiguous at best. How about the Jews? Do you agree with the December 2004 statement of Iranian academic Heshmatollah Qanbari on Iranian TV, as quoted by Memri, that "all corrupt traits in humanity originated in this group "? A:

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115560193943335712.html (subscription)

[Strelnikov_]

54. What About Saudi Arabia? China?

I am sure the Wall Street Journal could put together an equally long list of human rights violations from these countries.
Guess our business partners get a pass.

Iran is a repressive theocracy. Ah-Jad is the spokesman for the hard line faction of the theocracy which is currently in power.


Thing is, we are not going to bomb the theocracy out of them. If anything, it will drive them toward more repression.

And that is the ultimate aim of this Wall Street Journal article, and all the other Right-Wing propaganda concerning Iran, to build 'war fever' for the bombing of Iran in the pursuit of gaining and holding hegemony over the Gulf energy resources.


Is there truth in the claims of human rights violations? I have no doubt. But again, where is the balance? Saudi Arabia? China?

[rinsd]

57. Its not about rattling the saber.....

Its about people here cuddling up to a theorcratic despot just because he hit some of the right chords of the pied piper tune for lefties.

"Is there truth in the claims of human rights violations? I have no doubt. But again, where is the balance? Saudi Arabia? China?"

When someone posts on how reasonable the leaders of those countries are, then you will see me there.

[question everything]

58. Thank you. Well said (nt)

[xiamiam]

59. a new thread posted re our anti gay un vote with iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1920433

[rinsd]

64. uhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

I notice you just ignored what I said in order to continue the bullshit glass houses argument.

The US's position on that is horrific. The US's positions on alot of things are disagreeable.

That doesn't make a theocratic despot warm and cuddly by comparison.

We're progressives. We may not be better people but we try to be.

[Strelnikov_]

72. "Cuddling Up" "Right Chords Of The Pied Piper Tune For Lefties"

Um, yea, OK.

[rinsd]

73. Walks like a duck and all that jazz... (nt)

[wtmusic]

87. And you are "cuddling up" to those who would start bombing tomorrow

It's called balance.

[rinsd]

55. Oh please......

"it's amazing that some Americans think we are in any position to point fingers at anyone else"

LOL...unless its Israel.

[Snivi Yllom]

17. "he was a helluva painter too"

unbelievable

[Bigmack]

11. Never mind what you think about....

him personally. Never mind what you think about human rights violations in Iran. This isn't a popularity contest.

What really counts is whether the guy is as crafty and brilliant for his cause as he appears to be.

Bush is an idiot, and his advisers are either idiots or neo-con ideologues... and that's the team the US is putting up against guys like Ahmadinejad, Putin, and the Chinese.

There really is a competition in the world, and the only weapons the US has is an exhausted military and a brain-dead foreign policy.

[xiamiam]

13. there ya go...we need a different team....and thats exactly what that

interview screamed...

[evox]

22. well said - n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

16. vomit, Mike Wallace was a media bitch to that psycho

Ahmadinejad is a dangerous dictator who lives to create widespread anger, inflame hatred towards Israel and America.


Total spin for TV. Mike Wallace being the career media whore he is, got down on his knees and took care of the Iranian nut in chief.

[Strelnikov_]

20. Dictator? Actually, His Position Is A Cross Between Senate Majority

leader and government spokesman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

All presidential candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council, which banned hundreds of hopefuls from standing in the 2005 elections.

[question everything]

18. Got very good advisers who prepared him to talk to the American

people.

He was prepared, viewed the old interview with the Ayatollah Khomeini, and, like any good politicians, evaded Wallace's questions and said what he knew liberals would love.

Don't take him at his word. He does not mean any of it... just ask the "man in the street" of Tehran. Oops, forgot, if the "man in the street" of Tehran will say what is really on his mind - these will be his last words on earth.

The man is an autocrat. Iran is a police state. Is it so difficult to grasp? Are people here so blinded by their hatred of Bush that anyone who opposes him: Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il - are revered and admired?

I cannot believe that people who consider themselves "Democrats" and "liberals" would detest Olmert and Sharon but will embrace Ahmadinejad.

Something is very very rotten in DU.

[Strelnikov_]

21. I Agree Something Is Very Rotten In DU

I have seen no posts 'embracing' him on DU as you claim. I have seen posts that note, such as the OP's, that he does not seem to be a madman as advertised.

No, what I find rotten at DU is the increasing frequency of Reich-Wing talking points concerning Iran (Dictator, Madman, etc.)

Yes, Iran is a regressive theocracy. A regressive theocracy that was on it's way out until the US invaded Iraq.

Maybe there are people here simply trying to understand an adversaries motivations. And with understanding, possibly a dialog can be initiated. Once a dialog is initiated, normalization of relations can follow. With normalization of relations, a changing of culture can begin.


Or, we could just bomb them. No need to try to understand him in that case. Bombs don't need understanding to work.


Me, I vote for containment, dialog, normalization. Especially considering that any attack on Iran carries with it an even chance of the collapse of industrial civilization.

The neocons, however, seem rum to give it a go. PipPip!!

[fujiyama]

29. Actually I have seen several posts

which could be considered "embracing him", one going as far to say the "man has a plan for peace" - yeah peace by displacing 6+ million people. I don't see any "plans for peace" from a raving antisemite.

Opposing theocracy in all its forms does not make one a neocon or a warmongerer.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Whatever. My Concern Is The Parroting Of Right-Wing Talking Points

As I noted.

And, yes, opposing 'theocracy in all its forms' does 'make one a neocon or a warmonger' when said opposition is simply repetition of talking points intended to incite 'war fever.'

[fujiyama]

38. I'm sorry

but I don't feel the need to make it clear I oppose a war against Iran each time I condemn its leader.

It's not a RW talking point to condemn fanatics of all different types. In fact, no true liberal would be praising a theocrat like Ahmedenijad.

[DemonFighterLives]

46. Good Post

It is the right wing hatreds rearing their ugly heads that concerns me.
:dem:

Something reminds me of Ronnie Raygun bashing Gorbachev for not moving fast enough and "tear down this wall" and all that. I was thinking, gees Ronnie, give the man a chance to firm up his grip on the country before you force all these changes down his throat. Gorby was the one that normalized Russia and not Saint Ronnie who nearly got him killed.

The human rights issues in Iran will have a chance to be straightened out, if diplomacy is allowed.
:dem:

[rinsd]

71. Noted "right winger" Juan Cole on Ahmadinejad

"How delighted they must have been when the world class buffoon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad succeeded Khatami and the hard liners strengthened their grasp after the Bush administration had done what it could to sabotage the Iranian reform movement."

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/iran-offered-recognition-of-israel.html

And just because someone disgusting shares an opinion with you doesn't make that opinion invalid or the opposite suddenly valid(after all Hitler liked dogs and was a vegetarian). The policies can stand on their own merits. Few people here have problems with national health care or believe that we do not have too many people in prison.

So supporting national health care does not make one a theocrat.

And opposing a theocrat does not make one a neocon.

[Strelnikov_]

74. Point Being?

He is a figurehead, a lightening rod, a Shia Pat Robertson.

Show where I have indicated any different.

My concern is the bellicose Right-Wing rhetoric, "Dictator", "Madman", "Hitler of our time", all of which is to pave the way for an aerial attack which will more than likely lead to disaster for all sides.

[rinsd]

76. You just want to argue

"My concern is the bellicose Right-Wing rhetoric, "Dictator", "Madman", "Hitler of our time","

Then your concern is ill placed on this thread. Because the terms used are theocrat and autocrat.

Even more so if you think my posting against a theocrat is so dangerous it will lead to a US military intervention than I am not sure what to say about your place in the reality based community.

[Strelnikov_]

77. And That Is My View Of You

And where did I originally respond to one of your posts?

I do not think 'posting against a theocrat is so dangerous'. I think adopting the bellicose language of the right is.

And the term 'psycho' 'dangerous dictator' were not used in this thread? Must have been my imagination.

Language is important.

[RethugAssKicker]

80. Excellent Retort !

[wtmusic]

24. How many "men in the street" in Tehran have you spoken with?

I didn't think so. :eyes:

[Snivi Yllom]

27. very very very wrong

just sad

[elliswyatt]

39. I like to be consistent

I detest the Olmerts Sharons and Ahmedinejads

he did seem very well rehearsed. made good points, but i doubt they are the truthful answers

[LSK]

60. you know what is going on???

Many of us on DU saw the EXACT SAME THINGS said about Saddam and look what happened. Im sorry, but if the sheeple continue to hear how evil this guy is, they will led easier into a suicidal WW3. I would rather avoid any conflict with Iran at all costs.

[cigsandcoffee]

23. My enemy's enemy is my friend?

Sorry, not when it comes to the oppressive theocracy in Iran. I won't be played like a violin by a smooth talking sophist acting as the public face of the mullahs.

[eridani]

26. He's not a madman--just a smarter version of Bush

--Both have fundie whackjobs as their electoral power base.
--Bush's popularity was boosted by an actual attack on this country; Ahmadinejad's popularity is boosted by constant threats of attacks on Iran.
--Both have that 'folksy' touch. It's fake in the case of Bush; don't know about Ahmadinejad.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. This is Fucked

Iran stones people to death for adultery. They hang young boys for homosexuality. They strongly support Hezbollah, who vows to murder every Jew on Earth. And so forth.

And you believe these scum to be heroic?

Ahmadinejad is thug. Use your head.

[evox]

33. On the other hand

you have the US invading other countries, wiretapping people, stealing their liquid goods from the airports, offering unlimited support to Israel - which is viewed by many people around the world as a terrorist state - and has a president that constantly bullies other nations, and so forth. Bush is a bigger thug by the way.

[breakaleg]

36. he who has not sinned may throw the first stone.

[cali]

43. What bullshit.

By that measure we shouldn't criticize Israel either.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Bush is Awful. So Don't Excuse Him Either

Please point to the part where I wrote that Bush is anything but an evil thug. Why do you think that either Bush or Ahmadinajad is evil?

Bush's evil in no way lessens the fact that Amadinajad's Hezbollah proxy want to destroy Israel, and murder all of the Jews on Earth. It saddens me tremendously that anyone would do anything other than condemn this behavior in the strongest terms.

[HongKonger]

41. I count

Israel's inhumane treatment and de facto apartheid concerning Palestinians, the theft of land that does not belong to them in contrary to international law and UN conditions, the suspension of Habeas Corpus in detaining Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, and the murdering of innocents in Lebanon using US weapons to be equally as evil as anything one of Iran's 'proxies' has in mind.

Israel really lost the PR war for me when they stomped into Lebanon and appropriately lost. My heart does not bleed for the Israeli cause anymore.

And there are many more progressives out there like me who feel the same way... after analysing the the picture... as is clear by the abundance of posts in this community.

[cali]

42. "stealing their liquid goods from the airports,"

Too funny. I may think the ban on bringing liquids onto planes is baloney, but it's hardly a great violation of civil rights.

[DemonFighterLives]

44. dubby just pitches the letter and talks more war

A leader reaching out like in the letter deserves a shot at diplomacy, but the knucklehead in chief only wants it his way.
:nuke:

What I saw of the interview on 60 minutes has me agreeing with you.
Ahmadinajad looked sensible, dubya looks stupid and Wallace too.

A right winger called C-spn yesterday to smear Ahmadinajad with being one of the men who took the Americans hostage. I don't know where that stands, but it is also history- since we got our hostages home intact.
:kick:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemonFighterLives]

47. Great fifth post there

I was serving in the American Army in Germany during the Hostage Crisis.
You need to read up - start with "October Surprise".
How old are you btw?
Welcome to DU!
Read and learn!
:hi:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemonFighterLives]

49. I'll take that as an apology for questioning my age and wisdom

Saint Ronnie and the boys were ready to deal weapons under the table to Iran for them to hold the hostages. Nevermind the Iran/contra fiasco and the fact that "we" dealt weapons to both sides, Iraq and Iran to keep the war on.
:dem:

[Jeroen]

50. www.democraticunderground.ir [ ? ] that would be suicide in Iran

"he used the words peace and love genuinely throughout the interview"
And he hangs homosexuals in public.

[xiamiam]

52. do you really think that their human rights violations are the reason for

a potential invasion?...

[rinsd]

61. No one is saying that.

People are able to think this guy is theocratic swine without calling for his ouster by military force.

Instead of making the argument of "eehhhh he ain't so bad", people should be centering on whether it is appropriate for us to use military action to force regime change in a sovreign nation. We have that small example of that policy fallacy, you know it as Iraq.

[xiamiam]

68. no one is defending him..but he is an elected spokesperson...

i do believe it is better to understand WHY the us seems determined to invade Iran..or should we just believe this administration again?

[rinsd]

78. "should we just believe this administration again"

This slays me and is a dangerous undercurrent of thought on DU.

Someone says "what a theocratic bastard" or points out humanr rights violations and suddenly they carry the water for neocons. I see this more with Cuba and Venezuela where organizations like Amnesty and HRW are accused of being neocon fronts because they say there are human rights issues. Nevermind that almost every country has some human rights issues. But it is still disturbing and an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

Its the other side of the coin to "why do you hate America" and I thought collectively we were better than that.

[Jeroen]

66. What has my opinion about Ahmadinejad to do with an invasion?

Look, you are absolutely right that he 'speaks reasonable'.
Most of his arguments are valid and his behaviour towards the U.S./GB/Israel is, imo, more or less justified.
And I do believe that we need dialogue and diplomacy, not wars.
So, should we (the West) start diplomacy with Iran? Of course. (damn, I sound like Rummy..lol)

This man, however, is the dictator of a regime that oppresses people like you and me.
Therefore he doesn't deserve our sympathy. That's all.

[jasmeel]

53. That interview was so poorly conducted-it was disgusting.

Wallace was acting like a 3 year old.

[LSK]

56. what caught my attention is he said Iran invaded nobody in 200 yrs

Is that really true?

[Virginia Dare]

62. He is very well spoken...

I believe he has an advanced degree, I don't remember what in just now. At any rate, he is highly educated and intelligent, unlike the thing that is running this country.

[liam_laddie]

67. See my post #65 above and...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Personal_life_and_education>

[deaniac21]

63. Most of the American Embassy hostages in the late 1970's

thought he was a pretty good guy too. Level headed and very reasonable. He's the only thing that kept some of them sane during captivity.

[Spinoza]

69. As the son of concentration camp

survivors, how anyone can defend a Holocaust Denier (and a Holocaust 'Questioner' is of course a euphemism for Holocaust Denial) is simply beyond me. I don't care how 'reasonable' Ahmadinejad can sound on other subjects. Hitler also had the ability of appearing 'reasonable' when he felt it was in his interest. Why would anyone believe him?

[Jed Dilligan]

75. Then you can thank Joe Stalin for being alive.

Doesn't mean you have to sympathize with him. But he was the good guy when Hitler was his enemy.

[Spinoza]

83. What about the Soviet/Nazi pact?

Which allowed Hitler and Stalin to attack Poland and begin WWII. I have NOTHING to thank Stalin for. I do thank the brave Russian, British and American soldiers, however.

[Jed Dilligan]

84. Stalin never thought Hitler was going to be his buddy

They were both bluffing each other. Stalin led the Russian people against Hitler. The Western front was a sideshow. You can thank Stalin that Europe isn't a Reich today.

[Spinoza]

88. Bullshit

Stalin completely fucked up, did not believe Hitler would attack in June 41 despite definite information, including the exact date, given him by Churchill among others, kept huge armies at the border which were intstantly overun, wiped out most of the Russian General staff in purges in 37-38, lost his nerve within 4 weeks of the attack and had a breakdown, and was single-handely responsible for the gigantic Russian losses in the first months of the war. Only starting with the Battle of Kursk did he stop ruinously interfering and micro-managing his Generals. As far as the 'sideshow; goes, Stalin himself admitted that without American aid Russia would have lost. Certainly the Russian soldier was instrumental in Germany's defeat. Stalin made everything worse. Read 'At the Court of Red Czar' for an accurate portrait of Stalin during WWII.

[Jed Dilligan]

89. So, answer my question

If not Stalin, who led Russia to victory in World War II?

You've said a lot of bad things about Stalin that are probably true, but nothing against my simple initial claim.

Roosevelt did bad things too. Should I revise history and claim that, because of that, he really wasn't the leader of America in the same period?

[Spinoza]

90. The form of your question pre-supposes there

must be one valid answer. If any single Russians were responsible for the Soviet victory it was Zhukov and Koniev. (Of course, the single person most responsible for Soviet victory was actually Hitler.) The Soviet Union won DESPITE Stalin not BECAUSE of Stalin. Certainly, Stalin (except for his breakdown) was the 'leader' (fuhrer?) of the Soviet Union during WWII. But to credit his actions with victory is 180 degrees the opposite of the truth. The Soviet Union should have, and could have defeated the initial German invasion if Stalin had not:
1) Decimated (i.e. killed) almost all of the Soviet military leadership in 37-38.
2) Refused to pay heed to the warnings from his own spies, Roosevelt, Churchill and others of imminent German attack and prepared accordingly. Churchill said that Stalin...."who trusted noone else was the last person on earth to trust Hitler's word...")
3) Insisted, against all proper military doctrine, of massing his armies on the borders, so they could be flanked and overrun within weeks, resulting in an unbelievable 3 million POW within the first 3 months of the war.
4) Insisted on a 'no retreat' and refused to agree to fighting defensive pull-back. (In this regard, Hitler was similar.)
5) Meddled again and again in Soviet military strategy and even tactics resulting in defeat after defeat until he finally learned his lesson with the summer 1943 Battle of kursk. (He was unable to meddle in 'Stalingrad'.) For dozens of examples read Khruschev's 1956 Stalin denunciation and his auto-biography. Also read Solzhenitsyn who was a Captain on the Russian front before his arrest.

Stalin was no more responsible for Soviet victory over Germany than King Leopold of Belgium was responsible for Belgium's defeat by Germany. But like Stalin, he was the 'leader'. By your reasoning he must take responsibility for Belgium's (inevitable) defeat.

[Jed Dilligan]

A couple of points, though you're obviously better-read

on the subject.

1. Wasn't it Stalin's decision to move production behind the Urals? That was probably the most important factor in Soviet victory IMO.

2. The woeful defense of the border in Summer-Fall 1941 can be interpreted as an enormous bluff to make the Hitler overextend himself. Brutal way to play mind games, but I think Stalin understood Hitler's mind to this extent.

3. If it was basically the officer corps that won the war, how could the purges of 37-38 have worked against winning the war? Brutal way to change staff, but he apparently had the right guys at the end of it.

I don't admire Stalin and don't really know where this argument started, but I think my original point is that bad people sometimes work to good ends, or sometimes speak the truth. I didn't know you were such a WWII buff, but you haven't changed my view that Stalin was a shrewd leader who basically mindfucked everyone, while also killing a lot of innocent people.

