God's Politics

God's Politics


Jeff Carr: What Would You Ask Iran’s President?

posted by gp_intern

As I mentioned on Wednesday, I will be participating in a delegation of 13 religious leaders who will be leaving tomorrow, Feb. 17, for a trip to Iran. Our delegation, which is being led by Mennonites and Quakers, will be meeting with a variety of religious leaders (including Christians and Muslims), civil society leaders, a group of female members of parliament, former Iranian President Khatami, and current President Ahmadinejad. The purpose of the trip is to deepen dialogue among religious and political leaders in the hope of defusing tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

If you could ask President Ahmadinejad one question, what would it be? I plan to check your comments before meeting with him.

UPDATE: Thank you all for your suggestions and questions. I was reading them tonight during a break in our pre-trip delegation meeting, and your input helped me frame some of my suggestions for our visit and meeting with the president. For security reasons, as of right now, we don’t know exactly which day during our visit next week we will be meeting with the president, but we are working on our thoughts and strategy for this meeting already. I look forward to updating you all as the trip unfolds.

Jeff Carr is the chief operations officer for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(127)
post a comment
Kris Weinschenker

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm


When (if ever) are you going to stop with your hateful remarks of the State of Israel?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:25 pm


Confront him with his sin and ask him to repent.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:33 pm


Jeff, Along the lines of Kris Weinschenker’s suggestion, in your meetings with religious leaders from Iran, I would ask the ordinary persons you will be meeting with, including the Muslim religious leaders, about their attitudes toward citizens of Israel.When you come back to the US, then you can speak about the possible differences between the views being expressed by the president of Iran and the people of Iran. In saying this, I’m referring to your mention of the fact that the group will be speaking with a variety of persons in Iran: “…Our delegation… will be meeting with a variety of religious leaders (including Christians and Muslims), civil society leaders, a group of female members of parliament, former Iranian President Khatami, and current President Ahmadinejad…”.



report abuse
 

Jeff Carr

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:46 pm


Thanks you all for your thoughts. I will continue to check this until I leave.



report abuse
 

lilou

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm


I would like to know what his vision for peace in the Middle East would be, if he even has one. Not everyone considers peace a desirable state. As part of that question, I’d be interested to know what he sees in the long-term for the sunni-shia division of Islam and to know his assessment of the effects of that division and what solution, if any, he would propose.



report abuse
 

Donna Vello

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:25 pm


I would tell him that America is open to work with him and his country to come to a peaceful resolution to all issues. We are waiting with open arms to use our collective intelligence to plan for a future we are supportive and respectful to each other. We need only to see what war does to know that it is never the right choice. Let’s make way for diplomatic, peaceful talks. Open your heart and head to see that we have no choice but to move towards loving one another and working together for peace!



report abuse
 

Edwin Weaver

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:50 pm


What can we do to help the average Iranian? Are there basic needs that go unmet? ie medical care, education, shelter. If so would he welcome help from other who do not share his faith?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:02 pm


Edwin Weaver That was the best question so far! I lived in Tehran in 1978. Now I’m a nurse working on a master’s in public health & tropical medicine. I look forward to the day I can go back to Iran and do something meaningful.



report abuse
 

ron

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:09 pm


Questions for Iranian President: What could the United States do to help restore normal, friendly relations between our two countries? Under what, if any, circumstances would he recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist? If there are such circumstances, what steps could Israel take that would help bring those circumstances about?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:22 pm


“Along the lines of Kris Weinschenker’s suggestion, in your meetings with religious leaders from Iran, I would ask the ordinary persons you will be meeting with, including the Muslim religious leaders, about their attitudes toward citizens of Israel.” I don’t care what they think about Israel, what are they going to Isreal. If nothing then what they think is none of our business.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:26 pm


sorry, what are they going to do to or about Israel?



report abuse
 

Cads

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:52 pm


Other than submitting to Islam, is there any way your country and religion will let the rest of the world live in peace and avoid what you consider to be the obligatory jihad?



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:03 pm


Why choose hate when you can choose love? p



report abuse
 

Bill Clinton

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:20 pm


Take my wife……….please!!



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:24 pm


How can you justify theocratic government when history (including Iran’s) shows that men end up using the name of God to bolster their own power, inevitably leading the people to lose faith in their government, making people irreligious (but hypocritical) and breeding corruption, and, in every respect, creating the opposite of a Godly society?”Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” was written about he Papacy, but it could as easily be applied to the theocrats who govern Iran. Not because they are bad men, but because they are human.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:33 pm


” Other than submitting to Islam, is there any way your country and religion will let the rest of the world live in peace” What has Iran done that keeps the world from living in peace? If the answer is nuclear power or even weapons, GB, France, Russia, Pakistan, India, China and maybe N Korea have nuclear weapons how are they interfering with world peace?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:40 pm


We haven’t talked to Cuba, Iran, N Korea etc for years and where has it gotten us.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm


If you do have the opportunity to ask my question about theocracy, I just wanted to add that I am well aware that there is no “church-state” separation in Islam, and I am also aware that Ahmadinejad is a secular leader of Iran.(So perhaps part of my question could be directed to Khatami.) I am looking for a direct answer to my question, not an evasion. (Assuming, always, that you have the opportunity to ask it.) Cheers!



report abuse
 

wayne

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:52 pm


In what ways have we wronged each other as nations? How can we work together to build relationships of trust, peace and cooperation?



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:00 pm


Do you dislike the American people, or just our current leadership?



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:03 pm


If the US decided to leave the Middle East and stop our imperialization of the region would you still seek our destruction?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm


waynePerhaps it started when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president and reinstated the Shah. Why? Because the new president wanted to nationalize the country’s oil reserves. I have one word for anyone who thinks the Shah was anything but a despot: Savak. The U.S. has a very long history of creating its own adversaries. Peace!



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:05 pm


Do you think it is possible for people of different religions to work towards a common goal?



report abuse
 

tracie bonjour

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:06 pm


“What have been the issues leading up to rivals between Iran and the US and how would YOU like to see them resolved?”I think hearing from this man would give him a sense of honor that he may feel doesn’t exist. And remember how culturally diverse the Middle East is to our own. So much is about honoring and respecting the leaders. Also, for a nation to have animosity towards another there is usually something that sparked it. These are not just psychotic Muslims bent on killing the world….let’s hope!This is great that you are going. I have all the confidence that it will be eye opening and hopefully a spring board for OUR leaders to follow… Let’s hope! tracie



report abuse
 

Will H.

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:10 pm


What do you think the role of Islam is to you personally and politically?



report abuse
 

Paul

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Kathy Burns

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:48 pm


What do you think are the root causes of the misunderstandings between our countries? How can citizens in each of our countries begin to build better relationships? Are you taking the visit of this groups seriously?



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm


I would ask him if he will openly and consistently support the active and free political and cultural participation of all members, parties and religions of Iranian Society. Do you believe in Democracy? Why? What does it mean to you. How would you like Iranian American relations to change and develop? I would also ask if having the disgust and disagreement of the entire civilized world directed at Iran is worth being a public proponent of the historically discredited position of holocaust denial.Is there any chance that Israel and Iran could become good neighbors? What would move them in that direction?



report abuse
 

Conrad Steinhoff

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:58 pm


I don’t have a question, but I hope you will carry a message to Iranian leaders and common folks: The American people want peace, not war, with Iran. Our leaders who are making threats and warlike noises do not represent most common people in America. We, the common people of both our countries must act to stop our warring leaders. Conrad Steinhoff



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:05 pm


“I would also ask if having the disgust and disagreement of the entire civilized world directed at Iran is worth being a public proponent of the historically discredited position of holocaust denial.” This whole thing was a waste of time and now is a waste of time to discuss, I further believe it was just to get under our skin and it worked.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:17 pm


“Do you believe in Democracy? Why?” Are we sending delegations to China or Russia or all the places that do not have democratic elections similar to ours? They are going because of the proximity of Iran to Iraq period. Now I agree that any agreement will help our position in Iraq but getting in there face about their political process will only divide us further. They know well how our system works and will ask for help when they want it.



report abuse
 

Al

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:35 pm


President Ahmadinejad’s views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11ba8ae4)

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:37 pm


What are your thoughts on the death of Anna Nicole Smith?



report abuse
 

wayne

posted February 16, 2007 at 11:03 pm


neuro I know that. I have friends who are Iranian, but the question is a possible first step toward reconciliation. The best first step would be to ask how has our nation hurt yours but that would only have been met with howls from many here. There is nothing wrong with admitting to our wrongs. Perhaps there might be an admition on Ahmadinejad’s part. I doubt it, but perhaps. Maybe it would catch him off guard. Maybe he might think about jihad and armeggedon a little differently. I am certain he would do neither of these if some of these more confrontational approaches were taken.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted February 16, 2007 at 11:46 pm


Honestly. If anything, I’m not sure this delegation ought to be meeting with Ahmadinejad at all. It conveys a credibility to his regime that is undeserved.But, George W. Bush’s approach to Iran scares me to death, so I’m not sure what should be done. Perhaps, in this case, talking is better.



report abuse
 

phil

posted February 17, 2007 at 12:02 am


Thank you so much for doing this. It almost brought tears to my eyes. This trip is in my prayers.



report abuse
 

Brian Gunn

posted February 17, 2007 at 12:04 am


I would like to know if President Ahmadinejad has ever taken the time to explore the depth of his faith, i.e. has he subjected it to any sort of philosophical inquiry that may possibly lead to skepticism? Also, I’d like to know what, exactly is his ultimate goal for Iran, i.e. what sort of legacy does he want to leave to the Iranian people?



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted February 17, 2007 at 12:29 am


butch My proposed question about democracy is not intended to be confrontational or mean spirited. Iran has a higher commitment to democracy than some countries and advocacy of democratic rights was part of the revolution against the Shah. The intention is to understand how these ideas are seen by an important leader and to open the way for an honest and respectful exchange. The question about holocaust denial would have to be respectfully posed or it would serve no positive purpose. The idea is to show that the international cost may outweigh the domestic political advantage.Offering a good scholarly book on the subject by a non-Jewish non anti-muslim writer might be better since he has heard this concern before.Anyway I always appreciate your honesty and weigh your disagreements with my posts, and certainly understand what you are saying on this one.My sense is that this delegation is looking to build dialog, trust, respect, and peace, so the questions I offered would only be of use if they furthered those goals. Still, our good will must also realistically express our honest concerns and apprehensions. Th whole idea of demonstrating that we will not allow King George ( or any single big shot) or the mega-corporations to be the solo mediator of international communication is truly vital, and I wish them well. May there be many more like them.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 17, 2007 at 3:52 am


“Honestly. If anything, I’m not sure this delegation ought to be meeting with Ahmadinejad at all. It conveys a credibility to his regime that is undeserved.” Undeserved by what measure or in whose eyes? When I was 18 some 50 years ago a black man, my friend, who swept the floors in a factory where I worked because that was the only job a black man could get then. I was complaining about something in my life, his advice was “since it is use common sense”. Iran has a government and we have to deal with it as it is unless we intend to destroy it and replace it and we should communicate as best we can until we make the decision to overthrow it.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 17, 2007 at 3:53 am


Joseph T and butch, Good exchange of views that are actually probably pretty close… hayesmike@InsightBB.com… give me a ring…



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 17, 2007 at 4:12 am


Joseph, SORRY if I over did it. There is so little give and take that I often just take a shot at what I think is going on. In this case it seemed like the type of arrogant positions that cause us to be disliked, feared even hated in many places in the world. And my position is; we need to go in respectfully and gently and try to find a deep understanding of Iran and all of its parts. When we understand then we can decide how to act out of knowledge.



report abuse
 

Jeff Carr

posted February 17, 2007 at 4:12 am


Thank you all for your suggestions and questions. I was reading them tonight during a break in our pre-trip delegation meeting, and your input helped me frame some of my suggestions for our visit and meeting with the President. For security reasons, as of right now, we don’t know exactly which day during our visit next week we will be meeting with the President, but we are working on our thoughts and strategy for this meeting already. I look forward to updating you all as the trip unfolds. Blessings,



report abuse
 

Cads

posted February 17, 2007 at 5:26 am


Butch, Fundamentalist Muslims believe it’s their holy duty to wage war against all those who are nonbelievers of Islam (please look up the definition of “jihad”). Ahmodinejad, as the spokesman for the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei (the guy with the real power), has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He would call that a good start. I’m still wondering how you negotiate with people who believe it’s their duty to convert non-Muslims to Islam or kill them.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:03 am


Cads that is more rhetoric than fact, yes there are some and they must be watched but still dealt with. I met a man from Saudi Arabia, fairly high official, so I asked him explain the Middle East to me. He drew maps and explained where the oil was, etc. Then he went on to explain about the rift between Sunni and Shiite, that they would have a big war some day and there was no way to settle their differences without conflict. He was here entering his son in University so we talked a great deal about his son etc. I suggested that to stop the conflict he should contact a Shiite in Iran and make a friend out him. He explained that that could not be because they were Shiite. So I explained that when this Great War comes and his son is in the conflict and a Shiite man has a gun pointed at your son and Says, tell me your name, I want to know the name of the Sunni I m going to kill. Your son tells him his name and the Shiite with the gun says who is your father. Are you the son of Muhammad Ali and your son says yes, is he the friend of my father, yes. I will not kill you today; I will not kill the son of my father s friend. So your son lives because you made a friend of a Shiite in Iran today. He jumped up and hugged me saying Butch Butch I never thought of that. So how do you negotiate with someone who wants to kill you? With love and friendship! I know you won t get it but there it is. See how quick you can type the yeah but. To which my yeah but is; that is what Christ would do.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:36 am


butch, Amen, brother. Cads, I don’t think fundamentalist Muslims wrote the concept of jihad. The Muslim I met recently was not a fundamentalist and he explained that jihad to him meant doing well every function that he has in life… including serving in the national guard…



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:42 am


Mike, There is a large Iraqi community in Michigan, where are the jiihadist? Yes, there is someone in that group who would do harm, he or they would be criminals like Timothy McVay. There is not a terrorist under every Muslim rock.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 17, 2007 at 7:08 am


Ask Ahmedinejad when he will stop funding and otherwise supporting the overthrow of the Lebanese government with his Hezbollah thugs.



report abuse
 

James

posted February 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm


I’d ask him to discuss Jesus. What does he think of this Prophet and his words? In what way is Jesus a role model for him in his life and decisions? Would he be willing to work with Christians to discover the will of God?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:08 pm


James, What a wonderfulk place to start – with Jesus. I’m sure many people diescuss geo-political stuff, and we all come with our own blindspots that make connection difficlt. I wonder how many people have ever asked him what he thinks of Jesus, how he is inspired by Jesus, and then listened. Steve



report abuse
 

Keith Van Essen

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm


What a great opportunity, Jeff!!! God bless you and the words you’ll share with every Iranian there.Looking forward to hearing how it went. Keith



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm


wayneI figured you knew that because you were willing to ask the question. I returned to the U.S. in 1979 after having lived in Iran for a year. You’d think that I would have experienced culture shock moving to a country like Iran, but the worst culture shock I’ve experience was when I returned from Iran and when I returned to the U.S. after living in Ethiopia for a year. Part of the shock came when I heard the utter hatred and/or contempt of Iranians expressed so readily by so many Americans who really knew very little about what was going on in that country. I have the same feeling now when I read some of the comments and questions (yours is not one of them) posted here. Peace!



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 17, 2007 at 8:42 pm


On the other hand, there are some very thoughtful comments posted here as well. My wife tells me I’m the ‘glass is half empty’-type.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm


“I’d ask him to discuss Jesus. What does he think of this Prophet and his words?”I wonder how many people have ever asked him what he thinks of Jesus, how he is inspired by Jesus, and then listened.” Why not start with how you are inspired by Muhammad (sp) and listen.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 17, 2007 at 10:53 pm


butch That’s more or less where I have trouble with some of the more bellicose voices out there who expect the world to see things our way, yet fail to take into consideration that there are (at least) two sides to every story.For instance, in the last four years, which nation has been responsible for more deaths of innocent civilians than anyone else? It s not Iran.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 17, 2007 at 11:20 pm


It s not Iran. You’re sure about that? Since Iran is behind much of the Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq and Lebanon and elsewhere, they may very well be the nation most responsible for more innocent civilian deaths than anyone else.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 17, 2007 at 11:50 pm


That depends upon whose estimate of the number of Iraqis killed since the U.S. invasion of that country you want to believe – but that’s beside the point. The perspective of many people around the world is that the U.S. has far too much blood on its hands to presume that we have the moral high-ground. That’s the other side of the story that we don’t want to see.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 12:25 am


neuro, timks is one of those I call Republi-Nazi Apologist who hear nothing but the Bush administration line they dodge and say anything to defend it or shift the subject. Lets just look at Iran part of the axis of evil. What would we expect them to do but keep us tied down in Iraq if in fact they are? Bush equated them to Iraq then blew the b-jesus out of Iraq so Bush is not a paper tiger. If they are interfering in Iraq then they should in their self-interest. Bush rattles his swords at Iran and the price of oil goes up, and then rattles his swords again and the price of oil goes up, this has been repeated several times. Many wars have been started for less money than the oil companies are making. Timks is either a dupe or is on the payroll to do what he does here, in either case simply evil and dangerous.Iran has not been aggressive outside its borders for at least 250 years and Bush calls them part of the axis of evil for what reason. Unless Bush didn t appreciate Iran s help in Afghanistan with the Taliban. A rule; “if it doesn’t make sense then there is a piece of the puzzle missing”, when you know all the pieces it will make sense.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 1:31 am


butch, you’re out of line. there was absolutely no call for your insulting and ignorant message. I’m starting to wonder if you are able to read beyond a 3rd grade level.Iran has not been aggressive outside its borders for at least 250 years and Bush calls them part of the axis of evil for what reason. Unless Bush didn t appreciate Iran s help in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Exhibit #1: occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Embassies are considered territory of the country whose interests are housed there. Exhibit #2: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 Since you seem to be one of those unable to accept “Zionist” sources, here’s a source you may believe http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1405510 Exhibit #3: do you really believe that Iran has no proxies in Lebanon? Exhibit #4: Afghanistan is outside Iran’s borders. Therefore, you’re rebutted by your own words.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 1:39 am


neuro, I hope you will ignore the ignorant and hateful in our midst.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 2:08 am


timks, I’m far from ignorant with limited reading skills but excellent thinking skills. Example #1 we installed a complete despot and tyrant to terrorize Iranians with the Shaw and kept him propped up to abuse his people for years. They should have torn down the embassy years before they did. Please inform me but I don’t think anyone was killed, certainly no where near the number killed, tortured and forced to live in fear that our puppet the Shaw brought down on the people of Iran. Example #2 when we resolve the Palestinian question then we can judge Zionism in the region. Since we prop up Israel then we suffer any anger connected with the treatment of Palestine. I think we should protect Israel but not in the way we are doing it. Israel terrorizes innocents to try to quell those who would fight against the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israel. We simply have to change our paradigm in how we look at Israel and Palestine.Example #3 of course Iran has proxies in Lebanon as does Syria, Israel, etc and particularly the US Government.Example #4 the way Iran helped was not to attack Afghanistan but to not give safe haven for the Taleban. All of your thinking is egocentric leading to one view which is both right and wrong but leads to serious errors because you can t see your own errors or compromises which lead to solutions. So, I repeat the effect of your ignorance is both dangerous and evil to its logical conclusion.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 18, 2007 at 2:16 am


timks I’m a Catholic liberal married to a Conservative (as she says, “with a capital ‘C'”) Southern Baptist. I’ve had to learn (rather, I am learning) to listen well before responding, and I’ve learned so much from hearing her perspective, even if we disagree – a lot. This is not an accusation directed at you, but I also share some of the sentiment that butch expressed. I think (this is my opinion) that there are too many Christians out there who mistake bush apologetics for Christian apologetics. I know of people who don t think it s possible to be a Christian and a liberal/Democrat. The truth is, my Christian values are part of the reason I vote for Democrats. I share butch s passion and frustration with what we see going on in this administration. I lived in Iran and spent several months hitch hiking around North Africa. I have developed an appreciation for Arab culture and a deep respect for Islam. Without going in to too much detail, I learned that many beliefs that Americans have are biased and not based on a complete understanding of events outside of this country. From time to time I read Al Jazeera online. There is a strong anti-American bias there, but it s a perspective that many people outside the borders of this country have. As far as I m concerned, it s no worse than the propaganda in U.S. media it s the opposite side of the same coin. We cannot approach Iran or any other country in the Middle East or the world as a whole with the attitude that we are right and they are wrong. That s a losing proposition from the word go. The mature thing to do is admit our mistakes and attempt to make amends without expecting an immediate return on the investment. Invading Iraq was a mistake one over which many Arabs and Muslims are justifiably upset. If we re going to get anywhere, we need to stop living in denial about that fact. Peace!



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 2:58 am


neuro, the danger of denial is staying on the same erroneous path. Nothing is all wrong or all right, so understanding the wrong part is the point. In that way we can alter course or not make the same mistake. Some will know that my sons are attorneys and my wife is a court reporter. From my wife’s experience sitting in the middle and listening to both sides that often the main deterrent to resolving a lawsuit (conflict) is no one will say “I’m sorry”. Often both sides need to own their part of the dispute. Our excuse making and egocentric thinking may be the main deterrent to solutions to our problems.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 3:33 am


butch, you remain an ignorant and illogical person, if your meager writing abilities are any indication. I stated that Iran is responsible for killing lots of innocent people, and you attack me as a Nazi Bush apologist who is evil and dangerous. You stated that Iran has not been aggressive outside its borders for 250 years. You then contradict your own statement. When I produce further evidence that Iran has indeed been aggressive outside its own borders in recent years, you provide irrelevant and incoherent responses. I believe it is evil when one willfully ignores all murders except those performed by the Bush administration. Or worse, blames the Bush administration for all murders committed by others.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 3:52 am


“Or worse, blames the Bush administration for all murders committed by others” Quote where I said that? Tell me who Iran has attacked?



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 3:56 am


neuro – It is unclear to me which of the sentiments in butch’s message you share. Butch’s messages are usually so incoherent I don’t know exactly what his views are. All I know is he accused me of being an evil, dangerous Nazi Bush apologist because I dared to say that Iran is guilty of state sanctioned murder outside its borders, as even he admits they are – except when he says they are not. I have great admiration for Persians and know some personally and professionally. They have a civilization and culture that is ancient and rich. However, I still submit the current Iranian government is murderous and far more dangerous than many recognize. I do not share the same sanguine attitude toward Islam you have, however. Like you, I have also found some Americans to be ignorant of what’s going on outside our borders. Americans aren’t unique in that regard as I know from communication with relatives in Europe. I have also met Americans who are largely ignorant of what’s going on inside our borders. What does that prove?



