Ahmadinejad Makes Historic Visit to Iraq

[Duke Dicky]

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived Sunday in Baghdad for the first-ever visit by an Iranian president to Iraq, waving as he stepped off his plane to be greeted by representatives of a nation that was once Iran's bitter enemy.

The visit gives Ahmadinejad a chance to highlight the improved relationship his nation has with post-Saddam Hussein Iraq while also serving as an act of defiance toward the U.S., which accuses Iran of aiding Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Among the delegation of Iraqi officials gathered at Baghdad international airport was Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who told The Associated Press that Ahmadinejad plans to leave Monday morning. Upon Ahmadinejad's arrival, the group piled into a military convoy headed for a meeting at Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's residence.

Security was tight along the airport road, once among the most dangerous in this war-torn city, with Iraqi army patrols stationed every 100 yards or so. The U.S. has said it would not be involved in providing security for Ahmadinejad's visit.

Ahmadinejad is scheduled to meet not only with Talabani but also Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, both of whom have made official visits to Iran since taking office. Talabani's headquarters are located right across the Tigris River from the mammoth new U.S. Embassy in the fortified Green Zone, an area that has been repeatedly hit by mortar attacks, with the U.S. blaming Shiite militants.

Iran and Iraq are both led by Shiite Muslims. The two countries were hostile to each other during Saddam's regime and fought a long and destructive war during most of the 1980s. But Ahmadinejad sought to reassure Iraqis ahead of the trip that Iran is not fueling violence in Iraq.

"Iran has no need to intervene in Iraq. It is friendly to all groups in Iraq. Isn't it ridiculous that those who have deployed 160,000 troops in Iraq accuse us of intervening there?" the Iranian state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

With the trip, Ahmadinejad also may be trying to bolster his support back home ahead of parliamentary elections later this month.

They are seen as referendum on the Iranian president, who has come under criticism from all sides in his country for spending too much time on anti-Western rhetoric and not enough on economic problems plaguing the country.

Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the visit sends a "clear message to Iraqis that the Iranian influence in the country is significant and enduring."

But at the same time, "he doesn't want to threaten the Iraqis. He doesn't want to threaten Gulf states who fear that Iraq will be an Iranian satellite. He has a thin line to walk," he said.

The U.S. has tried to downplay Ahmadinejad's visit, saying it welcomed Iran's stated policy of promoting stability but that its actions have been doing the opposite.

President Bush denied that Ahmadinejad's visit undermined U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran but had some advice for what al-Maliki should say to the Iranian leader.

"He's a neighbor. And the message needs to be, quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing our citizens," Bush told reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

[JesusTheJedi]

Sounds a lot like he's just trying to poke at the US, but if he's sincere, that's great. Hell, any amends made in the Middle East are awesome.

[rand0m]

Did he forget hes financing, training and arming the terrorists that are causing the instablity?

America should just execute his ass.

[Henkie]

Did he forget hes financing, training and arming the terrorists that are causing the instablity?

America should just execute his ass.

He says he isn't, and to be honest, over the last couple of years Ahmadinejad has a slighty better track-record when it comes to not lying to the people.

[_Joe]

Did he forget hes financing, training and arming the terrorists that are causing the instablity?

America should just execute his ass.

That may do less to promote peace in the region then just letting him live and his people hate him. To kill him would incite the Iranian people and unify them against the U.S., I would hate to see who they elect after that.

[American Infidel]

He says he isn't, and to be honest, over the last couple of years Ahmadinejad has a slighty better track-record when it comes to not lying to the people.

Like when he said that the phenomenon known as homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran?

[Henkie]

Like when he said that the phenomenon known as homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran?

Technically, it's not an undefendable position. This might sound a bit strange, but in Western society, homosexuality is more than a guy who'd rather have sex with men, it's an entire social construct with it's own role-patterns, preconceived notions, etc. As such, the social construct around men having sex with eachother might be entirely different and homosexuality could very well not exist, while there's still men having sex with eachother. Because Amhadinejad will probably admit that men have been arrested and punished for behaviour we would interpret as homosexual. You see the same thing in Africa, for instance, in central Africa women who choose to become priestess live alone with another woman, and they are widely known to work eachother with great big wooden dildos, yet they aren't seen as lesbians.

