Eye on Ahmadinejad

Scott Hardie | August 13, 2006
Mike Wallace's taped interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is making headlines before it even airs, mostly over the backlash against it in the blogosphere. The official CBS news blog lists some of the complaints they've received directly. Where do you stand? Is Ahmadinejad a dangerous enemy of the United States would shouldn't be given this platform for his propaganda, or is he an important influence in modern affairs whose beliefs need to be understood?

Being a bleeding-heart liberal, I fall in the second half myself. This is an oversimplification, but either we're going to have peace with Iran, in which case we should understand what they think without necessarily agreeing, or we're going to have war. I don't care to see thousands of our troops sacrificed because we refused to listen openly to the other side; that's the same foolish thinking (on both sides) that kept the Cold War going on wastefully for decades. I also don't trust the White House to tell me Ahmadinejad is our enemy and not learn about the man myself, but we've hashed that topic a lot recently. Of course, all of this is a moot point, since I don't have a TV to watch it on. :-)

Tony Peters | August 13, 2006
I'm pretty middle of the road but the only thing I find interesting about Ahmadinejad is that non terrorists think he's important...He and his government sponsor terrorism. Regardless of how we feel about him he beleives that we all need to die.

Scott Hardie | August 14, 2006
What, the US government doesn't sponsor terrorism? Ahmadinejad is a scumbag who fans dangeous cultural hatred for his political career, but he's an important scumbag, the preeminent figure in the Islamic world and a man who can choose to end or spare millions of lives. I also suspect he's a politician at heart who will act according to his interests first, Iran's interests second, and the world's interests a far distant third (as opposed to Kim Jong-il who obviously doesn't give a damn about his country), and if so I wonder if appealing to those priorities will contain Ahmadinejad without costly military action.

Tony Peters | August 15, 2006
I guess that depends on how you define terrorism...though if you count Afganistan in the 80's then you are probably right. But it was really no different than what China (and we thought Russia) was doing in VietNam. The difference is that at the time China, Russia and the USA were true superpowers...not upstarts using the threat of armegedon as a method to buy their way into the big leagues.
I agree that he is an opportunist...I think he see's the extreamest direction that the Imam's espouse is a way for him to gain power and position...if they fell out of favor/power I'm sure he would pick up whatever the next theme/fad/whatever would further is desire for power.

Scott Hardie | August 16, 2006
Give me a leader who hears on the news about mass deaths and thinks that's a tragedy, what a shame instead of how can I use this, and I'll give that leader my support. I don't think there are many in this world or Ahmadinejad's world.

Tony Peters | August 17, 2006
True I'm eagerly awaiting the chance to elect a president that can be respected and trusted...we've certainly had 16 years of losers.

John E Gunter | August 17, 2006
Yeah, I can't wait till I can vote for someone other than the lesser of evils candidate.

Amy Austin | August 17, 2006
I present the candidates for 2008:

Tony Peters | August 17, 2006
Rudy and Hilary are the first two who's the 3rd

Jackie Mason | August 18, 2006
[hidden by request]

David Mitzman | August 18, 2006
Rudy is a self-important ass, but did he get the job done in NYC? The city is much safer (not just him doing the job but also the people he appointed to various posts throughout the city government), it's having a great booming era, and he was at the forefront when 9/11 happened. A lot of people think he's an ass that will step on people to get the job done, but in this city you can't be the nice guy and run things.
I think New Yorker's only know the real Rudy, not the post-9/11 Rudy.

Hillary as a Senator, she's just ok. Nothing special. I wish she'd focus on slightly more important things than violent video games and whatnot.

Kris Weberg | August 18, 2006
I think that's true of any big city, Dave --m just look at the Daleys in Chicago, for instance.

That said, I'm not sure that the same approach to governance is good for the whole country.

David Mitzman | August 18, 2006
I agree with you. I've heard the Daley's have quite the reputation.
Well I think Bill Gates would probably make a decent president. He can't be bought so would be uninfluenced by any lobby groups. I don't know how he'd fare at foreign policies but I bet he'd get this country's domestic issues in order (at least economically).

Tony Peters | August 19, 2006
damn Bill Gates now that's an Idea I hadn't thought of...though if that were to happen the whole country would hate him everytime there was a Windows Crash. My Brother and I have a bet about the next election. I beleive that we will yet again be treated to the most mediocre of canidates who drive out any good choices. He's an idealist who beleives that we'll get a new president that will be a remarkable improvement on what we have now...my dad the former naval officer (and republican) is hoping the Dem's gain back some seats (and power) to force congress to function properly for the country again. He won't bet on it though

Scott Hardie | August 19, 2006
Bill Gates for presdient? Not a terrible idea, the more I think of it. He's leaving Microsoft to do more good in the world with his Foundation, but he could do a whole lot more good as a sitting president, and go back to the Foundation afterwards. Time has been kind to him since the antitrust trial a few years ago. I could pick worse people for the job.

I fear you're right, Tony. As low as Bush's public opinion plunges and as many Republican scandals rock the headlines, you can always count on the Democratic Party to wuss out and select the safest, most bland candidates they can in order to lose yet again. They've just repeated it by choosing Lamont over Lieberman. The Republican Party could nominate a baked potato and win on personality.

Kris Weberg | August 19, 2006
There is no Democratic Party anymore, just a bunch of warring factions who share an umbrella term for themselves for funding and publicity purposes.

Tony Peters | August 19, 2006
what's funny is that there is no republican push for their canidate in Conn (I live on the RI border and work CT). The impression that most voters have is that the republican party would rather have Joe over Ned and they know their own guy has no chance. Given that both parties together don't make up half the voters in the state, if Joe can win them he should beat Ned...

Amy Austin | August 19, 2006
From what I've seen of him, I like Lamont.

Tony Peters | August 20, 2006
NOT he's a rich prick who's using the war and all his money to fullfill his delusions of grandure