• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ahmadinejad Wants A Meeting With Obama...

"I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations," Ahmadinejad said, adding that such talks would be "in front of the international media, not a sit-down behind closed doors in order to talk about matters."

I'm sure that's exactly how it's going to go down.
 
Like I said, the guy is living in another universe.
Frankly,the Iranian Government has made itself toxic for any Western Leader to have negotiations with for a long time to come.
 
dudalb said:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.ahmadinejad.obama/index.html

Something tells me Obama will be in no hurry to return his call anytime soon/
Just shows that the Iranian Government is living in another reality.
Click to expand...
Because of political pressures, Obama probably won't accept this invitation. That's kind of a shame too, because nothing can be harmed by talking, even if you don't convince anyone of anything. At least you can clarify your position, free of media spin.

But for some reason, Americans seem to think that talking to your enemies (or those that are perceived as enemies) is a sign of weakness. I think it is just the opposite.
 
Tricky said:
Because of political pressures, Obama probably won't accept this invitation. That's kind of a shame too, because nothing can be harmed by talking, even if you don't convince anyone of anything. At least you can clarify your position, free of media spin.

But for some reason, Americans seem to think that talking to your enemies (or those that are perceived as enemies) is a sign of weakness. I think it is just the opposite.
Click to expand...

On this occasion it wouldn't look good diplomaticaly. Need to wait a bit before it can be made clear that Ahmadinejad's win is mearly being accepted as de facto rather than de jure.
 
Tricky said:
But for some reason, Americans seem to think that talking to your enemies (or those that are perceived as enemies) is a sign of weakness. I think it is just the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, Americans believe that talking to a jerk of a leader who may have stolen an election, and who cracked down violently on peaceful protesters, is a waste of time.

Ahmed does not deserve to meet with our President. Not anymore.

Obama should instead send him a private message. Or a threat of things to come. Whichever works. Ahmed has lost all street credit with me.
 
Yeah--it's not such a clear cut situation, I think. Do we engage in dialogue and be manipulated into giving an air of legitimacy to this regime, or do we just let them go about doing whatever they want (including possibly developing nuclear weapons)?

I'd rather talk than wait until it's too late to talk.

Also, even though there were definitely problems with the election, I don't think there's been very strong evidence that Ahmadinejad lost.
 
parky76 said:
B4 this crap with the elections, Ahmed may have gotten the meeting.

But now? I don't think its gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Before the crap with the elections, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have felt pressured to agree to such talks.
 
Tricky said:
Because of political pressures, Obama probably won't accept this invitation. That's kind of a shame too, because nothing can be harmed by talking, even if you don't convince anyone of anything. At least you can clarify your position, free of media spin.

But for some reason, Americans seem to think that talking to your enemies (or those that are perceived as enemies) is a sign of weakness. I think it is just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Well, Obama thought differently when he was running for president. Now he realizes that giving a thug a private (or worse, public) meeting will just serve to legitimize Ahmadinejad. Just another example of how much better Obama has been in office than he was on the campaign trail when he had to be the anti-Bush in every way. I wish that his domestic agenda had similarly butted up against reality.
 
He wants a meeting after calling Obama no better than Bush, and accusing him of formenting the instability in his country?

Screw him.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
He wants a meeting after calling Obama no better than Bush, and accusing him of formenting the instability in his country?

Screw him.
Click to expand...

That isn't a problem. Meeting with leaders you've said some highly negative things about is you hardly uncommon. It's the whole granting legitimacy argument. Could to an extent be got round by obama insisting on talking to Khamenei but Khamenei doesn't travel.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yeah--it's not such a clear cut situation, I think. Do we engage in dialogue and be manipulated into giving an air of legitimacy to this regime, or do we just let them go about doing whatever they want (including possibly developing nuclear weapons)?

I'd rather talk than wait until it's too late to talk.

Also, even though there were definitely problems with the election, I don't think there's been very strong evidence that Ahmadinejad lost.
Click to expand...


They are going to do whatever they want no matter what we say.
Once again I am amazed by the ability of "Progressives" to demand talks without taking in account the nature of whom you are talking with.
Ever hear of Munich, 1938?
Thanks for stabbing those standing up against a dictorial regime in the back because they are not "Secular" enough for your tastes. I will pretty much treat aything you say about freedom and human rights with a ton of salt now.
I knew it would be only be a matter of time before some of the lefties here begun their usual apologitics..and that is what they are under the guise of "being realistic"..for the Iranian regime.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
They are going to do whatever they want no matter what we say.
Click to expand...

I see. Unfortunately for you, Mr. "Bomb Bomb Iran" lost the election here.

Thanks for stabbing those standing up against a dictorial regime in the back because they are not "Secular" enough for your tastes.
Click to expand...

Funny how the same people involved in the revolution of 1978 are now your heroes. America's the Great Satan, right?

At any rate, I'm against the U.S. playing any significant role with Iran at the moment. I don't think Obama should meet with ANY of them just now. A U.N. meeting is a good idea--but one where the U.S. has no special role.
 
I voted for Obama, but don't let that stop you.

Funny how the same people involved in the revolution of 1978 are now your heroes. America's the Great Satan, right?
Click to expand...

And your proof these are the "Same" people is.,,
This shows more about your attitude toward Moslems ..and probably people with religious beliefs in general...then any reality on the ground in Iran.
Thanks for proving once agian that Secularist can be just as prejudiced as the worst Fundy.
I know this conflicts with your de facto support of the Current Iranian regime, but then the ability of progressives to "dooublethink" has been well established.
 
Pardalis said:
He wants a meeting after calling Obama no better than Bush, and accusing him of formenting the instability in his country?

Screw him.
Click to expand...

Quite. Let the posturing idiot show himself to be no better than Bush.

The current Iranian regime cannot on one hand give the finger to the diplomatic community by prosecuting a British Embassy employee while with the other expect normal diplomacy. Let the internal situation fester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom