Friday, September 25, 2009

Why were Kaddafi and Ahmadinejad even allowed to speak at the UN? That was counterproductive and Detrimental!

Obama Addresses United Nations For First Time-Full Video

Ahmadinejad's UN Rant I mean speech!

Gaddafi causes controversy at United Nations

First in regard to my closing I want to say I heard this morning that Iran admitted on the 21st to having a second secret nuclear facility capable of enriching Uranium. They only admitted it because they found out that France and the US already knew about it. Well that is why the focus on Iran's nukes at the UN and the G20!
Now To start with Obama had a great speech attended by everyone even Ahmadinejad who did his best to appear disinterested. Obama's rousing speech of hope unity and cooperation if met halfway had the ill fortune of being followed by Moamar Gaddafi and the Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad appeared to be talking to himself as most either did not attend or walked out. Many walked out when Ahmadinejad attacked Israel, including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary and Italy, Canada and the US did not even attend. Day after UN walkout, German FM calls Ahmadinejad a 'disgrace'

Someone please fill me in on why Ahmadinejad and Kaddafi were even allowed in the UN meeting let alone allowed to speak. I mean in Gaddafi's case to bore with a 95 minute senseless rant that sent most running and others to sleep and in Ahmadinejad's case to send everyone running out of the room. Ahmadinejad predictably blamed the world's woes on a few super powers Democracy and Liberalism. It is Iran's right to go into every country we messed up and fix it!.

When Ahmadinejad bragged about Iran's glorious election and his claimed affirmation of Iran's great Democracy I thought gee I guess we set a lousy example while most of the assembly emptied out leaving Ahmadinejad to talk to himself which he seemed quite happy doing. He mocked Obama and his idea of change. The denier of the holocaust had the audacity to call for truth while addressing an empty room. and not just because of his "glorious" election. Kaddafi said swine flu is a military weapon, Obama was his son and a Kenyan and should be President for life. Why did those senseless idiots even get to speak at the UN?

Ahmadinejad murdered his own people after his "glorious" election and the aftermath of the lie the protests continue as I speak. He called Iran fully Democratic and said the great turn out and results proved it. Boy are we in trouble! Holocaust denial, anti Semitic rants, a sponsor of terrorism, do we want them to possess nukes? They are involved in Iraq. They are developing ICBM's capable of reaching Europe and even the US. After listening to Ahmadinejad's idiocy at the UN I am comfortable saying what do we do about this monster?

I was listening to Israel's Ambassador expressing how mush Israel appreciated and welcomed Obama's speech at the UN in response to hearing war monger John Bolton say Obama put Israel on the chopping block. Kaddafi said the security council are terrorists. Ahmadinejad said the US should get its nose out of middle east affair and let Iran take care of it. Yeah right! Gaddafi lectures the UN

He defended Iran's right to interfere in other middle east nations. Kaddafi was often bizarre and incoherent. Why the hell were they allowed to address the UN General Assembly? Those two should not be legitimized. This is just not right not good! Ahmadinejad crapped all over the rest of the world while covering up the real story of a ruthless military dictatorship in Iran and that Ahmadinejad is a ruthless mealy mouthed fraudulent leader. He spoke to an empty house and the video was controlled by the UN. That is the only story but why was Kaddafi and Ahmadinejad even allowed too speak?

When all is said and done with Iran wanting to obliterate Israel and many of us fear getting their hands on nukes one way or the other they would be wise to remember a nuclear Iran would have to face a nuclear Israel with 2 or 300 nuclear weapons and second strike capabilities which means that even if they are attacked they will have the ability to strike back. Just think of the repercussions of this in the middle east and around the world!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma


Border Explorer said...

You and I differ on this one, Jim. I like Cindy Sheehan's stance:

Obama: "We must make sure nuclear weapons don't fall into the wrong hands." [Sheehan:] Since we are the only ones who have used nukes, I think nukes are already in the "wrong hands."

The Moose said...

I think you ought to re-read your post, Bud. Listen to what you're advocating.

This may not say what you meant, but the impression you leave me with is: If someone disagrees with US, they should not be allowed to address the U.N.

Censorship of World Views is not a path to be trod on. You do not have to agree with their views, but trying to silence them is what got us to where we're at today.

Brother Tim said...

I've got to agree with both Billie and Moose here.

Either everyone should be allowed to have them, or nobody should have them.

It's like saying, "I can have a 9mm, but everyone else in the neighborhood can only have a knife".

Moose makes a good point. Have you ever tried looking at the situation from the perspectives of Ahmadinejad or Chavez. Contrary to what most Americans believe, we are NOT God's enforcers. Trust me on this one, my friend: God wants us to love our fellow man, not silence or kill them.

Demeur said...

I also agree. You may recall McCain in the last debate with Obama saying how you don't even talk to Iran. He came off to most people as a mean old man. The only way to solve differences is to get them out in the open. They do have the right to speak even if that may be looked at as crazy. How quickly you forget Bush and his axis of evil speech. Sound the same?

an average patriot said...

Hi Billie
When it comes to nukes any hands are the wrong hands even ours. I do not know if you have been following today's events in this regard but good friggen luck trying to stop Iran even though even China and Russia are finally on board.

an average patriot said...

Hey Moose
Yeah you were misreading me but you have of late as you get more pessimistic. Putting down all leading members as the enemy along with Democracy and liberalism and it is time to change it is someone I do not want on my side though he may be right!

an average patriot said...

Brother no one should have them but it is too late they are here to stay. Keeping them from proliferating is all that can be done now!

an average patriot said...

No one will ever forget about Bush as most of our problems he created. You have to talk to Ahmadinejad but even with the entire world on board do not expect him to alter his course. Today's events alone showed that will never happen.