Although I must admit I do not know the context in which Amhadinejad made that statement, so I might be wrong and he might just be talking out of his arse. But then again, it still isn't "He has WMD's, it's certain!".

[/Tilt/]

This guy is such a badass. What's he going to do next, visit an American university? Oh wait...

Anyway, Ahmadinejad and the United States are just playing the blame game with each other at this point. This visit is simply Ahmadinejad flexing his political muscles. Good move on his part.

[Master. kirby]

in central Africa women who choose to become priestess live alone with another woman, and they are widely known to work eachother with great big wooden dildos, yet they aren't seen as lesbians.



most interesting part of the thread thus far.

please tell more.

[The Pancake]

Edit: Never mind.

[Jordan]

Edit: Never mind.

Edit: nevermind.

[bergshadow]

Quite the contrast to W's visit - or any other US high official's. AJ doesn't seem too worried about his reception.

[American Infidel]

Technically, it's not an undefendable position. This might sound a bit strange, but in Western society, homosexuality is more than a guy who'd rather have sex with men, it's an entire social construct with it's own role-patterns, preconceived notions, etc. As such, the social construct around men having sex with eachother might be entirely different and homosexuality could very well not exist, while there's still men having sex with eachother.


Oh, I see. What he was really saying was that Iran doesn't have an Islamic version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Enlightenment!


Because Amhadinejad will probably admit that men have been arrested and punished for behaviour we would interpret as homosexual.

I now realize you didn't watch him, during his visit to Columbia University. The question was asked of him, his opinion of homosexuals being executed in Iran. Like a good little Hitler, he skirted around the question and said that this "phenomenon" of homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran. Then, we all joked that, "Of course there's no faggots in Iran...alive."

That's because his regime doesn't (in your softened tone) punish homosexuals. They hang them, until they're dead. They murder people for being different. It's beyond me that the American far-left concentrates so damn hard on gay rights and gay marriage, with nary a word spoken when scores of homosexuals are murdered by the Iranian government.

Same goes to liberals like PETA, who's only problem with the Palestinian children's hatred network showing a guy dressed in a bee suit mistreating kittens. They had no problem with them teaching their children hatred toward Jews and martyrdom, in the name of the Religion of Peace™.


Although I must admit I do not know the context in which Amhadinejad made that statement, so I might be wrong and he might just be talking out of his arse. But then again, it still isn't "He has WMD's, it's certain!".


I'm finished with the whole "Bush Lied, Kids Died" argument. Blame Clinton, before starting all that nonsense.

[Henkie]

Oh, I see. What he was really saying was that Iran doesn't have an Islamic version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Enlightenment!

That's one way of looking at it, yes. But there's more. For instance, when we say homosexuals, we both mean the guy who likes to give butsex to guys, and the guy who likes to receive, while it is very common in other cultures to make a clear and strict distinction between the 'male' and 'female' parts of a homosexual relationship. We tend to consider gay men as less masculine, while in certain cultures they're considered extra masculine for sodomizing other men, etc. All these kinds of assumptions are implicit in our concept of 'homosexuality', while they do not necessarily are the same in other cultures.


I now realize you didn't watch him, during his visit to Columbia University. The question was asked of him, his opinion of homosexuals being executed in Iran. Like a good little Hitler, he skirted around the question and said that this "phenomenon" of homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran. Then, we all joked that, "Of course there's no faggots in Iran...alive."

That's because his regime doesn't (in your softened tone) punish homosexuals. They hang them, until they're dead. They murder people for being different. It's beyond me that the American far-left concentrates so damn hard on gay rights and gay marriage, with nary a word spoken when scores of homosexuals are murdered by the Iranian government.

