May 9 - THE CONTENTS OF THE IRANIAN PRESIDENT'S LETTER (MUST READ!)

No, I think he is more scared of a bigtexxx-sized beat down when he's standing and waiting for an open lavatory on a commerical airplane.

I like how secular the Decider is.

 

So you believe the Iran President is fluent in English? or is qualified to do his own English translation?

 

I have no idea about his proficiency in English. Someone else may verify this. What I am seeking to clarify is whether the letter, when reached to the WH, was in English or not. If it was already in English, wft with translation into English one more time?

 

I suspect that the letter arrived with its egregious translation.

 

So you're saying the package contains the original letter that's written in Persian (or whatever the language the Iranian President uses) and a translated version by the Iranians themselves. OK, that probably makes sense. But hey, it's been at least two days since the WH got it. When can we see the new translation?

 

now the link to the document i provided looks like a faxed copy of it, so i'm sure the quality of the original is much better and wasn't typed on a typewriter or something

as far as whether the letter was translated into english by iranian officials or american officials, i dont know

 

Here's GW's letter back to Ahmadi-Najad. Not a very good copy though. Might have been faxed or sent in a bottle.

 

as a child i remember overhearing that all formal communiques/contracts between nations were written in French. Guillible as i was, i believed & continue to.

am i misinformed?

 

gay marriage
abortion
stem-cell research

next.

 

if he wrote that by himself, then i give this guy mad props...

 

I'd be willing to bet he didn't.

 

Why? We as Americans need to realize that the world doesnt revolve around us. Maybe economically, and our armed forces are definitely #1. However any logical person that doesnt automatically assume that Iranians (insert any nation) lives like neandethals, would understand that there are some educated men in other country's. I have been to Africa, U.A.E, Thailand, Amsterdam, London all in the last 8 months. These people know more about our foreign policy then your average American does. You have to admit, alot of things we do is because "WE CAN". That piece there is pretty impressive. I dont care who it was written by. If you proclaim to be such a praying God fearing Christian these are questions you should ponder. What I am impressed with most is how objective it was. It did not point the finger as much as it pointed out facts. GW cannot respond to that letter because the Iranian president has valid points. There are very many double standards that our government supports even today. If we cared so much about what Sadaam was doing to his people (and he was a horrific dictator) then why didnt\dont we send troops to Darfur? Better yet, give this letter to someone, but dont tell them who "supposedly" wrote it. Get there opinion of the letter afterwards and then tell them who wrote it. Good read IMO.

 

Ahmadinejad is in no position to be preaching democracy to others. iran currently has one of the most henious dictatorships in the world. and the letter was not written by him. every president has a staff clearly designed for this job.

 

heh...not bad.

 

"Intelligent Design"

 

So he now admits 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust....I read somewhere that he stated Israel can hurt Islam, but Islam can completely and utterly destroy the Jews...That he can complete Hitler's failed task of eradicating the Jews...In all intentions he sounds willing to sacrifice Iran to wipeout Israel, since Islam will exist elsewhere, and the culmination of destroying the Jews, combined with fewer American Jews will seal the deal...

BTW, Israel is approaching 6 million, no... Ahmadinejad knows the history. I'm willing to bet this idea is enticing to him.

The American strategy should be to allow this to happen and not attack Iran since Israel will retaliate and destroy Iran,...at least the verocity of a fanatical ideology will be exposed to the world and the great zionists that we are will have a greater foothold in the middle-east and we can influence the next generation to ease the current mindset by militant islamists...

 

Finally a rationale response to the Iranian leader's letter. Instead of the usual unexamined "wit us or agin us" stupidity. I was troubled by Bush's failure to address the rightful questions as to how hi sChristianity justified his warmongerer and lack of concern with justice,
*************

Bush's Unanswered Letter
Tom Porteous
May 12, 2006



Tom Porteous is a syndicated columnist and author, formerly with the BBC and the British Foreign Office.

