Ahmadinejad proposes face-to-face to Obama

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10839986

I plead for this for a while now, you have the luck to have a leader with some natural charisma, who knows how the handle the word, even if certainly more as an orator than a debater, but still, it's not as if he was unskilled there, with still a positive image around the world, open-minded to new methods (at least he pretends to), who seems to have some good will and good faith. You don't even have to demand this, it's an invitation. Then use it to show all of this to the whole world, use it to make Ahmadinejad and his anti-semites theories look stupid, use this eyes-to-eyes encounter to make Ahmadinejad say why the hell he doesn't totally allow the inspections about Iran's nuclear program if as Ahmadinejad claims that one is only pacific.

Use all of this to show there is some good faith here, and that Ahmadinejad theories and actions are unfair. Don't let him as always enjoy the world stage and spread his words of anti-Western feelings throughout the non-Western world, and especially the Muslim one.

Accept!

(ok, I know it wouldn't happen, but well, it's an opportunity to make this guy shut up!)

[Bo]

I would support this, assuming Obama is allowed to bring as many advisors as he wants with him to the negotiations. It's time for Obama to call out Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime on all their bullcr**p to their faces.

[Ronnie]

I don't see what we can possibly gain from this.  It's not like Ahmadinejad is proposing this to benefit the US.

What's the conversation going to be like?  Something like this?:

Obama: Don't blow up Israel, okay?
Ahmadinejad: Israel is bad.
Obama: Does this mean that you will or will not blow up Israel?
Ahmadinejad: Zionists are bad.
Obama: What are you proposing?
Adamadinejad: Israel and Zionists are bad.

Ahmadinejad is going to fill the conversation with non-sequiturs, like he has in many interviews before.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I have to agree with Ronnie; there is nothing to be gained from playing ball here. Ahmadinejad is little more than a spokesman for the Ayatollah, & one who happens to be viewed as a nutcase by most people who aren't thirsty for Israeli blood at that.

[bgwah]

His time would be better spent on The View.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yes, I would, although it would go nowhere.

I don't see what we can possibly gain from this.  It's not like Ahmadinejad is proposing this to benefit the US.

What's the conversation going to be like?  Something like this?:

Obama: Don't blow up Israel, okay?
Ahmadinejad: Israel is bad.
Obama: Does this mean that you will or will not blow up Israel?
Ahmadinejad: Zionists are bad.
Obama: What are you proposing?
Adamadinejad: Israel and Zionists are bad.

Ahmadinejad is going to fill the conversation with non-sequiturs, like he has in many interviews before.

Ronnie's example of A-Jad reminds me of Rochambeau. I wonder if there is a connection there.

[Bo]

Yes, I would, although it would go nowhere.

I don't see what we can possibly gain from this.  It's not like Ahmadinejad is proposing this to benefit the US.

What's the conversation going to be like?  Something like this?:

Obama: Don't blow up Israel, okay?
Ahmadinejad: Israel is bad.
Obama: Does this mean that you will or will not blow up Israel?
Ahmadinejad: Zionists are bad.
Obama: What are you proposing?
Adamadinejad: Israel and Zionists are bad.

Ahmadinejad is going to fill the conversation with non-sequiturs, like he has in many interviews before.

Ronnie's example of A-Jad reminds me of Rochambeau. I wonder if there is a connection there.

Please elaborate.

[Bo]

His time would be better spent on The View.

That would be un-Islamic.

[Psychic Octopus]

Please elaborate.

Some of your shorter posts sound a lot like Ronnie's impersonation of the Iranian leader.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     I have to agree with Ronnie; there is nothing to be gained from playing ball here. Ahmadinejad is little more than a spokesman for the Ayatollah, & one who happens to be viewed as a nutcase by most people who aren't thirsty for Israeli blood at that.

I agree with Ronnie too, but PiT brings up a nice point.  Why meet with the Iranian equivalent of the Press Secretary.  Get the guys in robes to the table if they're going to talk turkey.

[The Mikado]

The Ayatollah Khamenei is 71 and has severe health problems.  Somehow I doubt that'd work.

As for Ahmadinejad, it'd just legitimize him as the spokesman of Iran, when the Iranian people have made it quite clear over the last year that that is not the case.  Prior to the blatantly rigged election and the brutal suppression that followed it, I'd be a bit more open to this proposal, but Ahmadinejad has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is not a good-faith negotiator.

[Hash]

Aside from the fact that the loon is a dictator and election-rigger, it's a stupid idea because it's obvious he'd use the outing as a way to get his propaganda and stupidity out there. Plus, it's impossible to actually have a level-headed discussion, let alone debate, with a guy like him. This idea is a total sham.

