Ahmadinejad Interview | 60 Minutes | CBS News

[Gokul43201]

It was interesting that he's much more of an orator than our current President and to the very extent most of our politicians. I don't know him and I don't think anybody knows him other than from the media (televised). Therefore, who is to judge if he's good/evil-those term are relativitism.
...
You'll be the judge whether recently we have been effective on our RESPONSIBILITY as the world leader or as a nation. All of you will be a part of or play (no matter how minute it may be) a role whether he will become another Hitler or Ghandi.

<donning relativist glasses> So, what's the difference between Hitler and Gandhi? They were both excellent orators.

 

[hserse]

My friend,

It was figuratively speaking, it was meant to convey the difference or polarity in ideology in which one's willing to lead. In my opinion, positive or negative consequenceswill result from we do and will do as nation. If we question as to "WHY" to rise to power of Hitler, the answers was the way the Allied powers treated Germany after WW I created Hitler. To the very extent we've also created Bin Laden, Saddam, Chavez, etc...for the betterment of our national interest. Of course, you may disagree with me in respect to your personal believes system, but its in the matter understanding all side of history, can we have common understanding.

 

[mjsd]

My friend,

It was figuratively speaking, it was meant to convey the difference or polarity in ideology in which one's willing to lead. In my opinion, positive or negative consequenceswill result from we do and will do as nation. If we question as to "WHY" to rise to power of Hitler, the answers was the way the Allied powers treated Germany after WW I created Hitler. To the very extent we've also created Bin Laden, Saddam, Chavez, etc...for the betterment of our national interest. Of course, you may disagree with me in respect to your personal believes system, but its in the matter understanding all side of history, can we have common understanding.

I think I know where you are coming from in this comment. I must however question, how does "Chavez" come into this suddenly...he doesn't have WMD, he doesn't invade other countries...? (deep down I think I know what you are on about.. but perhaps too controversial for me to say it here.. besides, it is kind of off-topic so I shall leave it as this)

Anyway, one of the major problem is that if you look back far enough into the history, no one/side has a clean hand. Iran and Iraq have their fair share of dirty acts, so are Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Serbia, ... and the list goes on. The issue here is that leaders of the western worlds tend to stop somewhere before Serbia in their list (I guess it is not easy to quote all countries in one go.. so they will just go for the "obvious")

But in my opinion, that big list includes all major countries or states in the world (The fact that tiny countries may be excluded from the list for now is because they are simply too weak to do anything to anyone and so they haven't had the chance to get their hands dirty yet! ). Seriously, who doesn't want to advance their own national interests? Who doesn't want to be no. 1? who doesn't want to alleviate poverty in his state? who doesn't want to be economically strong?

Sadly, the natural consequence of such advancement of one's interest, is the detriment of another always. unless we learn to share fairly, we shall never get out of this loop. In fact, we probably never will... because this world is diverse and complex and that you will always have someone who will spoil the party...
ok sorry so i did digress after all .

 

[mjsd]

In order to have a double-standard, the situations have to be equivalent. None of those are.

ah ha, are we now not just playing with already so-called moral principles but also with "words" too eh? There exists no two situations that are completely equivalent in this world (there are just so many factors!) just as no two crimes or court cases are exactly the same. If that's what you need to compare two situations and to make a point about double-standard, you may as well forget about the whole idea altogether for you will get nowhere. I hope by making that comment you didn't actually mean to say that double-standards do not exist in this world and you were simply pointing out some "bad" examples listed by me. ok, even if I agree with you that those are "bad" examples, it shouldn't change my statement that "double-standard is a fact of life"...well I hope at least.

Your comment though did lead me to thinking about something else... you know how there are always some "trump cards" floating around that politicians can use to make things just and make things seem different and so you can't really compare and use the double-standard argument. "Torture" is ok if it is in the national security interest; "climate change" is a myth if it going to cost jobs/economy; "retaliation" is ok if you use conventional combat tools and not suicide vests. two wrongs rarely make one good and usually cause more wrongs. yet, the trump card ($$$) can always make any wrongs to become goods (in their views of course).

it is not pretty but it is true

p.s. "Mr Ahmadinejad", if you think you can't win (and it looks as if you can't), just shut up, it will at least save you and your country from war in the near future... we don't need more of your rants to fuel the fire. Bush is a comedian so let him be. War between "the coalition of the willing" and Iran will affect the entire world deeply, so should be avoided at all costs!

 

[hserse]

MJSD,

I'm glad you and I are thinking in the same line of thought. Especially, I agree with your statement, "natural consequence of such advancement of one's interest, is the detriment of another always. unless we learn to share fairly, we shall never get out of this loop."