The next point, ofcourse, is that it is very possible that the entire concept of homosexuality doesn't translate to Iranian culture. The idea that you're not talking about a sexual preference (something you are), but about a sexually deviant act (something you do) might be very strong for Amhadinejad. It's thinking about homosexuality as we think about pedophilia, not as something the people are, that should be accepted, but as something that people do and needs to be stopped. The big question, in essence, isn't wether gays can stop doing what they're doing, but wether it's right or wrong, what they're doing. And I do think it's perfectly OK for gay men to do what they do, I really do, but to find people who do not agree, we don't have to travel all the way to the Middle East, we can find those kinds of religious nuts in our own country and culture.

I'm finished with the whole "Bush Lied, Kids Died" argument. Blame Clinton, before starting all that nonsense.

I'm getting sick of this argument myself. In the past month, you've posted this argument in two seperate threads, which you never posted in as soon as it was blown out of the water. Bush did lie, and Bush did invade Iraq, Clinton might have done the first thing, but he never did the second. Ignore it if you want, but please don't go bring this shit to yet another thread, please.

[theC]

Technically, it's not an undefendable position. This might sound a bit strange, but in Western society, homosexuality is more than a guy who'd rather have sex with men, it's an entire social construct with it's own role-patterns, preconceived notions, etc. As such, the social construct around men having sex with eachother might be entirely different and homosexuality could very well not exist, while there's still men having sex with eachother.

Well it's not true at all. I asked a friend who was born in and lived in Iran until s few years ago what he thought about Ahmadinajad's comments and he just laughed and told me that of course there are homosexuals in Iran (like that even needed to be confirmed) but that there is too a homosexual culture, albeit different than what's seen in the west. To be fair though, it's not a defendable position he took claiming that homosexuals don't exist in Iran because he was referring to a westernized homosexual culture rather than a strict and universal definition of what homosexuality is. He knew exactly what what being asked and he just played up to his base back in Iran/other parts of the middle east.

[Stanky105]

Technically, it's not an undefendable position. This might sound a bit strange, but in Western society, homosexuality is more than a guy who'd rather have sex with men, it's an entire social construct with it's own role-patterns, preconceived notions, etc. As such, the social construct around men having sex with eachother might be entirely different and homosexuality could very well not exist, while there's still men having sex with eachother. Because Amhadinejad will probably admit that men have been arrested and punished for behaviour we would interpret as homosexual.

Dude, do you seriously think all of this went through his head during that question, or do you think its more likely that he was doing simply what politicians do best: Bullshitting?

You see the same thing in Africa, for instance, in central Africa women who choose to become priestess live alone with another woman, and they are widely known to work eachother with great big wooden dildos, yet they aren't seen as lesbians.

I... have to research that.. a lot... before I can discuss it... :uhoh:

But then again, it still isn't "He has WMD's, it's certain!".

I dunno, Bush and Ahmadinijad sure seem to use each other to gain power in their own countries. Fear mongering ftw, I guess.

I'm finished with the whole "Bush Lied, Kids Died" argument. Blame Clinton, before starting all that nonsense.

Why not blame both?

[Henkie]

Well it's not true at all. I asked a friend who was born in and lived in Iran until s few years ago what he thought about Ahmadinajad's comments and he just laughed and told me that of course there are homosexuals in Iran (like that even needed to be confirmed) but that there is too a homosexual culture, albeit different than what's seen in the west. To be fair though, it's not a defendable position he took claiming that homosexuals don't exist in Iran because he was referring to a westernized homosexual culture rather than a strict and universal definition of what homosexuality is. He knew exactly what what being asked and he just played up to his base back in Iran/other parts of the middle east.

Could very well be, I honestly wouldn't know, but I would like to point out that there is nobody for ignoring a plain reality like religious nuts. The fact that there is a gay culture and there are gay men, doesn't mean that Amhadinejad sees it as such. He might've been wrong, but he might truely have believed what he was saying.

Dude, do you seriously think all of this went through his head during that question, or do you think its more likely that he was doing simply what politicians do best: Bullshitting?

These are all more or less subconcious thoughts. When somebody asks you: "are there gay men in the USA?" do you think about the subtleties of what constitutes being gay (like, do people who have gay sex in prison, but straigth sex outside, count as gay, or just as really desperately straight, do people who fantasize about gay sex, but don't ever have it count as gay, etc.?) or do you just know what being gay is and whether those people are in the USA. Similarly, I think A-N had a clear idea about what gay is (which might've been totally different from how we see it) and knew that those people weren't in Iran. On the other hand, I can't see inside his head, so he might've been bullshiting indeed, it's not certain either way.

