« Whither Racism? | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

How different is this guy's nuclear disarmament goals from Obama's?

This guy being Dr Saeed Jalili, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and a leading ally of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Address by Dr Saeed Jalili, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, at the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation - "Nuclear Technology for All, Nuclear Weapons for None"

Tehran, 17-18 April 2010

Distinguished Delegates, Dear Guests:

Four months ago, I witnessed the scene of one of the most appalling crimes against humanity in Hiroshima. I wrote down in the book commemorating the victims of Hiroshima, "The most important message of Hiroshima is the disarmament of the US," and I underlined the importance of holding this conference and the necessity of having a gathering to share ideas and thoughts.

I welcome you to the Islamic Republic of Iran and hope that our sharing of thoughts in this meeting, that seeks the noble goal of disarmament, will be a right response to the expectations of the international community.

Why do we need a meeting like this?

After 65 years that have passed since the disaster in Hiroshima, the perpetrators have not repented or asked for forgiveness from the people of Japan. On the contrary, after 65 years, they shamelessly threaten other nations with nuclear weapons.

The culprits behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies were not tried or punished. After they committed such crimes, they used their possession of nuclear weapons as a basis to exact privileges in the international system.

After World War II, international relations have not been based on justice, democracy, and sovereignty of nations. These relations have evolved on the basis of the power to possess nuclear weapons. The possessors of nuclear weapons have been able to acquire a special privilege solely on this basis. Can this foundation bring about and promote security in our world?

Apart from the fact that no free-minded person in the world can accept this foundation, the experience over the past 65 years have also shown that the possessors of nuclear weapons not only have failed to bring about security, but they themselves have been the principal source of all conflicts over these years.

...

The Islamic Republic of Iran wants a world replete with justice, peace and well-being for all. The package proposed by Iran is based on the same desire. The two slogans of this conference, Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None, is the principal component of our proposed package.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has again stated its readiness to have dialogue on common concerns of the international community on the basis of collective commitment. Those who openly state that they will use levers of pressure in their dialogues are, in fact, openly saying to the whole world that they are resorting to pressure and coercion due to absence of logic and culture of dialogue on their part. We invite them to the logic of respect for the rights of nations and return to dialogue and to be accountable to the global community.

Hoping for the day without nuclear weapons in the world and a world replete with peace, justice and happiness.

I read the whole rant and came away with two thoughts.

First, that it might well have been written by Jeremiah Wright, who has expressed similar thoughts as to the evil perpetrated by the United States, thoughts that explain in part Barack Hussein Obama's gall with American exceptionalism.

And secondly, that this guy uses some of the same language used by so many members of the Religious Left.  His references to peace, to justice and to dialogue ring so familiar.

Is it merely coincidence?

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38807.

Comments (18)

You're joking right? You j... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You're joking right? You just adapted this from some university professor's lecture.

Actually if you substitute "My administration" for "the Islamic Republic of Iran" and it sounds like something Barry might have delivered.

I'm feeling lazy today. Som... (Below threshold)

I'm feeling lazy today. Someone else dig up a link to the comparisons between Al Gore's book and the Unibomber's manifesto. You know the one I mean -- the one that gives a quote, then you have to guess which one it came from.

J.

<a href="http://www.crm114.... (Below threshold)
jim m:
Harder than I thought. I o... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Harder than I thought. I only scored 50% and I really was trying.

Creepily congruent.

Hussein's anti semitism is ... (Below threshold)
914:

Hussein's anti semitism is coming home to roost!

Jim, that was intended as <... (Below threshold)

Jim, that was intended as rhetorical...

But thanks anyway.

J.

I typed "is coming"? Should... (Below threshold)
914:

I typed "is coming"? Should be "has come". Sorry Barry!

"Is it merely coincidence?"... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Is it merely coincidence?"

Nope, just another pandering to the 'peace loving' leftists.

Too bad we don't have a president with the balls to threaten to make Tehran another Hiroshima.