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:00 am


butch, Tell me who Iran has attacked? I already did. Furthermore, you admitted they had proxies in Lebanon who have attacked Israel and opponents in Lebanon. More of those excellent thinking skills on display?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:04 am


Well I didn’t read who they have attacked and when I re-read I didn’t read who you say they attacked?



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:14 am


In addition to the havoc in Iraq they are sponsoring, the link I provided was to a story about a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires (that’s in Argentina) that was bombed by agents of the Iranian government. About 100 people were killed. The same story talks about another Iranian bombing at the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires where 30 more people were killed. These bombings occured in 1992 and 1993 – obviously G. W. Bush’s fault.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:21 am


“I already did. Furthermore, you admitted they had proxies in Lebanon who have attacked Israel and opponents in Lebanon.” The Republi-Nazi Apologist part, you conveniently leave out the part where I point out that the US and others have proxies in Lebanon. This egocentric thinking says we can but they can’t.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:25 am


This egocentric thinking says we can but they can’t. First, look up the word egocentric. It makes no sense as you’ve used it. Second, where did I say we can but they can’t? Third, you’re still not willing to admit you were wrong about Iran’s aggression outside its borders in 250 years, are you?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:34 am


What is this aggression?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:37 am


Who did they attack? Not a hard question?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 5:03 am


“I already did. Furthermore, you admitted they had proxies in Lebanon who have attacked Israel and opponents in Lebanon.” The same egocentric thinking that they should not have proxies and we should. How are we different? Republi-nazi apologist thinking, why can’t you see the log in your eye. I’m saying we are all wrong, your defense of Bush says “only they are wrong”. Btw, the Buenos Aires post came after my question and I did see it.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 5:46 am


your defense of Bush says “only they are wrong”. Is English your native tongue? I make a comment that Iran is a murderous regime and that is a defense of Bush????



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 6:05 am


Republi-Nazi Apologist sticks out like a sore thumb.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 18, 2007 at 6:36 am


butch, you are a fool; an ignoramus best ignored.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 18, 2007 at 7:22 pm


timks “I still submit the current Iranian government is murderous and far more dangerous than many recognize.” I will not argue with you on that point. It seems to me that the U.S. cannot point its finger at Iran and make that claim without appearing to be hypocritical to many people. U.S. news media whitewashes the truth to protect us from ourselves. To many outside of this country and those in this country who take the time to seek news from sources outside the U.S., our actions and our foreign policies seem selfish and brutal. I was shocked when I returned to the U.S. in January of 03 after having only the BBC on shortwave as my only source of news for a year. Shocked, because from what I had been hearing, there was no valid case made to support the invasion of Iraq. In the U.S. media, I heard little to no dissent on going to war with Iraq. My response then was as it is now, we were lied to. Now, that s my perspective and my opinion. You are free to disagree with me, but I strongly suspect that there are many people, particularly in the Muslim world, that share those beliefs. The Gospel reading for today seemed to me to be relevant to this discussion: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:27 That s a tall order. I suspect there are those reading this who might feel that I am na ve to suggest that this verse is relevant to our relationship with Iran. I agree that we need to deal with Iran and the Muslim world in a way that promotes self-preservation, but our present course of action is pouring gasoline on that fire. We are only giving our enemies more reasons to hate us. love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:35-36 I d rather take Christ at his word that try to rationalize my way out of being obedient to it.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11668888)

posted February 18, 2007 at 8:41 pm


1. How can a responsible leader of a country advocate wiping another country off the map? 2. In what sense is your continuous anti-Semitic remarks likely to improve the tone of Middle-Eastern dialogue?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 8:42 pm


neuro if you will enroll in Neo-Con double think school it will all be clear.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 8:51 pm


2. In what sense is your continuous anti-Semitic remarks likely to improve the tone of Middle-Eastern dialogue? Anonymous | 02.18.07 Please quote the anti-semitic words, I want know how help in the attack on this obvious anti-semitic?



report abuse
 

Brian Goff

posted February 18, 2007 at 9:15 pm


Are there practical things that average Americans can do to foster friendship on a personal level with Iranians? I’ve wondered if maybe some kind of internet website to match people of similar interests to talk to each other. Brian



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 18, 2007 at 9:21 pm


If you read my story about the Saudi man I met, that was my idea and since I thought of it that makes it great! Nothing more difficult than hating someone you know personally. I could have used my time better to post the idea instead of taking on the Republi-Nazi’s. Thanks Brian



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm


” In the U.S. media, I heard little to no dissent on going to war with Iraq.” If you are referring to news media, the standard in the United States is to simply report fact, not offer “dissent” to anything. European style journalism has a different philosophy. However, there was plenty of dissent to this war in 2003. You saw it in editorial pages, political blogs, street conversations. Your whitewashing narrative just doesn’t hold water.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 18, 2007 at 9:57 pm


kevin s. Based on what I wrote in my last post alone, no there isn t an argument for U.S. media whitewash, but that wasn t the point of the post. The point is that many people, including myself, believe the U.S. has no right to claim the moral high ground with Iran because of our actions in Iraq and other parts of the world. You don t have to agree with that point of view, that s not the point either. The point is that if we go in to a discussion with Iran (or anyone else) with the attitude that we are right and they are wrong, listing their wrongs without acknowledging the harm we have done to others, we might as well not enter the discussion at all (which, IMHO, is not what this president wants to do anyway but that s beside the point!).



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 18, 2007 at 9:59 pm


BTW, I live in New Orleans. It’s a beautiful sunny day outside and my wife and I are going to the parades. Have a great day and God bless you!