[Spinoza]

92. Hey, no bad feelings.

Yes, I am a WWII buff. I reacted badly to the comment that I was alive (as the son of concentration camp survivors) because of contributions from Stalin. In fact, I believe that if Stalin had not been such a fuck-up much, if not all, (Hitler would not have attacked Poland when he did if it were not for the Hitler/Stalin pact.)of the Holocaust might never have happened or would at least have been smaller in severity. (Because of a much earlier German defeat or the inability of Germany to get its hands on so many Russian and Eastern Jews and other 'undesirables'.)

1) Yes, it was Stalin's decision, or at least his approval, to move production behind the Urals. No major decisons could be made without Stalin's approval or input. But he didn't do this until AFTER the German attack. What other choice did he have if he wanted to continue to fight?

2) I have heard others claim Stalin's lack of any effective border defense was a gigantic bluff. Almost all Soviet and military historians discount this concept. Russia lost its entire existing airforce, thousands of tanks and heavy artillery and 3 million POW within 90 days of the German Blitzkrieg. The attack began June 22, 1941. By end November, German troops were within 30 miles of Moscow and the Soviet Union came close to total collapse. The Soviets survived literally by the skin of their teeth as the German advance finally ground to a halt literally within Moscow's outer suburbs. The idea that this was Stalin's plan, when his regime came so close to extinction, is hard to believe.

3) I agree bad people can work to good ends or sometimes speak the truth. But again, I believe the Soviet Union won the war despite Stalins leadership, not because of it. Overall, he was a detriment. What really won the war was the Russian understanding, beginning about 6 weeks after the inital attack, that Hitler was fighting a war of extermination againt Russia and the Russian people. This galvanized them to a supreme effort of resistance. In the first weeks there are many reports of Russians actually hailing the Germans as liberators from Stalinist tyranny. But Hitler, of course, was not in the business of liberation. Very quickly the Russian people learned the truth and mounted a ferocious resistance. Stalin benefited from this but did not inspire it.

Anyways you don't have to respond further and we can agree to disagree if you like. Thank you for your civility.

[Jed Dilligan]

91. A couple of points, though you're obviously better-read

on the subject.

1. Wasn't it Stalin's decision to move production behind the Urals? That was probably the most important factor in Soviet victory IMO.

2. The woeful defense of the border in Summer-Fall 1941 can be interpreted as an enormous bluff to make the Hitler overextend himself. Brutal way to play mind games, but I think Stalin understood Hitler's mind to this extent.

3. If it was basically the officer corps that won the war, how could the purges of 37-38 have worked against winning the war? Brutal way to change staff, but he apparently had the right guys at the end of it.

I don't admire Stalin and don't really know where this argument started, but I think my original point is that bad people sometimes work to good ends, or sometimes speak the truth. I didn't know you were such a WWII buff, but you haven't changed my view that Stalin was a shrewd leader who basically mindfucked everyone, while also killing a lot of innocent people.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

70. I would rather him as Pres. than Bush!

At least he is well spoken and has a good sense of humor! I especially love the Comment about Jesus!

[NYCGirl]

79. Unless, of course, you're a dissident, an adulterer, gay or lesbian, a

striking worker, blogger, human rights advocate, etc. Then you'd be imprisoned or dead.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran

[Dragonbreathp9d]

81. It was more a shot at Bush

than a statement of fact.

[NYCGirl]

82. There's plenty of ways to slam Bush without seeming ignorant of Iran's

numerous human rights violations. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

[noamnety]

86. The US seems to support Iran's stance on gay rights

from your link:

"United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote
Rice Must Explain Repressive UN Ban on LGBT Rights Groups

(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) - In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 40 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities."

We may not stone them to death, but BushCo supports Iran's right to do so.

[oc2002]

85. Mike Wallace is Hitler!

Jon Stewart showed a clip of Hannity where he was interviewing some guy that had been a hostage in Iran years ago if he reminded him of Hitler, the guys said "who, Mike Wallice?"

lol.