The difference is that the ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

The difference is that the Iranian says it to pander to pacifist leftards to cover for his governments desire to incinerate Israel. Meanwhile, Obama says it because he truly believes the US to be an evil nation "whether we like it or not"...

How different is t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
How different is this guy's nuclear disarmament goals from Obama's?

Easy. He's less anti-American.

Accchhhhmadimmmijihad write... (Below threshold)
914:

Accchhhhmadimmmijihad writes the script, Barry carrys out the plot.

Easy: The primary differenc... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Easy: The primary differences are: (1) that the Iranian leadership hates Jews a lot less than Obama (Iran's beef is with Israel as a nation-state, not necessarily with the entire Jewish religion and culture); (2) the Iranian leadership actually is much less dangerous to America's long-term geopolitical interests.

"Too bad we don't have a pr... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Too bad we don't have a president with the balls to threaten to make Tehran another Hiroshima."

Are you serious? This is what you think makes sense?

Ryan, would you prefer a nu... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Ryan, would you prefer a nuclear attack on some city (preferrably the one in which you live) to a preemptive strike on Iran? If you think they want peace, it is the peace of Islam. Where all worship Allah. If you do not understand what they are up to shut the f*ck up and get out of the way. I wonder why this Iranian dick does not show pictures of the rape of Nanking. Chinese babys stuck on Japanese bayonets. Heard an appology from the Japanese yet?

"If you do not understand w... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"If you do not understand what they are up to shut the f*ck up and get out of the way."

Ah, so what ARE they, Zels? Are you able to determine the character of millions of people? That's quite a magical ability you have there.

So whatever happened with solidarity for the Iranian people who are fighting for democracy? F*ck em? So you're saying that 8.4 million people in the city of Tehran should pay for the shitty authoritarian government that rules over them? You don't think there's any need to differentiate between Iranian civilians and, for example, the political tool who is responsible for the above speech?

"I wonder why this Iranian dick does not show pictures of the rape of Nanking. Chinese babys stuck on Japanese bayonets. Heard an appology from the Japanese yet?"

The speech above by Jalili is pure political BS, IMO--that's pretty easy to see. Still, I think some of you folks start freaking out and overreacting when you bring up nuclear warfare. It might make sense to separate the civilians from the asinine leadership in this case. It's not as if there is 100% consensus with the regime, you know.

Ryan, a little lesson for y... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Ryan, a little lesson for you. Governments exist at the consensus of the governed, therefore have the ultimate responsiblity for the acts of that government. Not all Germans were Nazis. However since they allowed the government of Hitler to continue, they were held responsible. If Iran is allowed to develope a nuclear weapon and they use it (which they promised they will, on Israel), what would you think would be an proper response?

"If Iran is allowed to d... (Below threshold)
Stormin:

"If Iran is allowed to develope a nuclear weapon and they use it (which they promised they will, on Israel), what would you think would be an proper response?"

A strongly worded letter of reprimand from the UN?

/sarc off

"Ryan, a little lesson for ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Ryan, a little lesson for you. Governments exist at the consensus of the governed, therefore have the ultimate responsiblity for the acts of that government."

I don't think you understand the difference between a democracy and an authoritarian government. So please avoid the free lessons on politics if you aren't willing to pay attention to basic definitions. To use Iraq as a recent example: Do you think that Saddam Hussein ruled by consensus of the Iraqi people? Do a little reading about the Kurds and the Shiites under Hussein, and then get back to me.

If you are talking about a democratically elected government, it might very well be argued that the population is accountable for what its government does. But dictatorships and authoritarian regimes? That's some slippery territory you're entering into. In some cases it makes sense to parse out the ruled from the rulers. But there are probably mere pesky details in your complex vision of geopolitics...

Just a side question: Do you characterize Iran as a functioning representative democracy?

"Not all Germans were Nazis. However since they allowed the government of Hitler to continue, they were held responsible."

You're arguing that all German citizens were held accountable for the actions of the National Socialist Party, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with what the Nazis did? Where do you get this information from???




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy