Hello class. The topic for this week was, of course, President Ahmadinejad. You guys definitely have some strong opinions about him.
You will need to comment on Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans. It is included in the reader.
Basically, as an American, or at least someone who currently resides here, what is your reaction to this letter? What would you like to say to him as a reply?
Also, as the Iranian election approaches, I became curious to see your feelings of him as a candidate. Would you vote for him?
-Amir
32 comments:
I am not an American, so the letter was not addressed to me. I still have some opinions on it, though.
I think it is very positive that he wrote this letter, it shows that he does not want conflict with the US, rather the opposite. Although the reasons for him writing it are certainly not as noble as he might try to pretend, the letter is still an act of openness.
By only reading the letter, Ahmadinejad seems to be a truly peaceful, open and kind person. I think it is pretty clear that he is not that "perfect" in reality - Iran is still a country that continues to break human rights etc. So his words are more rhetorics than real ideals to him, in my opinion.
But words, and the way leaders choose to express themselves, mean a lot in world politics. So although the letter contains some empty rhetoric, it is important to take it seriously.
If I were to reply, I would have answered that I agree on most of the issues he takes up, and that they can be a basis for a renewed dialogue between the countries. But I would also have stressed that he would have to be committed to also changing his internal regime - how much freedom and justice Iran can give to its own citizens. The US has many flaws, yes, but if one is to compare the levels of democracy, liberty and rule of law in the two countries, I think there is more work to do in Iran than in the US. In a way, Ahmadinejad should make things better in his own country before starting to criticize others.
If I were to vote in the upcoming elections, I don't think I would have voted for him, because he is too conservative for me. My vote would therefore have gone to Mousavi. To me, Ahmadinejad seems also to be too agressive in his statements on foreign policy, which in my opinion may have contributed to more tension between Iran and US/Israel. In addition, my impression is that he hasn't been very successful on internal policies either (especially economic issues), so I think Iran needs a new president.
I can see that Ahmadinejad made a clear distinction between the American people and the US administration. And that although he criticizes the US administration, he doesn't criticise the American people. Rather, he tries to reach out to the American people by expressing that their interests are the same and trying to make a point about questionable acts that the US administration took. For example, he points out that it is not smart to try to radicated terrorism through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of innocent people, which I completely agree with.
However, I felt that he was very one-sided about the Zionists and neglecting the fact that it is not a simple matter where he can just accuse the Zionists.
I am not an American but I think this message can be addressed to a general public too, at least in some parts.
If I were to vote in the upcoming elections, I think I might vote for him, or at least I will consider voting for him. Because I think he is trying to deal with essential things that are important for the country, such as fair distribution of the oil or develoment of public transportation.
I like the letter. It is very powerful and meaningful. It outlines the positives (common goals) of both nations very clearly and perfectly states how America has been favoring and carrying deeds that completely go against the foundation and principles that the American government is established on. President Ahmadinejad had previously written a letter to President Bush, but received no response. And, in this letter, he intends to reach to the American people, to have a dialogue among nations. This was a very positive step.
I disagree with Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust. There’s no reason to doubt this tragic event. And there is also no logic for the Palestinians to suffer. It seems like the Palestinians have had to suffer the consequences of the Holocaust, which is a terrible truth. Ahmadinejad is simply against oppression, which the U.S. doesn’t see clearly, because all that is sensed is Ahmadinejad’s strong position against Israel. I like Ahmadinejad, even though he’s a controversial figure. If I were to vote, I would vote for him. I wish he can develop his international communications.
One of the first things I noticed in Ahmadinejad’s letter, that I appreciated, was the fact that he differentiated between the American people and the US administration. He sympathized with many of the sentiments regarding the United State’s actions abroad that are widely held by many Americans. I do agree that the US administration has made many devastating decisions and has gotten involved in foreign countries for selfish reasons that have resulted in hypocritical situations that have probably permanently damaged the American reputation abroad. Ahmadinejad did discuss the commonalities between the US and Iran and the commitment to personal rights and humane treatment of all people, and although there are many things about the Iranian culture that I do not and probably cannot understand, I feel as though based on what we’ve learned, Iran is not an inherently equal country. From the lens of an American and a woman, I am skeptical of his claims for equality and how our countries and people are not as different as they are portrayed to be. While I believe there is some truth in that statement, I am not ready to get behind Ahmandinejad and his claims that Iran is a fundamentally equal country. However, I am in support of many of his sentiments regarding US involvement in Iraq, past involvement in Iran, and the “war on terror” that has only brought more terror upon the world. I honestly do not know enough about Ahmandinejad or the interworking of the Islamic Republic to make a valid assessment of whether or not he should be re-elected. I am of course in support of more personal freedoms in Iran and more freedoms for women because I do not believe in a society that is based on the superiority of men, but if that is a realistic goal when the Iranian economy is crumbling is something I am not prepared to judge upon.
In Ahmadinejad's address to Americans, he is quite agreeable and his positions have sound basis. Though his writing is, no doubt, part of a larger political agenda, I agree with Morten that it does function as an indicator of Iranian openness to real diplomacy. That being said, Ahmadinejad has consistently mishandled Iranian foreign policy throughout his tenure, much to the disadvantage of his constituency, and not unlike former President Bush. Thus, just as I wouldn't vote for Bush if he were to run again, I certainly wouldn't vote for Ahmadinejad. I believe the future of US-Iranian relations will be brighter if there is a diplomatic blank slate, that is to say, the removal of conservative, hard-line administrations on both sides. Furthermore, I believe that though Mousavi will be unable to significantly remodel the existing Iranian political structure, a string of reform-minded administrations will serve to create lasting progress in terms of political and social freedom in Iran.
the central aim of his letter seems to appeal to the audience emotionally. He does so by appealing to the common values that are difficult to disagree with (truth-loving, justice-seeking, dignity, respect and perfection). Although his argument seems reasonable, it seems more like a repeat of media opinion here in the US than his own. Seems to me that mr. ahmadinejad has paid close attention to the rhetoric of political opposition against the Bush administration and put a spin on it, so his message resonates better with his intended audience (us). That is not to say that I disagree with what he says. I just don't think it should be coming from him.
The questioning of the legitimacy of the Iraq war is like beating a dead horse. I just don't think Mr. Ahmadinejad is in any position to be criticizing anyone, considering what his excellent leadership has accomplished for Iran. This letter reminded me of writings by Chinese and Soviet scholars during the 60's and 70's when they were accusing the other of being fascist while self-proclaiming to be the "true" communist regime.
Similar can be said of his Palestine argument. Despite the harsh treatment of Palestinians by Israel, attacks on Israel by groups like Hamas or Hizbullah (which Iran supports) only provides Israel with an excuse for their behavior. considering this, I hardly doubt that Mr. Ahmadinejad is concerned with Palestine at all. It's just difficult to take him seriously when he is adding to the causes of the problem instead of working toward a viable solution.
Hence, I think one should be free of incompetence and errors himself before he can point the finger at someone else. If I was Iranian and able voting in the upcoming elections, I wouldn't vote for him so that the supreme leader knows that the rhetoric of Mr. Ahmadinejad is not beneficial to Iran.
The letter seems to be just a psychological ploy in an attempt to gain American support to accommodate his views. Ahmadinejad immediately tries to create ties between the American people people and Iran while simultaneously emphasizing a dissonance between our people and our government. This is meant to tell us that Iran doesn't hold our people responsible for our government's actions and to get Americans to team up with Iran against our government. In doing this he draws on universal and generic ideals. For example, he calls American people, "God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities." His evidence for this, like whodatninja said, relies on objections to the administration by American media, which he hopes will make the reader agree. He then makes more generic statements to tie American people to Iranians saying things like that we, "share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity." After setting all of this up so that the reader keeps thinking "yes, yes, yes" in his or her head, Ahmadinejad gives one-sided views of the conflict between Isreal and Palestine. Obviously there is a lot more to the conflict than he illuminates, but he hopes we have been conditioned by the rest of his letter to blindly agree.
That being said, I guess it is possible that he sincerely wants to communicate with us. If he cleans up the way he runs his own country and wishes to actually engage in objective discussions of conflicts it would be a different story. Until then I don't think i'd vote for him.
I tend to agree with most of what Mr. Ahmadinejad said in the letter. I definitely disapprove of actions taken by Israel, and I realize the attacks by Hamas and Hizbullah give Israel excuses for these attacks, but if I were a resident in the region I think I might be fighting back myself. I question our administrations blind support of Israel.
I would like to know how "God-fearing" was translated and the implications. I do not speak Persian but this is a strange term in this letter. From my point of view "God-fearing" is a negative trait. I am not religious and think of "God-fearing" as basing life decisions on fear of a divine power. I don't think that fear precipitates good ideas.
I do, as Ahmadinejad mentioned, oppose the use of billions of dollars in a mismanaged war with very questionable bases and intentions. I also agree with how he links our excessive use of military force with diminishing international credibility. I saw a quote somewhere - "We keep fighting poor, hungry, tired people with tanks and guns when what they would really respond to is better access to food, medical care, and education and a little respect for their religion and culture."
Would I vote for him? Depends on the competition and I would need to know more. But as far as this letter is concerned, I generally agree, don't like the extensive use of God in political discourse.
In response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Letter to Americans”, I feel he draws attention to the many similarities our two nations have, especially amongst the general populations, as well as to some of the problems and hypocrisies that our previous administration had. However, he easily passes over many of the problems with his own government and himself, creating his own hypocritical statements.
As an American, or more specifically an American democrat, I would have to say that Ahmadinejad’s point regarding “the US administration actively conceal[ing] the truth and imped[ing] any objective portrayal of current realities” (195) was extremely valid and clear, and for that I give him credit. However, when he says that “our nations are God-fearing” (195), I feel that this is a generalized statement, merely playing to the tune that all of America is Christian. Obviously this is not true, and the same can be said for Iran being entirely Muslim. Iran may have a majority Muslim population, but that does not mean that there are no Jews, Baha’is, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.
However, what I got out of this letter as I neared the end, was that it is written by a politician who is pushing certain points as part of an agenda, in order to get his ideals across, and disregarding any hypocritical statements that he may have previously made, or made therein. Here, I can point to one line in which he says, “We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples’ rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings” (195). I’m not going to say that our government is right when we say such things, because we aren’t, however Ahmadinejad does the same thing in that his nation has become a pariah state not just for its aggressive foreign policies, but also for its human rights violations, religious persecution and oppression, as well as its intimidation of certain peoples and factions within its borders. Take the Baha’is for example. They are not allowed to attend university in Iran, let alone practice their religion; Kurds and other minorities are also persecuted by the government, as well as women and men by the Religious Police for breaking dress codes, etc.
His openness and willingness to talk to the American people is a good sign however, in that it shows he would like our two nations to reconcile or at least be on better terms. President Obama has done much the same with his Norouz Message to the Iranian people. Now all that is left is for our two nations to actually start to do something meaningful in actions, rather than just words. I do not doubt that this will begin soon, as Obama is going to be a much better arbiter and personable president than those of previous years.
Lastly, stepping back and viewing all of this, especially Ahmadinejad, from an Iranians perspective, I would have to say that he would get my vote, at least back in 2005. His economic policies that he laid out in the beginning seemed extremely viable especially following the poor returns and growth of Khatami’s government during the previous term. Also, his willingness to stand up to big governments such as the US, seemed to have made him popular as he could hang with the big guys so to speak. But now, after his many blunders, whether they happened or not, I feel that it is going to be hard for him to be as popular as before as Iran has not really progressed socially or economically in the last four years, save for its nuclear program. And even this draws international criticism, which only hurts the general population and the country’s standing in the world further through sanctions and government’s dislike of the regime. Overall he would have seemed like a good candidate in 2005, but now I would prefer to look elsewhere, preferably to Mousavi.