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 19, 2007 at 1:00 am


“I still submit the current Iranian government is murderous and far more dangerous than many recognize.” I will not argue with you on that point. Sorry, neuro. Did you mean to say you agree with that point, or you believe I’m looking for an argument? It seems to me that the U.S. cannot point its finger at Iran and make that claim without appearing to be hypocritical to many people. There isn’t a country in existence of which that couldn’t be said to one extent or another, unfortunately. I’m not sure if that is something that any country should allow to constrain them from acting in their interests, though. What should we do when an aggressive country has no qualms about appearing hypocritical, as long as its objectives are achieved? Iran, for example, doesn’t seem to care that it is hypocritical for them to be supporting the murder of both Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and elsewhere. I was shocked when I returned to the U.S. in January of 03 after having only the BBC on shortwave as my only source of news for a year. Shocked, because from what I had been hearing, there was no valid case made to support the invasion of Iraq. In the U.S. media, I heard little to no dissent on going to war with Iraq. My response then was as it is now, we were lied to. I’m not sure I follow you: you were overseas with only one source of information, but when you returned to the states you were shocked to find out there was different information than what you had been hearing? I was on the road a lot during the run up to the Iraq invasion, so I spent lots time in airports and hotel rooms. With nothing better to do, I read a lot of newspapers and watched a lot of news. My memory is that there was no shortage of either pro or con opinions at that time. If you felt lied to, are you sure the BBC wasn’t lying to you? Even though I felt the case for the Iraq War was insufficent and opposed it at the time, I felt like plenty of information was available to whoever wanted to find it.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 1:20 am


I don’t think the purpose of dialogue with Iran would be to mutually “repent” of national sins. The goal isn’t to figure out who is wrong. I could care less what Iran did in 1952, or even 1979. What I am concerned about is their insistence on developing nuclear technology and their threats to exterminate Israel. Whether or not we created this situation 55 years ago (and that is far from established) we must deal with it now. A nuclear bomb dropped on Israel is not an acceptable outcome.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 1:45 am


I found much of talk radio simply promoting the war or controlling the discussion so that opposition to the war was suppressed. ABC, CBS and NBC did reports but used visuals that promoted the war, didn’t feel that was just to promote the war but rather because it was more exciting to see a army helicopter or jet landing on an aircraft carrier than to work to find an appropriate visual for the story.Newspaper editorials were all over the board with different ones having a point of view, if one searched you could find good information. Fox was just simply a GOP mouthpiece. The only place I felt I received accurate information was public television and public radio. We might get better information from commercial news if they didn t have to deliver something titillating every night. Things like Frontline work on stories for weeks before they present them which makes it easier to get the story somewhat straight.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 2:09 am


“A nuclear bomb dropped on Israel is not an acceptable outcome.” Iran having a bomb does not mean Israel will be bombed. Of all the countries with the bomb, we are the only one to use it. Why hasn’t India dropped a bomb on Pakistan or visa versa? That aside, we don’t have the influence to stop Iran from doing what they want, diplomacy is the best answer. Unless we start scare tactics like the run up to Iraq.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 2:27 am


“Iran having a bomb does not mean Israel will be bombed.” How do you know? The leader of Iran wants Israel wiped off the map. He also denies the holocaust. he is also anti-Semitic. You have absolutely no basis for this statement other than wishful thinking.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 2:38 am


And you have absolutely no basis other than fear or you are helping in another run up to another war. The holocaust thing is a silly waste of time, meaningless.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 2:46 am


“The holocaust thing is a silly waste of time, meaningless.” Denying the Holocaust is meaningless?What about wanting to eliminate a nation? What about an established history of despising a race of people? Meaningless as well?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 3:13 am


What about wanting to eliminate a nation? What about an established history of despising a race of people? Meaningless as well? kevin s. | All meaningless talk to get our goat.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 4:02 am


“All meaningless talk to get our goat.” Well, he got mine.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 4:13 am


Kevin, no one here knows better how spin works!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:03 am


“Kevin, no one here knows better how spin works!” I think Wallis has me licked in this category. Either way, to construe a threat against the Jewish people as spin leaves open the question of what, precisely, he is trying to spin.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:17 am


Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist is not a threat. That be nothing more than an opinion. Are they massing troups on the border?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 6:03 am


“Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist is not a threat. That be nothing more than an opinion. Are they massing troups on the border?” No, if he had made an actual threat, then we would be helping Israel to attack him now, and he knows it. I would note that he has also said that Israel will be annihilated. Granted, that is a prediction moreso than a threat, but it’s amazing what a nuclear bomb can do to create self-fulfilling prophecy.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 19, 2007 at 6:53 am


kevin,you’re wasting your time. butch is an anti-semite. He thinks killing doesn’t count as threatening action, as long as it’s only Jews who are being threatened and killed. Iran is a non-aggressive nation. I don’t know if you followed this link or not. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0Obviously butch did not or if he did, he finds nothing wrong with it.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:30 am


Kevin/timks the dynamic duo of Republi-nazi apologist, do you guys have matching capes or are they different colors. Maybe one with GW on it and the other with Cheney on it. If I don’t agree that Iran is an aggressor then I’m anti-Semite, such tortured logic to arrive at that point. Why should I trust Israeli intelligence since they have such an interest in maintaining our military aid? Our behavior is the self-fulfilling prophecy, we keep up the drumbeat to war against Iran and they do things to help defend themselves. Kevin the PR man; if I were Iran I would make those crazy statements about Israel to drum up support from every Islamic extremist, many or most of which have a quarrel with Israel. They cannot keep our air power from devastating their country, so how will they retaliate if we attack them. It will be with terrorist attacks in the US. Keep up this escalation of rhetoric against Iran; scare them and they will hurt us out of fear not desire. We have no ability to change Iranian direction unless they chose a different course so we need to talk them into changing or suffer the consequences.



report abuse
 

Ted K.