[American Infidel]

That's one way of looking at it, yes. But there's more. For instance, when we say homosexuals, we both mean the guy who likes to give butsex to guys, and the guy who likes to receive, while it is very common in other cultures to make a clear and strict distinction between the 'male' and 'female' parts of a homosexual relationship. We tend to consider gay men as less masculine, while in certain cultures they're considered extra masculine for sodomizing other men, etc. All these kinds of assumptions are implicit in our concept of 'homosexuality', while they do not necessarily are the same in other cultures.

The next point, ofcourse, is that it is very possible that the entire concept of homosexuality doesn't translate to Iranian culture. The idea that you're not talking about a sexual preference (something you are), but about a sexually deviant act (something you do) might be very strong for Amhadinejad. It's thinking about homosexuality as we think about pedophilia, not as something the people are, that should be accepted, but as something that people do and needs to be stopped. The big question, in essence, isn't wether gays can stop doing what they're doing, but wether it's right or wrong, what they're doing. And I do think it's perfectly OK for gay men to do what they do, I really do, but to find people who do not agree, we don't have to travel all the way to the Middle East, we can find those kinds of religious nuts in our own country and culture.

Not sure what you're rambling on about, really. It's quite obvious that Iran executes men (especially...haven't seen any lesbians murdered, yet) for being a homosexual -- that is, a peter-puffer, chocolate-packer, etc. Fact is, man-on-man love is exempt from tolerance in Islamic, Sharia law.

The C is correct. There is an underground network of homosexuals, in Iran, who are a "secret society". They risk their lives, everytime they meet with other members, in fear of the religious police. They know they're being watched and are cautious not to display any affection toward each other. As much as that sickens me, it's even more sickening to know that the GOVERNMENT will murder them for it.

[pinger]

Like when he said that the phenomenon known as homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran?

Isn't this the same line taken by Republicans about homosexuality in their party?

[Bergs]

Why not blame both?
Die hard partisans are completely incapable of blaming more than one party. For the Democratic die-hards, everything is the fault of the evil Republicans, especially Bush and Cheney and Rove. For the Republicans, everything is the fault of the pussy Democrats, especially the entire Clinton family.

The Clinton Administration had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But its hopeless to try and convince someone like heather otherwise. Its impossible for him to grasp the concept that an air campaign in 1998 and a full scale invasion in 2003 are not corresponding events that automatically follow from one another.

[Henkie]

Not sure what you're rambling on about, really. It's quite obvious that Iran executes men (especially...haven't seen any lesbians murdered, yet) for being a homosexual -- that is, a peter-puffer, chocolate-packer, etc. Fact is, man-on-man love is exempt from tolerance in Islamic, Sharia law.

It might seem like a irrelevant detail, but men are not executed for being homosexual, they're executed for having sex with eachother. In a western perspective the difference is that between having an urge and acting upon it, but it is possible that in Amhadinejad's view it's very possible that he sees homosexuality as much more than (or something different from) men having sex. That's what I'm rambling on about, that the view of what is "homosexuality" allows for a whole lot more of interpretation than, for instance, the definition of WMD's. It is very possible for Amhadinejad to combine an acknowledgement of the fact that there are men having sex with eachother, while still denying that there are homosexuals in Iran. This is not a view I'd agree with, but it's not necessarily invalid.

[I 0_0 I]

Why would a supposedly puppet government of Iraq invite and give a warm welcome to Iran? That is something that should be given some thought. So why then the warm sentiment?

The kurdish are indifferent to Iran, and are not threatened by it.
The Shia majority shares religious beliefs with Iran.

That leaves sunnis, who may be suspicious of their shia irani niebours, but can't do a darn thing about it because the country is run by shia and kurds majority that doesnt feel threatened by iran.
The US wouldn't be able to stop a visit from ahmedinejad because the country is run by shia and kurds who do not feel threatened by iran.