Community | July 04, 2009 | 52 comments

Ahmadinejad says he wants public talks with Obama

source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.ahmadinejad.obama/index.html

Image
lvp
  • lvp
  • added this
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wants to engage President Obama in "negotiations" before international media, a semi-official Iranian news outlet reported on Saturday.

Speaking at a meeting of medical school deans, Ahmadinejad said Iran "will soon pursue a new round of diplomatic activity" amid a new position of strength for the Iranian government, the Iranian Student News Agency quotes him as saying.

"I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations," Ahmadinejad said, adding that such talks would be "in front of the international media, not a sit-down behind closed doors in order to talk about matters."

The Obama administration has sought dialogue with Iran but also criticized the government for its handling of unrest after disputed presidential elections.

Last week, Obama said Iran's government must justify itself not in the eyes of the United States, but in the opinion of its own people.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Current Tonight,   US Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Current TV,  Obama,  9 more
  3.     
    |

52 comments // Ahmadinejad says he wants public talks with Obama

  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • How did Ahmadinejad crawling on his knees for negotiations become a call for a debate? A lot of comments on this thread suggest people are failing to grasp the significance of Ahmadinejad losing all support of the Clerics. That is HUGE.

      An extreme victory for Obama in the Middle East, right after troop withdrawal has begun in Iraq. Jesus Fuck how fast does Obama have to clean up Bush's messes to make you people fucking happy?

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  

    • America is a war machine, in the eyes of the International community.We seem to go from bombing one country to another, killing people, then trying to justify it in the name of God and peace.

      I can't see Obama winning in a debate against Ahmadinejad in front of the world.That region of the planet may become OUR Waterloo. It's probably why this guy called him out. His got everything to gain and nothing to lose.

      Janforgore is right.

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • Desperate move by Ahmadinejad. He's lost the support of the people, and now the clerics, and it's just him and his supreme leader against the world.

      Obama needs make no reply. Except maybe "bye bye."

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • neocongo
  • stevieuk
  • jkudurog45
    • 0
      jkudurog45  

    • I don't understand why we are even interested in meeting with him. How about the person who has ALL the say in what happens in Iran... which is NOT Ahmadinejad.

    • 2 years ago
  • jkudurog45
  • Mike_Johnston
    • 0
      Mike_Johnston  

    • Now that Biden has said the US won't stand in the way of Israel taking out Iran's nukeworks the mighty Iranian President asks for talks with the US... hahahaha He knows Israel will do it and he is scared and comes running to the US for protection.

    • 2 years ago
  • bjlawrence11
    • 0
      bjlawrence11  

    • I'm all for these two countries sharing their differences in public. Holding open talks may help clear the air; a
      educating people on the storied history- both the good and bad. Isn't that what Obama tried to do with his big Mideast trip a month ago?

      I fear that a diologue like what's being suggested will quickly turn into a circus. Ahmadinejad just wants to steal the international media limelight to legitimize his presidency. If Obama bites, the narrative shifts back to the country's international relations, bypassing the current 'stolen election' story.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • Robroy1
  • sushikillakid
  • kennymotown
  • Ihatethemall
  • Ish05
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Talk with Iran while you bomb Afghanistan... talk about a lack of consistency. But then, Iran is competing for a pipeline through there as well in competition with the Trans _Afghanistan Pipeline the US supports and is in Afghanistan to clear the way for. So I am sure that will be a topic of conversation. I'm sure Obama will go. His ego won't be able to say no.

    • 2 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • JanforGore:

      It's fair to be critical of Obama, but surely his ego isn't his only motivating force. You treat Obama as if he has dictatorial power, as if, as president, he can accomplish anything he pleases, but he doesn't wield supreme power. The office of president is fraught with compromise. Without embracing it, he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. Even kings had to appease their vassals.

      I'm resistant to compromise myself. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries and Nader in the general election. But it's important to recognize the demands of the office. No use making ad hominem attacks on Obama.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      Well with all due respect I can criticize any public figure I wish to, especially a politician, and will continue to do so when I see fit. And what does it have to do with who you voted for? For the record, I would also say Ahmadinejad has just as much ego as Obama and is looking to make himself look reconciliatory while getting some good photo ops. It is fact that it does take a bit of an ego to be president of this country, and I also didn't state it would be the only motivating reason, but I do think it is one of them. Again, talking to Iran while bombing Afghanistan doesn't look like the consistent policy of someone who claims to want peace. So sorry to have hurt the delicate sensibilities of those here who can't take opinions that aren't sugarcoated. And please, "the demands of the office?" What demands? To please those buying it?
      But hey, at least you made current89 a happy camper. Anyone who gets to wag their finger at me here gets his seal of approval. How funny.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • JanforGore:

      Hahaha, it's hilarious to see you criticize ego, Jan, while flaunting yours so effectively!

      Honestly I don't think Current89 has a "shitlist", but since you guys are talking about him like high schoolers I couldn't really blame him if he did!

    • 2 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
    • 0
      Ihatethemall  
    • JanforGore:

      You don't think we see that he recommends comments that are aimed at us. Just take a look sometime, he does it on a regular basis.

      Course you are a friend that goes on picnics with him so you may be blind to it. Most likely by choice.

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • JanforGore:

      Contrary to the minority's belief I do not have a "shitlist." Quite frankly I don't recommend comments because they disagree with certain persons or political perspectives but because they are actually worth something. I'm quite unbiased as a Curator ihatethemall. Seeing as I disagree with almost all of you political perspectives yet, I, on a weekly basis, tend to feature your items. Why? Because they are pertinent. In fact, If I'm not mistaken. I have one of yours featured right now.

      As to the whole picnics thing, anyone and everyone on current was invited. Otherwise Current wouldn't have sent a staffer with swag.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • JanforGore:

      LOL, did it ever occur to you guys that Current89 isn't recommending comments that disagree with you...but that HE agrees with?(That's what I mean about ego!) You make it sound like a malicious action and honestly I just don't think that's the case.

      "Course you are a friend that goes on picnics with him so you may be blind to it. Most likely by choice."

      As Current89 pointed out, that was an open call out for ALL people on Current. That's the first time I had met anyone from this website, and I hope we do more! You are more than welcome to all our picnics, Ihatethemall, (and Jan too!) - I'd like to get the Current community together more so if you want to participate please let me know!

    • 2 years ago
  • maof4brats
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • maof4brats:

      Talking may not kill, but the way you're typing is maiming my brain.

      It's a trap to legitimize Ahmadinejad's presidency. It's a political move, not a diplomatic one. Still, we favor the talks so I'm not sure why you're accusing us of being Fox News watchers.

    • 2 years ago
  • maof4brats
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • maof4brats:

      It doen't kill me, however, it is still paining me. Ahmad is the consummate politician and this is pitiful attempt to gain some political ground after his problems in the "election". Obama has nothing to gain and plenty to lose. I predict that his advisors will reject this offer.

    • 2 years ago
  • jkudurog45
  • Valence
  • current89
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  

    • Tricky situation. Clearly Obama is smart enough to know that he'd be walking into a trap, but perhaps he's also clever enough to turn this to his favor. It's definitely a great opportunity, however precarious. Exciting too. I hope he agrees.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • "negotiations" in from of media aren't negotiations, they're photo ops or debates. negotiations under those kind ofconditions are impossible. This is why shuttle diplomacy was invented.
      I don't remember anyone ever agreeing to one of these. The mere offer is probably a ploy

    • 2 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • theultimateend
  • alivein85
  • furryjenn
  • maof4brats
  • theultimateend
    • 0
      theultimateend  
    • theultimateend:

      I have no idea which one. I just know there are people equally stupid on either side that would like either of them dead.

      Then again for the most part stupid people are too stupid to plan something that actually works so I shouldn't worry.

    • 2 years ago
  • fRee71
  • Ish05
    • 0
      Ish05  
    • theultimateend:

      Well there is no worries of either getting assassinated. Obama is kissing British ass. Without Ahmadinejad we wouldn't have anybody in the M.E. to criticize. And we know the Brits are the only ones capable, other than the US military, in pulling off successful Presidential assassinations.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • Why should our President publicly debate a criminal politician? Ahmad is simply seeking to resurrect his image and failed strategy after stealing the election from his own people. What a worm of unbridled gall. He should be made to stand in the corner and say 200 Hail Mary's; whatever those are; I am not Catholic.

      There are no points of debate with radical Muslims. Their stated desire is death of all infidels and Global domination of the Muslim religion. Hopefully, President Obama is wise enough to realize this political ploy from a failed Muslim leader. Particularly one that needs an advisor on personal hygiene.

    • 2 years ago
  • maof4brats
  • MoonLoon
  • Ish05
  • MoonLoon
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  
    • MoonLoon:

      There's nothing wrong with an open dialog, after all, the world will be watching.

      We can judge for ourselves.Neither side can afford to be self righteous.

      LET'S GET READY TO RUUMMBUULLL !!!!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • twitterbot
  • twitterbot
    • 0
      twitterbot  

    • @daiejoon on twitter says "Ahmadinejad says he wants public talks with Obama. why would Obama want 2 talk to a cheat lier thief and murderer? #neda"

    • 2 years ago
  • lvp
more from Community:
from the community

top videos