Did anyone watch or read the speech at the UN by the president of Iran? What did you think?

Question

I was actually looking for anyone who read or saw the Iranian president's speech last night, and had comments about what he said... apparently no one is paying attention.

President Amedinijad made a lot of 'spiritual' references. Does this scare anyone? No separation of church and state in Iran.

Answer 1

Ahmadinejad can dodge questions well and is adept at reading a speech. He is a Mahdaviat (a person who believes in and prepares for the Mahdi.) Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN in 2005 and alluded to Imam Mahdi. In his speech of September 19, 2006 at the UN he averred, "I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet." Then he prayed, ""Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

The whois registration of his website lists his first name as mahdi http://lvb.net/item/3255

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Under Iran's constitution, the highest government official and commander-in-chief of the military is the Supreme Leader. The first Supreme Leader was Ayatollah Khomeni. The current Supreme Leader is Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei. Both the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad have apocalyptic views. They want to bring about the zuhur (appearance) of Imam Mahdi. They want to establish a Shiite Khalifah (empire) from Iran to Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad choose his words well for the speech at the UN on September 19. Instead of naming names he says "some" [individual's] behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity.

Ahmadinejad emphasized, The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq...there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife...It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Next he discusses Palestine and Lebanon. Then he reiterates the statement made in other speeches, "The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors." Maybe he has said that so often that he really believes it. It was over the issue of inspections that the current situation arose. Furthermore, there is an addendum to the NPT that Iran never signed.

Then finally, he names names,

"The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account?"

Then he ended with the prayer for the mahdi.
.

Answer 2

Is the same President Bush who was warned that WMD did not exist in Iraq and chose to go tow war with or without the support of the United Nations? So which Bush showed up yesterday?

Answer 3

Yes, religous nuts are running both the USA and Iran! Perfect storm time.

-----

Brian Williams of NBC News interviewed Ahmadinejad . also. If you really want to induge in wonkism, you can read the transcript of the interview or watch it on nbcnews.com.

Answer 4

Charlie Reese says it best; Bush is a dictator
Talk Is Necessary
by Charley Reese




President Bush should talk to the Iranians. Refusing to talk is childish. How would the Cold War have ended if Ronald Reagan had refused to talk to Soviet leaders? How would relations with China have been established if Richard Nixon had said he would never talk to Chinese leaders?

For heaven's sake, how would the American Revolution have ended if the Americans had refused to talk to the British?

It is those with whom you have a disagreement that you most need to talk to. There are only two ways to resolve a conflict – through negotiations or by force. Bush's refusal to talk to the Iranians, except in terms of threats and ultimatums, seems reckless. Unlike the use of force, talking doesn't cost you anything.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said recently that if the choice is another military adventure led by this administration or a nuclear Iran, he'll take the nuclear Iran and rely on conventional deterrence. Smart guy. That's how any sensible person would see it. A nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the U.S. or to Israel, both of which have plenty of warheads to act as a deterrent.

Let me offer this for your consideration: Beginning in 1991, we bombed and starved Iraq for 13 years. That country, with an area of about 437,000 square kilometers and a population of about 20 million, has nevertheless given us three years of hell – thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it, and even on this very day, we do not control Iraq.

What do you think will happen if we blunder into Iran – a nation of 65 million people and a land area of 1.6 million square kilometers? Some of the mental and moral midgets who talked us into the Iraq debacle may claim Iran can be handled by the Air Force. Not so. We drop one bomb on Iran and we are in a war right up to our necks. The Iranians will fight with every means at their disposal, and that's a lot more than Iraq had.

There's no country outside of the United States that wants a war with Iran. Iran has invaded no one and has threatened to invade no one. It is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that treaty gives it the right to enrich uranium for its nuclear power stations. That's what Iran has done. There is not one shred of evidence that the Iranians seek to build a nuclear bomb. They say repeatedly that they have no desire to build a bomb, and we have no evidence to contradict them.

However, even if they did, no nation has the right to tell them they can't. The U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel all have nuclear weapons – why not Iran? India, Pakistan and Israel, unlike Iran, have refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty and have refused to allow international inspectors. What kind of madness is it that makes an American president believe that he has the right to dictate to the world? It is wrong that Bush is sending his flunkies around the world to cause trouble for Iran with its banking and business connections. By what right does he do this? He does it because he has the power to do it, and that is the worst possible sign of a leader – that he does something just because nobody can stop him.

Justice is not on our side in this affair. Iran's internal affairs are no concern of ours. If you wish to worry about nuclear warheads, you would be better to worry about those attached to intercontinental ballistic missiles and sitting in silos in China and Russia. I would worry more about those than about those not even built yet by people who say they have no intention of building them and who for some years won't even have the capability.

I wonder if the president really thinks that after all his bullying, the Iranians are going to say, "OK, we won't enrich uranium." Never in a million years. What they are most likely to do is tell the United States that if their rights under the nonproliferation treaty will not be respected, then there is no point in their being a participant, and we can stick it in our ear.

What will Mr. Bush do then? Go to war and wreck the world economy? I hope that then his rich friends will intervene and say, "Now, cool it, George, you're about to cost us all a lot of money."

Losing money – that might dissuade him. He seems utterly indifferent to the loss of lives and moral standing.

Answer 5

he's a fruitcake and that i want we would not enable him in this united states any further. each and every time he's here, he insults us. First he says the Holocaust never got here approximately no rely each and every of the evidence we've that it did. which incorporates some final survivors. His final visit says that we've been people who brought about 9-11. he's a freak.

Answer 6

i say we go to war with iran and venezuela.