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:31 am


To echo a previous comment tell him that the majority of us would like to build peaceful relations with his country and his people. What peaceful co-existence with Israel does he see as Iran’s preference. Does he acknowledge the ancient gegraphical claims on the region that the children of Abraham and Israel have? What is his advice to America in resolving the Shia – Sunni – Kurdish conflicts currently engulfing neighboring Iraq? Iran fought a bitter war with Iraq in the 1980’s. Now with Saddam gone, but now with general civil war within Iraq and American troops on the ground caught in the middle, what is Iran’s thoughts towards both Iraq and America’s role there. Ted K.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm


kevin s., timks, et al. How would you address Iran? You’ve taken the time to pick apart the minutia of my posts as if that is enough to discredit my thesis. What tack should the U.S. take with Iran? Is going to war with Iran a good solution to whatever problems we feel we are having with them? Should we play hardball and tell Ahmadinejad to knock it off or else? Or else what? If I m not mistaken, the U.S. military is spread far too thin to fight a war in Iran. Is it mature or Christian to presume that we can bully others into submitting to our will and give nothing in return? I ve not heard otherwise from this administration, or from you.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm


“Is it mature or Christian to presume that we can bully others into submitting to our will and give nothing in return? I ve not heard otherwise from this administration, or from you.” There is so much pejorative language here that it is hard to know where to begin. First, I am hopeful that the Security Council’s threat of sanctions against Iran is effective. If that is tantamount to bullying, then I would argue that Iran has begun the bullying by supporting attacks against the U.S. and Israel. The trouble with negotiating with Iran is that the things we are trying to negotiate away are the very things that are bringing us to the table. We must tread lightly, lest we set the example for other nations that the way to draw concessions from the U.S. is to develop nuclear technology. Thus, i support the administration’s viewpoint that the nuclear bomb must be off the table before we will come to it. If those who believe that Ahmadinejad is all bark and no bite are correct, this is precisely how it will play out, and no military effort will be necessary.But if Ahmadinejad is immune to sanctions that disrupt his own economy, and continues to pursue nuclear technology while perpetuating a proxy war against Israel (and, as seems likely, the U.S.) then, yes, we might have to play the bully. So that’s my persepctive. Now, let me ask a question. If Ahmadinejad acquires a nuclear bomb, what is the appropriate course of action from the U.S.?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm


“Kevin the PR man; if I were Iran I would make those crazy statements about Israel to drum up support from every Islamic extremist, many or most of which have a quarrel with Israel” Exactly. That’s quite a bit different from saying he’s out to “get our goat”. He’s trying to drum up a war (which he views as a natural extension of his faith) against Israel.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 6:32 pm


If Ahmadinejad acquires a nuclear bomb, what is the appropriate course of action from the U.S.? Good question. How should the U.S. have responded when North Korea developed nuclear weapons?



report abuse
 

mark

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:01 pm


Mr. A: If Mohammed were alive, he’d spit in your face for how you twist his words to suit your hate-filled agenda. to Butch – “The only place I felt I received accurate information was public television and public radio.” accurate possibly, but heavily slanted to their agenda, the way trial lawyers spin black into white.



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:21 pm


neuro, I wasn’t picking apart your minutiae. I took issue with your assertion that the US is responsible for more innocent deaths than Iran. Unfortunately, our anti-semitic little friend jumped in with a series of irrelevant posts. I am sorry if that episode detracted from our conversation. Look, I have no problem with Jeff Carr or anybody else going over to Iran and meeting with Iranians, but I do not get a sense that they display any sense of realism regarding the nature of the Iranian government. There have been mistakes on both sides of the relations between Iran and the US. I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. But, what I would like to see is a level of skepticism towards Iran’s government and leaders at least as high as that displayed here everyday toward the US government. Being realistic towards Iran’s government is not the same as endorsing going to war with them.The Iranian government, despite butch’s ignorant ravings, is a government that has already shown it is perfectly willing to attack Jews no matter where they are. One hundred and thirty were killed in Argentina 15 years ago by Iranian agents. They are arming and funding Hezbollah militias/armies in Lebanon and encroaching on Israeli territory. They are cynically sponsoring the murder of women and children in Iraq of both Sunnis and Shiites. I haven’t even addressed the abysmal record of how they treat their own citizens, particularly Christians. I’d be surprised if there are any Jews left in Iran, but I’m sure their life isn’t exactly a bed of roses if there are. Why anyone would go over to Iran without bearing all this in mind escapes me.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm


Mr. A: If Mohammed were alive, he’d spit in your face for how you twist his words to suit your hate-filled agenda. That’s an interesting proposition, one with which I won’t disagree. I wonder how Christ would respond to politicians in this country who have twisted his words to suit their agenda. The only time in the Gospels I can recall that Jesus is reported to have spit on anyone was when he cured the blind – insert metaphor here.(Mark 8:23, Mark 7:33 says he spit and touched the man s tongue but doesn t say where he spat.)heavily slanted to their agenda Show me a news organization that doesn t spin the news to suit their agenda. Selling advertising and making a profit is the agenda of most news outlets.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:49 pm


timks Thanks, it sounds like we’re in agreement. Ahmadinejad is a loudmouth, and as kevin s. suggested, I suspect he is, for the most part, all bark and no bite. I fail to see the benefit of responding in kind.If we’re going to insist that Iran put its nuclear weapons program out of business, I would prefer to see it done with positive incentives rather than with threats and, God forbid, bombs. Would that be rewarding Iran for bad behavior, or rewarding them for good behavior? That is, what will it get Iran to play ball and be a productive world citizen as opposed to a perpetual nuisance?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm


erratum: what will it *take to* get Iran to play ball



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 19, 2007 at 9:31 pm


butch, If I don’t agree that Iran is an aggressor then I’m anti-Semite, such tortured logic to arrive at that point. You’re the one who said Iran wasn’t an aggressor and hasn’t been for 250 years. When I provided recent evidence of Iranian aggression, you even admitted as much by agreeing they had proxies in Lebanon and elsewhere. Now you deny what you have already affirmed. The torturing of logic is all on you. Why should I trust Israeli intelligence since they have such an interest in maintaining our military aid? Nope, nothing biased about that statement. But, I even provided you a link to an NPR story on the same incident. You yourself said NPR is a trustworthy source. Or have they been taken over by the Zionists, too? Now you continue to act as if the bombing never happened. Your cavalier attitide toward dead Jews leads me no alternative but to conclude you are anti-semitic.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 10:47 pm


The same logic says any dead national makes the killer an anti-? If an Iraqi is dead then the killer is anti-iraqi, my point is there are 2 sides and you only see one. All manner of atrocities have occurred.How do we change the wind, with talk to our friends and enemies?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:08 pm


“I wonder how Christ would respond to politicians in this country who have twisted his words to suit their agenda.” Not well… However, those who have earnestly endeavored to apply their faith in him would be blessed. “If we’re going to insist that Iran put its nuclear weapons program out of business, I would prefer to see it done with positive incentives rather than with threats and, God forbid, bombs.” How would you respond to the argument that positive incentives provide, well, incentive for other dictators to pursue nuclear technologies. Woudl you agree that the weapons program must go out of business?



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:21 pm


my point is there are 2 sides Right, butch. There is always only two sides: your side and the Nazi side. Good grief.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:29 pm


Would you agree that the weapons program must go out of business? kevin s. |Yes, if possible, we have lost our ability to stop Iran short of war. If that is true then it must be with incentives. Promising not to invade is a hollow promise so that won’t work. We have always done what we thought was in our best interest therefore we can change any promise. I can find no other way except peaceful non-threatening peaceful measures.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:43 pm


kevin s. What kind of example was set for other dictators when the U.S. essentially ignored N. Korea (turning our attention instead to a dictator who did not have WMD and who was not pursuing a nuclear program) while it pursues its nuclear program? Do you see a paternalistic approach to Iran as rectifying our long-term relationship with that country and other who are or might become our adversaries? It seems to me that if we strike Iran now, literally of figuratively, the U.S. may win in the short term, but only inflame anger against us and create more problems for ourselves in the long run. US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/6376639.stm



report abuse
 

mark

posted February 20, 2007 at 1:00 am


Some really good questions here, especially early on before the predictable slanging match started (most of which would I’m sure appear even more meaningless and inbred to the average Iranian than it does to this Canadian-resident Brit). But I have one more question to ask. A reasonable comparison of “civil” nuclear power with wind power shows it to be typically more expensive (depending on location), and to take a lot longer from the initial decision to proceed to full operation. It also leaves a radioactive legacy for hundreds of years, and adds to the risk that someone (not necessarily the Iranian government) will get hold of fissile material and construct nuclear weapons. It provides easy targets for hostile forces with well-equipped airforces (not mentioning any names here…). It can contribute only baseload power, and then only in the sort of centralised grid system that in practice excludes the rural poor in developing countries. So my question is this: would Mr Ahmadinejad consider investing in renewable energy technology instead of nukes if he was promised the necessary help (in technology transfer, favourable deals with manufacturers, etc)?Mark



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 20, 2007 at 1:48 am


timk, “Right, butch. There is always only two sides: your side and the Nazi side. Good grief.” No, timk. My side and the “Republi-nazi Apologist” side, the ones that make excuses for this crazy war.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 20, 2007 at 1:57 am


Mark, we can’t just run in with a deal and its over, this will take years to build up mutual trust. But it must start.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 20, 2007 at 2:12 am


Mark, What a great thinking-out-of-the-box concept! If only the administration in this country had been more supportive of research and development of alternative sources of energy at the time the vice president was refusing to go along with it… But, it does appear that the administration has been more considering of that, recently.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 20, 2007 at 7:35 am


Mark, If you think the answer to your question is “yes”, then surely you will see why Ahmadinejad will halt his nuclear program… “What kind of example was set for other dictators when the U.S. essentially ignored N. Korea (turning our attention instead to a dictator who did not have WMD and who was not pursuing a nuclear program) while it pursues its nuclear program?” A bad one.



report abuse
 

gary

posted February 20, 2007 at 11:57 am


please extend my thanks for the letter that he had sent to President Bush some time ago. i appreciated the appeal for reconciliation. i would urge him to keep at it and not give up along that avenue.



report abuse
 

Sonia Collins

posted February 20, 2007 at 12:18 pm


Before going, I suggest you should read (if you have not already done so) “All the Shah’s Men” by Steven Kinzer. I think it could help us frame questions sensitively – there is a lot of historical reason for Iranian cynicism about our talk of democracy and love. Best wishes for making some connection. Sonia



report abuse
 

HASH(0x116b3018)

posted February 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm


Questions 1. Do you really believe that Israel should be wiped off the map? Why? 2. How would you feel and respond if the leader of another country made the same statement about Iran? 3. Are you enriching uranium which potentially gives you the capability to create nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel?2. Do you really believe that the holocaust never happened? 3. What do you think the Prophet Mohammed would say about your words and actions?



report abuse
 

mark

posted February 20, 2007 at 5:47 pm


neuro_nurse: so true, Jesus the Christ would be sick with how his name has been used over the centuries (today’s politicians are no different than we’ve seen historically). my fear is that Ahmadinejad holds sway over millions of zealous Muslims who would like to see his ‘dream’ come true. I have little concern that politicians who misuse Jesus’ teachings can influence others similarly.



report abuse
 

Hali

posted February 20, 2007 at 6:49 pm


It’s hard to choose just one question, but I see many others here have covered the Israel issue pretty thoroughly. So… I would ask him, bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim, regarding his nuclear program for “peaceful” purposes,”Don’t you remember CHERNOBYL?????” Salaam/Shalom/Peace to you all



report abuse
 

timks

posted February 21, 2007 at 2:45 am


mark, In all seriousness, I also very much liked your suggestion. However, I am only half-kidding when I ask what would you say if Iran turns you down because you can’t kill Jews with windmills?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.