Without doubt the letter contains several very strong and agreeable arguments about the political and social situation between Iran and the US. However, foreign affairs are difficult and even the pure good will of peacefulness and compromise tastes bitter in reality. Not only the mentioned US behavior in terms of intervention and war on terror, which eventually caused severe damage in relations and general political reputation is still an obstacle in building trust. Also, words and ideas are easier to be put out there than treaties. Of course I appreciate Ahmadinejad’s will to openness and also the mentioned distinction between people and government. But we’re talking about politics here. There is always a strategic dimension to written statements and this letter, as beautiful as it seems, belongs in the category of rhetoric idealism. It is a great signal towards change, so many of the ideas and concepts are surprisingly true and realistic (except for the denial of the Holocaust of course!!), but what it really takes now is political action. And then we can judge how noble certain ideas really were. Both sides, Iran and US, are still suspicious about the other and unfortunately there is no such thing as equality among nation states, if we are honest. Especially when religious beliefs and rules that violate human rights in the eyes of the other party are involved, true dialogue is hard to achieve. Perhaps a new start could be made with new men in charge on both sides, the US has done it already. Perhaps a new Iranian president like Mousavi could be an improvement in terms of foreign affairs as well.
Upon reading Mr. Ahmadinejad's letter, I felt it very bold yet refreshing in certain aspects. I appreciate his disctinction between the American people and the administration because it so often goes unnoticed. Most often, the American people and the administration are used interchangeably, which is not always the case.
What first jumped out at me was his usage of "god-fearing" towards the American people. While I do agree with some of the similarities he pointed out between the countries, such as the basic foundations of our country like justice, peace, and freedom of human dignity and integrity are correct, but we are a country that follows policy on the separation of church and state, and do not necessarily believe that we are driven to do what is right by religious beliefs.
What I did not find so refreshing from his letter was the criticism bestowed on the U.S.'s support for Israel. He writes that we have "persistently provided blind and blanket support to Zionist regimes" that "bombard innocent defenseless civilians", which totally goes against our foundations. Even moreso, he argues that our actions have increased crime rather than reduce it. I find it interesting that he can criticize our actions without even acknowledging his own faults towards the conflict between Israel and Palestine. For this reason, I find his letter to be hollow, with no real concern towards the American people; rather, I think that by outreaching to the American masses he can gain support for whatever reason he wants.
When it comes to Iraq, his words do have an emotional effect that makes me want to believe he knows what the American people are going through, which is much appreciated by many Americans. His words would likely express a majority of this country. Later on in his letter, he once again trips over his hypocracy over peace in the world. He writes "is it not possible...the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?" While accusing us, he should look at his own actions towards other countries.
In sum, I believe this letter did have some genuine concern, and it was a bold approach to the U.S. I feel he was on point with the American people and their emotions, but I feel there is so much more behind these issues that can be said in a short letter, impairing the reality of the situation.
Also, I'm not sure I would vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad. While it seems he wants what is best for his people and to fix ties with the U.S., I feel that he may give false hopes to the people. To me, he is not very trustworthy.
I found President Ahmadinejad's letter very intriguing. There were definitely many positive points throughout it, and I found many of his statements very agreeable. However, his positive remarks seemed to mainly serve as bookends to an anti-Zionist rant and criticism of American domestic and foreign policy. As President Obama's address to the Iranian people demonstrated a few weeks ago, such criticisms are unnecessary in addressing a nation, and ultimately detract from any possible positive message. The letter almost seemed as if it was aimed more at inciting the American people against their government, rather than to declare friendship between our peoples. This letter does, however, make it very clear that Ahmadinejad is a fairly skilled politician, and knows how to appeal to specific audiences. Still, I think the best way to judge the letter is by its result, which was apparently nothing. As far as is obvious, little to no change at all has occurred as a result.
Although I agree with most of Ahmadinejad's main arguments about the US government and ideals for freedom and basic human rights, I do not fully trust that he himself follows most of these beliefs or at least that his view of what these ideals entitle may vary from how Americans perceive “freedom” and “basic human rights.” The statement “We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples’ rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings,” stood out most to me especially when taking into consideration their deep devotion to their religion and culture. The Hijab for example is one case where these two countries have very different perspectives. Most Americans I have met see the Hijab as a complete violations of woman’s rights while Iranian woman in some videos I have seen (and I don’t know how much of their dialogue was completely voluntary) see the Hijab as a respectable garment of a modest woman's attire and is seen as disrespectful to their customs when woman choose not to where it. To them it is no a violation of their rights but a way of life. Granted I do not believe most Iranian woman hold these same sentiments especially when this custom is forced by law but in any case I have learned to acknowledge and respect that some peoples perspective my be completely different from mine.
Sadly I missed majority of the lectures on Ahmadinejad so I really can not say what my opinion on him is, But I would like to say that although I do agree on most of his arguments, such as the increase awareness and participation of US citizens in the governments actions and motives, one must understand that this letter is a political display and it is meant to appeal to an audience in general terms that all can agree with, such as the suppression of human rights. I feel that Ahmadinejad's was touching upon very sensitive issues for many Americans (such as our soldiers in Iraq and the victims of Katrina) to show that he is acknowledging their grievances from the US government as well. Whether it is just a political attempt to get the sympathy of some Americans or a true genuine concern I can not say. I any case, it was nice to see that he did recognize that the ideals of the people may not always coincide with the governments and I find very smart to appeal to the people of a country for reconciliation when the two governments have had many quarrels for so many years.
As an American, the letter from President Ahmadinejad has strong merits. For example, on his perspective on the purposes of governing institutions: "Governments are there to pursue justice, compassion and empathy for all humanity." In my opinion, such a statement is clearly democratic in of itself. Furthermore, I admire the rhetoric emphasizing that both Iran and the United States should be "cognizant that human values and our common human spirit have brought our two "GREAT" nations of Iran and the United States together." Nevertheless, where Ahmedinijad loses his apeal is when he attempts to point out the defects with the United States government. For example, he claims that "blind support" from the U.S. towards the zionist movement has had dire cirsumstances. Secondly, he arrogantly claims the War on Terror is a failure; likewise for our occupation in Iraq. Lastly, he tries to depict the fact that Americans are losing their civil rights such as the right to privacy.
Such insightful information from the President of Iran about the internal and foregin affairs of the U.S. somewhat stand as a joke. Frankly, I believe that Iran itself has somewhat become a joke on an international scale. For example, they don't wear ties as a stand against Western values. Nevertheless, almost every other country wears a tie, not as western conformists, but simply as a dignified method of showing respect for a specific event. The Iranian government seems to be fighting western values when the West somewhat doesn't care.
Iran has an economy that is near collapse. Its own model of civil liberties are clearly limited and are in now way comparable to that of the United States. It's foregin affairs are limited and contain little outstanding flaws not because Iran is an exceptional diplomat but rather because almost every other country has sanctioned Iran.
I believe that Iran wil never gain respect unless it adopts a government as it was under the Shah. President Ahmedinijad obviously is considered a laugh as evident in the UN walkout during his speech. At Columbia University, he was also ridiculed as he attempted to rationalize politics in Iran. Within my lifetime, I have never seen a world leader laughed at by average individuals. That tells you that something is wrong!
I would never vote for Ahmedinijad in any election. My parents are both Iranian but fled as soon as the revolution began. Even within their circles, I hear the constant astonishment at how far back their counry has fallen. So the Iranians got what they wanted in the revolution... a country that 30 years later is a laugh, has a failing economy, clearly abused civil rights and NO TIES.
The letter that President Ahmadinejad wrote was the extended hand that President Obama was looking for when he said, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand." Now I believe it is upto President Obama and the United States to extend their hand and cooperate with Iran. Even though the letter itself is not alone in changing the whole governments attitudes about each other (United States and Iran), it is a good start.