[Joe Republic]

Aside from the fact that the loon is a dictator and election-rigger, it's a stupid idea because it's obvious he'd use the outing as a way to get his propaganda and stupidity out there. Plus, it's impossible to actually have a level-headed discussion, let alone debate, with a guy like him. This idea is a total sham.

I completely agree.  Ahmadinejad would run rings around him.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I'm of the kind to think that anybody is worth discussing with.

I would also think that if you manage the word quite easily and if you're able to easily keep cold blood in a debate you can own this guy, lol, only putting Ahmadinejad and Obama side by side would make a point, he already ridiculed that Sarkozy here by only speaking side by side with him.

I also think that guy is a spokesman of anti-Western feelings around the world, and especially in Arab/Muslim world, no matter his Persian-Shiah nature. And uses all big stages to spread it, and that it works.

Then, one more time he will speak at UN, Westerners will stupidly flee, as always, mixing dignity with contempt, and as always he will display his stupid speeches, and nobody will face him and he could say to the rest of the world 'look, I wanna speak of serious points with West, and they flee, what's wrong?'.

While you would 'only' have to accept an invitation, to show there is no contempt here, and to clearly expose the 2 or 3 points that are wrong with this guy, with what he says and does. Talking doesn't mean kissing or bowing or being friend.

I don't believe it would happen as I said, I guess it's inconceivable for 'we great Westerners to speak with such a nasty guy' (I always speak of West here, because even if you're the 1st concerned, I really think we're on the same boat there), but one more time I think everyone is worth speaking with, everyone can be afforded it. Speaking is only a way to communicate, and a way not to break a possibility of communication then, then not giving chances, or less, to violent solutions, which is what's going on when talks don't work anymore. And that might be cooler to preach for non-violent solutions I guess, especially when a scenario of a war with possibly big to very big consequences on the short to middle to long term could occur, as it is the case with Iran, and well also since it actually involves live of people.

Speaking is only a tool, that can be used in different ways, not a moral involvement, such an initiative could be a way to tell the guy with cold blood and toughly the problems, and to show the whole world (especially the non-Western one, yeah you know the 5 other billions...) who is the most unfair and who has the most good will and good faith.

Ok, it would look very odd to me either to see this happen, and I wouldn't really believe in something coming out of it in the reality, but technically that's an occasion that could be used, actually. The possibility to own it in such scenario and to make him look stupid and ridiculous, and to make him tone down, if only during such a debate, which would already be something psychologically, is here.

Anyhow I think Ahmadinejad is far to be stupid too, and he doesn't believe in it at all either, and it's certainly part of its strategy to make us look fool, we are the one who refuse a dialog, it always looks bad. And he wons again...

That would be cool if we had plans for actual concrete dialog with them to rule that stuff, or only if we could use better psychological strategy to handle them, than only letting a guy from the military saying there are other kinds of plans...

Where is change!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can already see it.

"Change, change, change"

"Zionist, zionist, zionist"

"Change, change, change"

"Zionist, zionist, zionist"

...

[Silent Hunter]

Anyhow I think Ahmadinejad is far to be stupid too, and he doesn't believe in it at all either, and it's certainly part of its strategy to make us look fool, we are the one who refuse a dialog, it always looks bad. And he wons again...

It's a political ploy; if Obama refuses it, he looks unreasonable. If he accepts, Ahmadinejad looks like a statesman.

It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Anyhow I think Ahmadinejad is far to be stupid too, and he doesn't believe in it at all either, and it's certainly part of its strategy to make us look fool, we are the one who refuse a dialog, it always looks bad. And he wons again...

It's a political ploy; if Obama refuses it, he looks unreasonable. If he accepts, Ahmadinejad looks like a statesman.

Well, technically Ahladinejad is the one you have to speak to, it's always the president of Iran that other leaders meet, not the Ayatollah. And no matter if he looks like a statesman, the point would be to make him look like a stupid one with stupid and bad faith thesis. The only tricky part is that we defend an unfair system on the nuclear realm, but still, all in all, the one would have have the most bad faith would be easy to spot, the point would just be to correctly handle him, and I think that's doable.

But well, as I already said, yeah, while it could be an occasion to take a psychological advantage, realistically it would look weird, and could mainly remain a gadget.

Beyond such an initiative what I more strongly defend, is 1st, to stop to flee when this guy speaks, it actually looks ridiculous and it makes us look as if we didn't want to hear a truth. We should listen and respond, and if not in a TV debate, it could take place in a kind of UN forum. And second, to begin to directly and concretely speak with this administration now about that nuclear affair, in the UN, or on a neutral ground during a summit for it, a place like Turkey would be ideal for example for such a thing, the most publicly possible, and privately if it can help, to adopt a more subtle psychological tactic than 'Happy Norooz'...'You still don't cooperate? We have plans to attack you'.