- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

U.N. should not suffer fools like Ahmadinejad so gladly

Published: Sat, September 25, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m.

The shame of the United Nations is not that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was able to take the podium and make outrageous statements about the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it was that only about 30 nations joined the United States in walking out.

We supposed diplomats at the U.N. are becoming inured to the almost childish antics of men like Ahmadinejad, who are the diplomatic equivalent of a Balloon Boy or a Paris Hilton. They crave attention and pander to their base. Four years ago it was Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who took the stage a day after President George W. Bush and said. “it still smells of sulphur.” He peppered his attack on U.S. imperialism with devil references that would have earned a high school orator a rebuke from his forensics coach.

Still, Ahmadinejad took offensiveness to an another level when he claimed most people in the world believe the United States was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and said the United Nations should set up a study committee.

Ahmadinejad, a notorious Holocaust denier, seems to be getting an early start in trying to rewrite the story of 19 radical Islamists who took over four airplanes and killed 3,000 people on the ground and in the planes.

A day later after his speech, Ahmadinejad put on a pitiful performance in which he pretended to be nothing other than an honest seeker of truth. “I did not pass judgment, but don’t you feel that the time has come to have a fact finding committee?” he asked at a press conference. The I’m-not-saying,-I’m-just-asking-a-question defense is the last refuge of a coward.

Ahmadinejad wants to have it both ways, and so do most of the spineless diplomats who sat in their chairs and listened politely to what President Barack Obama described as hateful speech.

When U.S. diplomats walked out, they were joined by the delegations from all 27 European Union nations and those from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica. The Israeli delegation wasn’t present to join the walkout.

Ahmadinejad’s statement shouldn’t come as a surprise. He’s suggested before that there was no comprehensive investigation of 9/11 and that the United States used the attack to its own ends and as an rationale for supporting Israel.

Where were the others?

But his statements of Thursday, coming in the forum that they did, should have brought universal condemnation from U.S. partners in security and trade and from those nations that are the beneficiaries of hundreds of millions of dollars in aid every time tragedy strikes.

It can only be hoped that this time even those nations that did not join the walkout at the United Nations see Ahmadinejad as a man whose rantings and ravings cannot be ignored.

Perhaps, Ahmadinejad has himself strengthened the argument for stiffening economic sanctions against Iran until it complies with U.N. monitoring designed to keep Iran from building a nuclear arsenal.

Ahmadinejad said during the news conference that he thought Iran would be able reopen contact next month to set a framework for negotiations on the issue with the five permanent members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China as well as Germany.

Everyone of those nations should now be on the same page — a page that reads: “The world can’t tolerate another nation with nuclear weapons, and certainly not one run by the likes of Ahmadinejad.”


1Flippa(1 comment)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

This is a disgrace. Truly despicable and shameful. History shows that the rhetoric used by Ame-dinner-jacket is only the beginning of our apathy towards his deluded way of thinking unless someone fearless enough and not afraid of reproach actually stands up to him and his totalitarian regime.

Tehran experienced mass protests after his election resulting in opposition leaders being imprisoned and their homes ransacked. Lest we forget the tragedy of Neda Agha-Soltan, a beautiful Iranian woman shot and killed during protests. Or Sakineh Mohammad Ashtiani who has been sentenced to stoning by this draconian, backward establishment. Or even the two US hikers languishing in prison for the crime of walking over an invisible boarder!!

One google search alone will reveal countless Iranians who have fled Iran in fear of their lives after daring to speak out against this despicable and oppressive government. The majority of protestors outside the UN were in fact Iranians who still deeply care about their country and it's hope for democracy. The Iranians are gorgeous people under an Islamic dictatorship!

But the greatest shame I heap upon the UN. For all the ugliness and idiocy of Iran's leadership, they are what that are and Ahmedinnerjacket's lunacy is at least plain enough for the world to see. Yet when will the UN ever do what it was fundamentally established to do? NOT hold talk-fests that do nothing for woman being raped repeatedly in the Congo while these elites talk so-called ‘diplomacy‘. NOT have endless debates and photo-ops sessions for mass media. NOT appeasing greedy Arabs who bicker, complain and whine about anything and everything without so much as making any effort or taking initiative to stabilise their own region!!

The UN was established after the atrocities of WWII with the premise of "never again". But the irony is that it has ever since been "again" and "again" and "again", one human atrocity after another while global delegates sit and ponder resolutions while blood spills. I am utterly ashamed of UN and the International Community (is there really such a thing?) should be too. There is no confidence any longer in it's ability to speak out against nations that blatantly violate the very Charter the UN was founded upon. And why??

Because the worse perpetrators sit comfortably on the UN Council. They are the UN.

Suggest removal:

2Photoman(1246 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

The U.N. has become a tool for two agendas that I can see. 1. the Islamification of the world's population and, 2. the formation of a one world government controlled by the wealthy.

Suggest removal:

3Jerry(845 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

I would use the word “worthless” to describe the UN, except that this would be inaccurate.

The word “worthless” implies worth nothing, or providing nothing of value. Considering that the UN not only provides nothing of value but also does great damage, it is far more correct to indicate that it is of negative value. It is far less than “worthless”.

What is a good word for this??

Suggest removal:

4300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

No fan of Ahmadinejad, and would be happy if he'd be gone. But, when has he invaded any other country?