At the same time President Ahmadinejad should not go on the offense every time that some wants to talk to him and Iran. Otherwise history is going to repeat itself for another decade.
I interpret most of Ahmedinejad's statements as rhetoric intended to encourage anti-American sentiment abroad. They also seem to convey the message that Iran's government has only pure intentions - committed to world peace, to the welfare of Iranian citizens, etc. I am skeptical of this kind of idealistic romanticism. It is just an implicit way of saying "We are doing everything right, and you are doing everything wrong." This kind of attitude is inimical to any understanding between two countries that have grown to distrust each-other, and I feel that it overrides any gesture of friendship conveyed in a letter.
My point is that Iran has plenty of things to work on. Rhetoric aimed toward discrediting the United States, while covering up Iran's problems, does not accomplish anything.
I don't understand Americans who disavow the American government. I think it is natural to feel disagreement toward what the US administration is doing. Citizens have the right to express dissent. But sometimes I feel as though some people's statements reflect more of a desire to absolve themselves of guilt by conveniently excusing themselves from affiliation with the "evil, selfish US government." The US government was elected by us, and it represents us in the world.
In my opinion, there are two principle problems with Ahmadinijad, one of which is to be found in the way he handles himself, but the more significant problem is to be found in the way that western spectators (and specifically American spectators) handle their hearing of him.
To be sure, he at times performs in the form of antics. This certainly does not help his arguments, and it could be argued that at times his antics actually undermine the objectives of his arguments.
But the simple fact of the matter is that no-one in the enfranchised western media (within which I most certainly include Israel's media [and its proxies: AIPAC, ADL, etc.]) ever, ever deals with the substance of his claims. All of their responses to him are wholly ad-hominem, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the critique that he actually offers. As such, his most vociferous and habitual critics, nine times out of ten, are at least as facile and pathetic as he is, if not more so.
The oft repeated refrain that he is an anti-semite who wishes to institute another holocaust are frankly idiotic. I won't so much as bother to defend that statement because its veracity is, to me, all too obvious, and moreover because his facile and idiotically habitual critics are (almost wholly) of a mold that would not actually think on what I could offer in terms of analysis. It's sort of like the question in _Pulp Fiction_: "are you the kind of person who listens, or the kind that waits to talk." The latter are consistently the most rabid supporters of whatever-Isreal's-government-wants-to-do/does and therefore the habitually reactionary critics of anything and everything that comes out of Ahmadinijad's mouth.
None of this should be taken to mean that the man is perfect, or even wise, for that matter. I just think he's on point far more often than he's framed as such, which is almost never. There are multiple intellectual failings, for example, in his letter to Americans. For example:
"We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people."
The vast majority of Americans are not just profoundly ignorant of the plight of the Palestinian people, they are willfully so, and human suffering to this consumer society matters not a wit so long as consumption can go on unimpeded.
"Governments are there to serve their own people."
As I said in a previous post, governments do what they can get away with within the sphere of their interests. The Iranian government could certainly argue that this is not true in their case, since they (think they) have Allah on their side, but it is certainly silly to make such a claim in the form of a platitude for governments at large. There's quite simply no history to justify such a claim.
"I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it."
If this were even remotely true there would have been real resistance in American streets before he (or his speech writers) ever had the occasion to write the letter in question. I think he gives zombie-America far too much credit.
At the end of the day, stupid (at times) or no, the western world woudl do well to actually listen to what is said by Ahmadinijad rather than taking his antics as cause to disregard wholesale the substance of what he says. But then, I've already betrayed that I think most Americans are dumb as rocks (an inevitable consequence of residing at the top of an Imperial food-chain), so the popular response to him in this country doesn't, and shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
What would I say to him? 'Get your ego out of the way of what you're arguing for.'
