President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Visits the U.N.

Is it just me, or should there be a provision in the Unites States policy that allows foreign nationals to visit the U.N. that would allow us to decline the U.N. Visa for "enemies of the state" such as the President of Iran?  I believe that allowing this man to visit our country is absurd!  It is a slap in the face to all of those serving in the military, and especially those members of the military that have been wounded or killed by the weapons supplied by Iran to the insurgents in Iraq!  I have heard it estimated that one in three coalition deaths can be attributed to Iranian supplied weapons.  I believe that we are currently at war with Iran by proxy.

He says that he will visit ground zero to lay a wreath.  I ask, to commemorate who?  All of those Americans that died?  I doubt it.  I would bet it would be to honor the nineteen murderers that highjacked those planes.  If we cannot keep him from comming here because of agreements with the U.N., we should be able to make sure he is brought directly to the U.N. for his speach, and then immediately returned to the airport for departure!

That is exactly what I Suggest!



This is precisely why the U.N should have multiple meeting locations.  I am suggesting that we not allow the president of Iran into our country.  I also think it was a ridiculous thing to allow Chavez to stand at that podium talking about smelling sulfur and that the devil had been there the day before.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that he wishes to destroy both the little satan, Israel, and the big satan, The United States.  There is nothing hidden about this.  The Islamic sects may not get along, but that did not stop them from celebrating the attacks of 9-11.  Why is it that we must always be the understanding ones?  Do you think that Iran would allow our president into their country to make a speach against their leaders?  Or Ehud Olmert of Israel?  Do you think we could or even would expect them to offer a security detail?



Autobob | September 24, 2007 - 9:21am
talker's picture


Bob - Have lots to say on this, but slammed with other work, so just briefly on one point -

Yes, I think we should always be the understanding ones - but not in the "truth, love and understanding" sense of the word but in the "understand the political realities and the motivations of both our friends and enemies to best strategize our security objectives."

I think a lot of Americans see Iran mushed in with the rest of the Middle East and don't realize that a) they really see themselves as distinct - in religion, in history, in language, in economic, civic and even political sophistication and b) along those lines, Iran might just be our most natural ally in the Middle East - and the best bet for creating a model of democracy. Yes, there are many major road blocks along the way - like, for instance, their president calling us Satanic - but if we focus on our common interests rather than our differences, we stand a much better chance of avoiding confrontation and maybe even finding an ally. (I'm not being facetious - I think the Ayatollahs, ideally, would like to solidify its religious regime and at the same time feel secure in its relations with the US. The "satan" stuff is mere political bluster to win political points at home.)

Again - Ahmadinejad is a scary nut-job, but he's only one player in the Iranian political landscape. Unlike just about every other mideast nation, power in Iran is somewhat diffuse. The Ayatollahs are the most powerful, but they have to contend with other players, some of whom are trying to nudge the country toward democracy.

Lastly - and, crud, really need to work - I'm sure not every Iranian cried on 9/11 - but there were surprised US reports about the outpouring of sympathy in Iran after the attack. Unfortunately, could only find lefty references to those reports, but here's a CNN interview with Iran's then president to show there was one guy who wasn't cheering (since sidelined, but still a hopeful for liberalizing the nation in the future) - CNN.

talker | September 24, 2007 - 10:06am

Agree on mid-east ally, if...

I agree that Iran could be our best Middle East ally, and I have seen and read that, against the wishes of many of their leaders, thousands of Iranians turn out in a massive candle-light vigil every September 11th to mourn our loss. I believe that, if handled like the cold war with Russia, we would (and hopefully will) in time see U.S. friendly forces take over in Iran. That said, it does nothing to change what the current leadership of Iran has said and is doing. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad is merely a puppet of the religous leaders, but that makes what he is saying even more ominous because it is coming from, or approved by, his superiors.


Autobob | September 24, 2007 - 10:52am

Why are all americans so

Why are all americans so paranoid? It probably has something to do with all those happy pills they take........and oh, the fact that they keep bombing other people/countries.

Anonymous (not verified) | September 22, 2007 - 10:33am


This is a reply to "why are all Americans so paranoid"

I don't think it's paranoia, when your concerns have a solid base. Maybe you just got your computer, and have never had access to any news outlets, so I would suggest you Google something like "attacks against U.S. interests since 1975" or anything similar to that. After your extensive reading on the subject, because the search will give you a huge amount of material to read, then come back and tell me about paranoia.

And where, might I ask, are you from?


Autobob | September 28, 2007 - 8:35am
talker's picture

northern europe

Bob -

Couldn't help but wonder if you were going for a bit of self-mocking irony with the three question marks after "paranoid" or not. If so, nice touch.

I agree our anonymous visitor's comment was off base, but - if I can over-analyze a text that may not merit analysis - I don't think he/she was suggesting that US interests were not and have not been under attack.

Rather I think he was using a touch of irony himself and suggesting that Americans are so fearful because they are preoccupied with personal happiness (so a little out of touch with the rest of the world) at the same time that their government is seen as an aggressor by many outside the US - a combination that would understandably leave people with a sense that others wanted to do them harm.

PS. The subject line is my guess for where anonymous comes from. Just the feel I get from their writing style.

talker | September 28, 2007 - 1:54pm
talker's picture

oh, where to begin

First, where we agree. Ahmadinejad is a bad guy, possibly unhinged (but more possibly politically savvy) and, along with Hugo Chavez, the head of state most vocal in his hatred of the US and our president. I completely agree, that were it legal (don't know what kind of deal we have with the UN), he shouldn't be allowed to trot around Manhattan acting like he gives a hoot about us.

But a couple of questions/concerns with your post:

It was unclear, but were you suggesting also that he not be allowed to come to the UN? I hope not - and I hope you agree that, no matter how loopy and dangerous a leader is, for any truly international body to work toward cooperation and peace it can't start kicking some of the members out. That wouldn't really encourage peaceful co-existence.

For the record, I also think it's important to point out - since this so often gets confused in the discussion of the Middle East - that the 9/11 hijackers were Sunni and Ahmadinejad is Shiite, so he wouldn't have a lot of love for the hijackers. Now, I know the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but Sunnis and Shiites really, really hate each other - so much so that, as Iran/Iraq history has shown, they'd often rather ally with the west than ally with each other.

The last point worth mentioning - and, unfortunately one too huge to really address in a brief post - is that, while Ahmadinejad is clearly the sworn enemy of the US (the man makes no bones about it), it's not 100% clear that we are fighting a "proxy war" with Iran in Iraq. It's chaos over there - and arms are coming from wherever warring parties can get them - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria.

I know the administration has made a point of showing that Iran's getting more involved than others, but - speaking frankly - the administration has a clear interest in deflecting attention away from its struggles in Iraq and pointing them toward an easy scapegoat, so it's reasonable to believe its allegations are overstated. Folks at the Council of Foreign Relations (a pretty centrist group) have thrown doubt on the extent of Iran's involvement ( The LAT also suggested that while weapons may be coming from Iran, they may not be coming from the government. LAT

The final thing I'll tack on - and this may get me in the most hot water - is that we may want to stop looking at the Iraq war as a war between us (that is the US) and Iraqis or their neighbors. Iraqis and the nations around Iraq know we're not there for the long haul and that over the next few years there will be an ongoing power struggle determining who's on top in Iraq and who has access to Iraq's oil. We will be going home (eventually), but Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites in Iraq - as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, etc. have to live with that power status quo for good. So if those countries are all sitting at the border eyeing what's going on, possibly (or likely) intervening, does that mean they're at war with us? Maybe they're just at war with each other.

Plus, don't forget, we're the "liberators" - the only investment we have is in securing a peaceful, stable status quo in the area. We don't, at least in theory, have a stake as part of that status quo.

talker | September 22, 2007 - 9:50am