The first reaction of the Bush administration to the extraordinary letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been to dismiss it out of hand on the grounds that it does not offer any compromises over Iran's nuclear enrichment program. That’s a strategic mistake, because the biggest complaint of Middle Easterners about the United States is precisely that it has consistently failed to listen to concerns of the kind outlined by Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad's 18-page letter is distinctly peculiar in its tone and style. It is replete with references to the Quran and the holy prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is also remarkably courteous coming from a man who has been painted in the United States as a new Hitler precisely in order to preempt any serious dialogue or engagement.

But most importantly, the letter raises serious points which are currently matters of intense international concern and debate, and on which millions of Muslims would like to hear answers from the world's democratic superpower.

As such, Ahmadinejad's missive represents a serious challenge to the United States' government—and in particular to President George W. Bush, to whom the letter is addressed.

The White House has spent millions of dollars on public diplomacy and is forever wringing its hands over its poor performance in the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East. Here is a golden opportunity to put that right without spending a dime. It should answer the Iranian letter seriously, point by point.

Thanks to the Internet and the blogosphere the letter has now reached millions throughout the world. Many in the Muslim world and in the Third World in general will be nodding their heads in agreement at some of the points the Iranian leader raises.

If Bush does not answer the letter, those audiences will conclude that the U.S. continues to ignore their concerns; does not feel confident that it can win the arguments on which Ahmadinejad has chosen to engage; and, is not interested in pursuing a dialogue which might lead to a peaceful resolution of the current dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad has singled out a number of specific discussion points. These include: the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; a long history of U.S. interference in Iran's internal affairs; current U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program (which Iran insists is for necessary civilian purposes only); Washington's penalization of the Palestinian people for voting for Hamas; and, the United States' treatment of terrorist suspects in its war on terror.

What many people around the world are now wondering is this: On any one of these issues is the United States ready to justify its policies in any terms other than its own strategic interest or its unqualified support for Israel at the expense of everyone else in the Middle East?

In essence Ahmadinejad is urging the United States to justify its policies in terms of universal justice and fairness. He is also suggesting that liberalism and Western democracy are failing to realize the ideals of humanity in the 21st century and proposing the salvation of mankind rests on building societies based on the Abrahamic religions.

What is stopping Bush from engaging in a debate with the Iranian leader on these important topics?

Here is a unique opportunity to engage in some serious "public diplomacy" in a debate which people will actually listen to.

So just how should Washington answer the Persian letter?

It might be constructive to answer Ahmadinejad by lobbing some of the issues he raises back at him. Twenty-seven years after the Islamic Republic was founded, Iran (like most Middle Eastern states, including Israel) is hardly a haven of justice and fairness, let alone of political freedom. A critique of the Islamic Republic's internal policies could be part of the answer to Ahmadinejad's letter. A staunch defense of societies based on liberalism and democracy might also appeal to a large international constituency both in the West and in the Muslim world. That would be a real dialogue of civilizations.

But mutual criticism is the easy part. The Bush administration also needs to have a long hard think about Ahmadinejad's charges that its own policies fail to measure up to reasonable standards of justice, fairness and freedom. And then it needs to justify its policies in a reasoned and cogent manner—and not just for the benefit of Ahmadinejad or even of Iranians but of the world as a whole.

Finally Bush's response to the Iranian leader's letter should propose a serious dialogue and negotiations on U.S.-Iranian bilateral relations, Iraq, Afghanistan and the nuclear issue.

A measured and thoughtful U.S. response to Ahmadinejad could bring several prizes: a much needed increase in U.S. prestige in the Middle East; a sense among Muslims that America is listening to their concerns; and not least, a diplomatic opening between the United States and Iran after 26 years of frozen relations, giving both sides a chance to climb out of their current boxed-in positions, avoid war and stabilize a troubled region.

The U.S. government has nothing to lose and everything to win in responding to the letter.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/12/bushs_unanswered_letter.php