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your last statement to silence an individual.
Personally, I preferred for him to speak. IRAN does not want war and his message was clear and precise in asking the American people (as well as the world) to avoid conflicts. However, you are right, he has fueled fires to those who have preconception of (him) IRAN and aren't willing to listen. He is an intellectual and a calculating man, he's see the probability of avoiding conflict with the super power by speaking to the world audience outweighs to being silence. Hence, the down fall of Saddam Hussein (in respect to his intellectual capacity, he wouldn't make much different anyway even if he spoke). A saying that goes "Becareful, if you cornered a tiger, for he runs out option." He knows more intellectuals throughout the world would understand his plight; however, its an irony, most are from in America-but are covered by media's unbrella of influence. He acknowledge Bush popularity and our war in IRAQ;therefore; probability is on his side. However, calculating of man he is, he should be respect for trying to avoid wars. Deep down he has fear, but fear has limitation when dignity and rights of a nation becomes jeopardize-especially in ARAB world. Therefore, we as a nation must try to figure out the fine line of intersection of fear/survival. Its unfortunate, there will be those who'll take my quote about the tiger literally- and say "we have weapons and ammunitions-we can surround and kill this animal." What they'll regret would be from flow of bloods OURS and THEIR beloved fathers, brothers, sisters, friends because blood of anymosity have been spilled- "so should be avoided at all costs!" MJSD

 

[Moridin]

I doubt that Ahmadinejad is an intellectual, but he is indeed a very calculating man. Apart from his denial of the Holocaust, his hatred towards Israel and the United States and his general Islamic fundamentalism of course.

It follows logically from his modified version of Islam that there is no problem in cheating the infidels to gain power (nuclear weapons). When Iran has its hands on its first nuclear weapon, Israel will vanish in a mushroom cloud. Alternatively, the US will have to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to save our civilization. Balance of terror will not work as it did during the Cold War - the fear of death is nonexistent for an Islamic fundamentalist.

 

[fourier jr]

I doubt that Ahmadinejad is an intellectual, but he is indeed a very calculating man. Apart from his denial of the Holocaust, his hatred towards Israel and the United States and his general Islamic fundamentalism of course.

It follows logically from his modified version of Islam that there is no problem in cheating the infidels to gain power (nuclear weapons). When Iran has its hands on its first nuclear weapon, Israel will vanish in a mushroom cloud. Alternatively, the US will have to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to save our civilization. Balance of terror will not work as it did during the Cold War - the fear of death is nonexistent for an Islamic fundamentalist.

Are you being sarcastic or are you being serious? Did you even watch the clips of Bollinger & Ahmadinejad?

 

[sneez]

Moridin I cannot believe the non-sense. If we were in medival times I can very much see you shouting on some inquisition forum "Kill the witch, kill all the witches" !

 

[hserse]

My friend,

Even Death fears death, what than of man. Man basic and rooted instinct is the struggle for survival. As I said earlier, fear has it limitation (the caliber of limitation are influence by social, culture, ideology, and external force etc...). Hence, you should be able comprehend why we have suicide bombers. On the side note: Why do we not labeled Kimakazi fighter pilots as crazed fundamentalist; they were label as hero by Japanese and now Japanese became our closest friend. It is the drive to retain its own identity and culture, that one is willing to employ excuses, religious reasons, or "self righteousness, " and lower the BAR of fear. It isn't just now, it has its history for century, even to dawn of man-hence religions. From your perspective, I may as well be labled as a sympathic towards Muslim. To you I say, life is too short to hate anyone.

Then again, I cannot shape your intellectual capacity and capabilty, for every man is born with subjective reasoning. However, I should say our philosophical or our understanding of the world should progress hand in hand with our advance society. It is very dangerous to put our level of reasoning and understanding in the Colonial or Medieval era in today's advance society.
ps. My friends, the word "intellectual or calculating" both are relative and subjective. To that extent, my reasoning could also subjective and relative, but only time will tell if I have spoken true.

Good day,

 

[mjsd]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your last statement to silence an individual.
Personally, I preferred for him to speak. IRAN does not want war and his message was clear and precise in asking the American people (as well as the world) to avoid conflicts. However, you are right, he has fueled fires to those who have preconception of (him) IRAN and aren't willing to listen....beloved fathers, brothers, sisters, friends because blood of anymosity have been spilled- "so should be avoided at all costs!" MJSD

i don't agree with "silencing an individual"... in fact it probably doesn't matter, even if he starts sucking up to Bush, he will be regarded as a terrorist anyway. It is no win situation for now... but one must ask how he got himself and his country into this mess... sure the US may have played a part but as I said if you don't have a clean hand.. it is very easy for others to exploit ya... damage control should be the game right now and not random insults... I am sure those comments aren't random... but not very good for damage control either... we'll see

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Today when asked if he executes homosexuals, he said: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals... I don't know who told you that we did"

well, he hanged two of them about a year ago.