I understand that President Ahmadinejad is very upset, he clearly distinguishes his remarks towards the US administration and the American people. I was born in this country, but like Ahmadinejad I truly don't agree with most of the decisions that the US makes. Yes, notions of imperialism and western ideals are a very common thing that Mahmoud brings up in any speech about America. Although, I noticed that in his letter to Americans he tends to repeat himself a lot of the times. Israel is bad, the US needs to leave people alone, I mean you can only say it so many times until people begin to realize the person you are. In the case of Ahmadinejad, I believe he has lost his credibility amongst his own people because he does not progress or bring change. In the same context, by writing a letter to the Americans he gains nothing because most of the people who read his statement are probably uneducated and unaware of everything he states.
Now if I were Iranian, I would certainly not vote for him in the upcoming election. I don't understand how a leader can tell another country's people how they should react to their government's actions. Ahmadinejad is no better than the US administration, the US does the same when they go into another country and tell the people how they must change in order to progress. I believe his actions were passive aggressive and selfish. What good does a letter do to an entire nation, who doesn't even know what you are talking about?
When he made a distinction between American citizens and the US government, it reminded me of the Rick Steves documentary we watched. She said something about people do not go to war, it is governments that go to war. I felt Ahmadinejad was trying to convey that. It was definitely a positive approach towards peace, but I found it difficult to trust in his intentions. Given his previous rhetoric, he seems like someone that is very comfortable with tailoring his ideas towards the audience he is addressing. And because of that, I took this letter with a grain of salt.
I'm not sure if I would vote for him or not. I am leaning towards Mousavi because I want to see a open relationship between our governments, not just between our people. I feel a different president, one who is not as tied down by their stance on the US during the Bush era, would be better suited to develop that relationship.
I am posting this response not as an American but as a Mexican woman in the United States. With that said, I find Ahmadinejad's letter to be truthful in many aspects. I think its great that he differentiates between the American people and the US administration. We're all human beings that are bound together by emotions like "compassion, empathy, and respect for human rights" as Ahmadinejad describes in his letter. I think it is important that he draws those parallels between the people of Iran and the people of the United States to denote that both countries have commonalities.
I also agree that the occupation in Palestine must end. The reality is that the United States is fully supporting and arming Israel and that must stop. But I completely disagree with Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust. I know there is nothing in his letter regarding the Holocaust but I really find it in poor taste that he denies that it ever occurred. Many people died in this tragic event and he has no right to say otherwise. With that said, I think that if I were to vote in the elections I might consider voting for Ahmadinejad. I know he is a very controversial figure but I think that he really wants what's best for his country and one cannot criticize that through one's western perspective.
I felt that Ahmadinejad spoke the truth. It was a way to reach out to the people of the U.S, who with Bush, heard nothing but rhetoric that increased tensions. He was not out of line in pointing out the U.S role in supporting
“Zionists” clearly people on both sides are suffering from that conflict. I felt that the importance of the letter was the way Ahmadinejad reached for commonalties between both nations, while in the past Bush only emphasized difference to create further divisions. All in all, even though there are mixed opinions about Ahmadinejad I think that I would vote for him.
I really liked the fact that Ahmedinejad pointed out that although we are two countries that are far away we still "should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together." He points out that we are all human beings that share the same interests and so we should be able to come to some sort of agreement over Palestine. He states very powerful points about how a country's strength is not shown through its military strength but rather through their " quest for justice and compassion." I agree with a lot of the issues he brought up in the paper but if I were to right him a response to this I would have to bring up the fact that Iran is supporting terrorist organizations which is not a quest for justice. I personally would not vote for Ahmedinejad in the next election because I do not think he represents the Iranian people well. He has done alot of damage and I think that a new person needs to redeem Iran's reputation in the world.
I find it very admirable that President Ahmadinejad has reached out the the US and communicated his concerns. It surely will be helpful during any possible future talks between our governments. I also think it fitting the he presented his concerns in letter format as he is promoting the idea that military involvement in the middle east is either not necessary or no longer working. I find it a bit ironic however, that Ahmadinejad is promoting the idea that the US withdraw troops from the middle east while Iran itself supports, or at least has supported in the past, several organizations designated as terrorist organizations.
This letter certainly focuses blame on the American government and not its people. What he is saying is pretty much in line with what many Americans think about the Bush administration now. But ultimately the intended audience seems to be the Iranian people. I like how Ahmadinejad mentions that he also sent a personal letter to Bush. I wonder if Bush read it.
One thing I would suggest from Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is that he sees the Zionists not as representatives of the Jewish people, but as a regime much like the Bush administration. A regime that has hijacked the will of a nation. At least he is very careful to isolate the term "Zionists" from "Israelis" or "Jews". He never uses the later two terms and I am not sure I have ever heard him make specific reference to the Jewish people. I do not know if Ahmadinejad is antisemitic or not. But I do know that some people view the Zionists as a political movement that is separate from the Jewish religion.
Anyway I do like some of his statements and find him to be an interesting man. One thing I believe is that the right wing in Iran is very different from the right wing of U.S. politics. Also a girl I know thinks he's attractive.
The biggest thing I noticed about President's Ahmadinejad letter was that is was primarily, if not exclusively, addressed to Americans who: a. did not support the Bush Regime b. are against the war in Iraq c.knew about our rendition program and thought it was wrong d.k new, believed, and were horrified by the reports about Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib e. side primarily with the Palestinians in the Israel/Palestine conflict f. are" God-fearing and followers of Divine religions" and working (politically I presume) to end these injustices. Although I fit into the vast majority of these categories, and I appreciate being (hopefully) included in his view of humanity, I find addressing this fraction of the American people very strange. It obviously isn't propaganda--the majority of Americans would not relate to the letter, and many would take offense to it. The fact that Americans elected Bush twice is not a secret. I really do not know what to make of it. Ahmadinejad either needs a new international public relations adviser, or this is just small, isolated part of the back and forth demonizing Iranian leaders and the Bush administration had.. As such, I do not think it reveals any thing about Ahmadinejad besides his already know negative view of the US government and his firm religious belief.
In reply, I would probably write a satirical letter to all atheist, Zionist, and disenfranchised people in Iran, urging and reassuring them that they can and will change the world.
If given the opportunity I would not vote for Ahmadinejad--unless, as a presumed Iranian, doing so would give me better chance at getting a job I wanted or, at least, not being put on a list of known reformists.
I don't think I'll ever vote in Iran. I don't see any point in elections that are fake and used by the Supreme Leader People. I mean who even knew anything about Ahmadi Nejad in the primaries? I was in Iran at the time when almost everyone I knew were taling about Rafsanjani and other candidates. I don't remember anyone even mentioning the name ahmadi nejad and next thing you know, he is elected for the second round of elections and he wins it. It was absolutely clear that the votings were miscounted by the officials. Regarding his letter I should say that I don't even believe him having any sort of role in writing it. I know that I'm biased and against the current corruption in Iran but evidence show that these guys do anything to keep themsleves in power and it doesn't look to far from reality to think elections in Iran are simply bogus.
Voting in Iranian elections seems to be a futile process, as they appear to be rigged to avoid drastic political change. It will take a a staggering majority to change the tides from conservative to something more democratic. Even reformists would be better than Ahmadinejad.
I appreciated that his letter was directed more toward the American people as opposed to grouping the citizens together with the administration (which he is opposed to I'm sure. Yet at the same time I feel that he is very contradictory because he mentions the US and Iran being similar in that both countries promote "peace" and "justice" yet he so often stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He sounds extremely hypocritical and this takes away from any emphasis Ahmadinejad tried to place in his letter.
The only positive thing about his letter was that he promoted the thought of all of us being human beings instead of people from conflicting nations. His letter does little to remedy the terribly strained US-Iran relations.
I definitely would not vote for him. He is a horrible representative for the Iranian people. I feel that he has done so much to damage the country's infrastructure and reputation with the rest of the world that re-electing him would be absolute madness.
Post a Comment