Why does the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such outrageous statements?

sanizadeh wrote:

Cueball wrote:

You demand absolute quietude in the face of clearly evident meddling in the affairs of Iran by foreign agencies that continues to this day.

No, Cueball. Because I have not accused you or anyone else of being on the payroll of the Iranian government. But I (along with my people) am being accused of being CIA agents, mercenaries, puppets etc.  I requested explanation of how on earth any opposition to this government is being labeled here as US-provoked. Is this demanding absolute quietude, or demanding answers for unfounded claims and labels that we hve received? Discuss it all you want. Even slander me all you want. But do not complain when I demand evidence to labels and slanders. Do not expect "absolute quietude" from me, as you put it.

sanizadeh wrote:

For some of you, it seems, Ahmadinejad has suddenly become a criteria. To agree with him is to be a revolutionary, anti-US, freedom fighter etc, and to oppose him one automatically become CIA agent, US puppet, ... May I ask, what has he done, aside from empty rhetoric, to earn this unbelievable level of naive support? 

So no you did not accuse anyone of being an agent of Iranian state, you accused them of being his "naive" supporters who believe he is a "freedom fighter".

sanizadeh wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So if I am to read this thread correctly then Iran is the only country where the CIA is not recruiting people to spy and potentially work to install a USA friendly government.

This is a home grown movement. Its current leaders have been almost one whole generation of Iran's revolutionary leaders.  Its supporters all grew up under strict ideological training of the Islamic government. CIA must have one magic touch.

For some of you, it seems, Ahmadinejad has suddenly become a criteria. To agree with him is to be a revolutionary, anti-US, freedom fighter etc, and to oppose him one automatically become CIA agent, US puppet, ... May I ask, what has he done, aside from empty rhetoric, to earn this unbelievable level of naive support? Has his government come anywhere close to what, for instance, Mousavi did in challenging world powers (in action, not rhetoric) and distribution of wealth back in 80s? Aside form slogans, what has his government done to challenge the world powers that you guys are willing to slander a whole nation of his opponents in such way?

Or are you really fooled so easily by words?

I am not naive but I think you are if you believe that the US will bring Iran anything better than the last western backed dictatorship under the Shah.  The current government is by all accounts a nasty piece of business but salvation is not going to come from a western initiative only more slavery on behalf of the US.  Were you part of the Iranian's who fled with the Shah?

Your insistence that the US is not involved is as stupid as the Iranian's President's denial of the holocaust. Replacing him with a pro-western dictator will do nothing for the average person in Iran but  a whole shitload of ex-pats who supported the Shah would be ecstatic. Are you really so fooled by American propaganda that you can't see the destruction that the US has wrought upon your country. They were the driving force behind Saddam's invasion and of course they overthrew the legitimate secular government to install the Shah.  America is the enemy of the Iranian people and it will not hesitate to murder large numbers of them if it will enhance their middle east agenda and give them unfettered access to the oil reserves they lust after.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Quote:

The point isn't who you really are,  it is that we don't know.

The better point is that you really don't need to. Good grief. I'd consider invoking the usual moratorium on attempting to "out" fellow babblers, but "CIA operative" and "paid-for shill of the government" are both too laughable to be taken seriously.

I sure hope the U.S. government never comes out in favour of solar energy, or restitution for slavery, or state ownership of industry, because as sure as tomorrow's sunrise, the loonier members of the left would feel compelled to strenuously object, lest they have to see themselves as helpful idiots in the service of the White House, or whatever.

Sanizadeh, your balance and level-headedness are appreciated. Don't let yourself be shouted down by those who can only define their opinions in opposition to everyone else's.

Cueball wrote:

So no you did not accuse anyone of being an agent of Iranian state, you accused them of being his "naive" supporters who believe he is a "freedom fighter".

Cueball, see Martin's post. Fortunately he keeps making my point for me. Replace "freedom fighter" with "resistor against capitalism", and please explain to me what has Ahmadinejad done to earn such title.

M. Spector wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I attended too many peace rallies with speakers lauding the glory of Saddam to go down that road again.

Not in Canada, you didn't.

Did too.

sanizadeh wrote:

Cueball wrote:

So no you did not accuse anyone of being an agent of Iranian state, you accused them of being his "naive" supporters who believe he is a "freedom fighter".

Cueball, see Martin's post. Fortunately he keeps making my point for me. Replace "freedom fighter" with "resistor against capitalism", and please explain to me what has Ahmadinejad done to earn such title.

Well I don't know if he is resisting "capitalism" he is certainly resisting "imperialism". It is perfectly possible for the leaders of nation states to find themselves in the anti-imperialist camp just be benefit of the fact that the defence of local power structures and the vested interests of an elite protect that "national" power by resisting the encroachent of other power structures. This does not necessarily make one a good or principled person. Furthermore, I would venture to add that such defense of the local power structure is by its nature directly beneficial to the people in general, since even local oligarichal and autocratic structures to some measure answer to those who they rule and represent.

By their nature imperial powers always put their own interests first, and not those of the people they occupy and exploit. If one had to choose between an occupation by a large imperial power, such as the United States, or be ruled by their puppets, or instead be led by a corrupt local dictatorship, it is quite clear to me that the latter would be preferable, since occupation is still dictatorships, and puppet government rule by the force of arms of their masters without exception. Neither offers freedom from dictatorship, and offer little or no accountability to local interests whatsoever.

So, herein lies the source of Amedinejad's power, the more adversarial the position of the imperial powers are toward a country like Iran the stronger the forces of authoritarianism and reaction become because local power structures and elites will cleave to those who promise to maintain their power and privilege, and indeed there will be support for this among a substantial portion of the population, because their positions and well being are also dependent on those social relations. Most people are conservative by nature and not motivated by ideals, except when it is clear that those ideals solve serious issues that undermine the fundamental prospect of living life in a reasonable manner.

What we have here is polarization, and polarization is never good for anyone. Ignoring the underlying fear that many have of the imperial ambition, and its real intentions, and indeed the great propaganda benefit that western interests have gotten from recent unrest in Iran, and their desire to foster it and support it, for their own good, and not at all for the good of the people of Iran, is only feeding the impression that it serves those interests.

It seems to me that our job here, and specifically I mean "here" in the belly of the beast so to speak, is to wind down and undermine the forces of polarization, in favour of reasoned diplomacy, not by adding legitimacy to propaganda that serves the aims of the imperial powers. What one would do as an Iranian, living in Iran, is a little more complex, I should think.

Pogo wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Pogo wrote:

I attended too many peace rallies with speakers lauding the glory of Saddam to go down that road again.

Not in Canada, you didn't.

Did too.

Did not.

Ghislaine wrote:

It is possible to oppose Ahmadinejad without supporting US war aims. Any invasion of Iran would be met with protest and I am sure all of those protesting Ahmadinejad in NYC this week would be amoung them. sanizadeh, thank you for your posts.

I cannot believe the personal attacks you are receiving, especially as you are writing from experience in Iran. Who else here has lived anything other than a rich, white, privileged existence?  

And why did you assume that sanizadeh did not live or is not living a rich, privileged existence?

 Who else you wrote? Well didn't your crystal ball tell you that part :)  ? I am joking not deriding here.

Oh.  I didn't even notice that I'd posted the 117th post!  Closing for length.