When you objectively look at what we've done as a country to others, I've got a hard time thinking that Iran is a larger threat to world peace than we are. This may change at some point if he follows through on some of his rhetoric, but until he does Iran's not done anything that even remotely compares to what we've done.

Suggest removal:

5cambridge(4066 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Rudy....The United States also supported Al Qaeda with weapons when they were fighting Russia. We supported Iran with weapons when the Shaw was in power and we supported Iraq with weapons when Saddam was at war with Iran.

Americas good friend in the region is Saudi Arabia who is much more oppressive to it's people and especially women than any other country in the middle east.

Ahmadinejad is clearly an idiot but who cares if he claims 9/11 was an inside job? Nobody in their right mind believes that and he just makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth.

As far as Iran threatening Israel with a Nuke attack, I'm pretty sure Israel will solve that problem long before that's a possibility. They cut off the end of their own junk, imagine what they would do to the Iranians.

Suggest removal:

6300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Rudy, I'm not saying that Iran doesn't say a lot of nonsense, nor that they don't fund terrorism. It's just that we've been doing the same thing for much longer, and to an even greater extent.

Ahmadinejad goes on rants that no one takes seriously, and he funds hamas. We actually invaded a sovereign country on arguments that were proven false. If you believe in Liberal Interventionism, then we did the right thing in trying to bring democracy to a place where it didn't previously exist. But for those of us who take a more Realist approach, we invaded a foreign state for no legitimate reason. Something Iran has yet to try.

We've taken an active role in de-stabilizing the Caribbean (Jamaica, Grenada, etc), and The Americas (Chile, all the Central American states), for Christ's sake we even stole Panama from Colombia for our own purposes.

The point I was trying to make is that Ahmadinejad, up till this point, has been nothing more than rhetorical. We, on the other hand, have actually participated and lead attacks on other countries that didn't attack us first.

Suggest removal:

7ozzi(14 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

How dare he say such things,everyone knows only israel allowed to have nukes with no checks or balance,we must punish these iranians like we did to iraq.PS thier oil will pay for the war.

Suggest removal:

8cambridge(4066 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

theotherside.....you claim that the jury is still out on the Bush presidency? You can't be serous with that statement.

The only reason Bush had support from congress to invade Iraq is because he claimed that Iraq was "an imminent threat to the United States, he had proof that they had a nuclear weapons program, was involved with the 9/11 attack and it was a slam dunk that he knew where they stockpiled weapons of mass destruction". All lies. To say that congress shares the responsibility for invading a country that was no threat and never threatened us in any way is ridiculous.

All of it could have been avoided if your boy Bush hadn't ignored intelligence from the Clinton administration the bin Laden was planning attacks in the US probably with hijacked airplanes.

We had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora and Bush let him escape so he could wage HIS war in Iraq. Calling Bush a "total buffoon" is an understatement.

Suggest removal:

9300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Otherside, your show your ignorance when you say that Iraq likely got help from the Iranians. If that's all you know of history, you're too ignorant even to be opining on this.

Regardless of intelligence or "presented" facts, we now know that we were wrong. Many said that we were wrong beforehand, but now we all know for a fact that the government was. I suspect my neighbor is stole my lawnmower, should I go over and shot him and then start looking for it?

Also, what transpired in Congress is that many of those politicians were too weak to oppose Bush. It was pathetic how easily so many of them pushed into voting for it simply because they were afraid of what Fox News would say about them come election time. It's not the case that they voted for it based on overwhelming information.

Lastly, no one's saying that it's better to live in Iran than in the US. Just that we've done far more to destabilize the world than Ahmadinejad has ever done. He works in rhetoric, we physically invade other countries. This isn't open to interpretation, these are the facts.

Bush did Iraq the same way Hitler did Czechoslovakia and Poland. I'm not comparing the two in terms of atrocities, but both invaded other countries under false pretenses. It's not revisionism, it's accurately paying attention.

Suggest removal:

10cambridge(4066 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

theotherrside....It's pretty funny that you claim that people that don't believe that "the Iraqis, with the likely help of the Syrians and the Iranians, didn't spirit those weapons out of the country is delusional and a fool" since Bush himself now says the weapons didn't exist.

As far a Clinton going after bin Laden, he tried to kill him twice and failed. That's the difference, Clinton tried and Bush did nothing. Bush completely ignored accurate intelligence and in the end created his own to suit his own agenda. Hence the buffoon label.

Like I said before, we had bin Laden trapped and Bush let him go. It would have been over with then and now here we are with thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands seriously wounded and who knows how many with PTS and the blame lies at the feet of the guy you voted for. Actually you and the rest of the people that voted for him deserve a lot of the credit also. The guy screwed up everything he ever touched all his life and you voted for him anyway. Congratulations.

Suggest removal:

11cambridge(4066 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

theotherside....You didn't vote for Bush? My bad. You're so passionate about defending him I figured you did.

I don't know what gave you the impression I'm angry. Actually it's the exact opposite. I find you very amusing. Your username fits you perfectly. People that live in the world of reality need to be reminded about people like you and your tinfoil hats.

So you believe that when Iraq knew it was about to be invaded they came up with this ingenious strategy of shipping their weapons out of the country? I can understand how that makes sense in your head but the rest of us are laughing at you. Did you come up with that theory all by yourself or did you hear about it at some teabagger jubilee?

Oh, and I never even mentioned Hitler. You do have an interesting imagination.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes