The pictures in the link below depict the lifestyles of two leaders of two Islamic nations, one leader is a decmocraticly elected and is a simple Muslim, the other is a dictator allied with the Americans and apparently influenced by Bush:

http://sufined.blogspot.com/2007/12/difference-between-two-muslim.html

Share your comments please :)

What a difference!

Gotta love the self righteous mussies in this world.

one of those 2 presidents also talks to a little boy in a well. hehehe.

AGAIN.......

Have you seen the Palace of the Sultan lately? Pretty sweet pad.

Nice one ...

OBL plotted the end of the world from a cave

mr pinnochio, OBL is not a President.. cant you low capacity memory people think abit before mixing every thing up !!

.....but just imagine what you can do from the floor of a well-heated house........

mr pinnochio, why dont you take it as...

Using all that wealth for your pleasure wont help your country much.

EF,

Using all that wealth for your pleasure wont help your country much.

an accusation you can level at many leaders across the world - i.e. some countries in Africa.......and Arabia.......and Russia.....and some of the old Soviet satellite states.......and some (historically) countries in South America........and China......and Burma......

PS Using your fixation on bringing about the conditions that pave the way for the return of the Mahdi also wont help your country much....

*clap* *clap*

Lets just say,it helped him.
I dont know about other leaders which you refering to,but if that was true then its good to see many leaders whom giving more attention to their people than themselves.

There is no doubt that the Iranian president is careful and modest in his personal life. If anyone were to criticize him for being insincere they would be off the mark.

His Excellency Ahmedi Najad is finding peacefully sleep on home made carpets. The other leader's home is like a furnitures showroom in Dubai I guess. Is that Chinese docoration style ?

EF, just take it easy with mr pinno, the guy is anti-semitic.


.

I got this in an email from who else... my brother ( Mahmoud ahmadinejad is his hero ) :D
He really is a good, great man

What's so bad about holding dogs and shaking hands

I don't think this is true since the furnitures pictures were published before as Reem Al-Waleed bin Talal's mansion.

I liked this a lot :p:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_HyKMWwevkyk/R15OFA6oADI/AAAAAAAAAFg/vnFJMjLm65A/s1600-h/image009.jpg

What's so bad about holding dogs and shaking hands

Nothing to us, but you need to explain that to millions of Pakistanis living in severe poverty. How would they feel when they see their leader partying and having pets with a better life than theirs.

Besides, the whole story is about comparing two leaders. One sincere and modest, the other lost!

The handshake part...ugh.

If you get to know the really religous Irani's , They are like that.. like the hand shaking part :)

Ahmedinejad is a great leader, may Allah bless him

If you get to know the really religous Irani's , They are like that.. like the hand shaking part :)

Well, I wouldn't be happy about the handshaking part :)

I believe a man and a woman cannot touch each other if they are not mahrams, so I don't see what's very upsetting to you guys about the hand-shaking part.

He is indeed a great man :).

Yo Obi, long time no see.

You're really looking good in your new avatar.

The Iranian President lives like a beggar and he is making beggars of the rest of the Iranian populace as well.

Unemployment Rate
2003 16.30 %
2004 15.70 %
2005 11.20 %
2006 11.20 %
2007 15.00 %

Inflation
2003 15.30 %
2004 16.40 %
2005 15.50 %
2006 13.50 %
2007 15.80 %


Not to mention

2007 Gas Rationing Plan in Iran was launched by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet to reduce that country's fuel consumption. Although Iran is one of the world's largest producers of petroleum, rapid increases in demand and limited refining capacity has forced the country to import about 40% of its gasoline, at an annual cost of up to $7 billion

Waay to go Ahmendnidididjad.

Sanctions increase poverty and misery

Just wondering, seriously..what's wrong with puppies? :os:

Besides, I recall (al-abbasiyeen and al-omawiyeen) used to have castles and all...yet they were religious..etc, weren't they great Muslim leaders and helped Islam a lot?

Don't get me wrong, I personally couldn't care less about them both. Just trying to understand you people...

-------------

Thanks woody!

what's wrong with puppies?

Nothing

Besides, I recall (al-abbasiyeen and al-omawiyeen) used to have castles and all...yet they were religious..etc, weren't they great Muslim leaders and helped Islam a lot?


No they weren't great Muslim leaders, with the exception of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

Sanctions increase poverty and miseryIn December 2006 UN imposed sanctions.

What is the excuse for 03, 04, 05 and 11 months in 06?

Exactly how updated are those photos? Maybe they were taken before he was elected president? (Ahmedinajad)

Sanctions increase poverty and misery

which are brought about by the leaders of those who suffer?

Nothing
Then why is the pic up there as a bad sign?



No they weren't great Muslim leaders, with the exception of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz
So...should every good 'person' be a good leader? and what makes you think they weren't?

In December 2006 UN imposed sanctions.

What is the excuse for 03, 04, 05 and 11 months in 06?

He wasn't there back in 03 & 04, but here's the reason behind the recent failure:

Ahmadinejad was elected on a populist agenda promising to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty, improve living standards and tackle unemployment. Now he is being challenged for his failure to meet those promises. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrd06hXAnRVTK3JznVR5DQ-jkxMgD8U1CB1O1)

Anyway, the topic isn't discussing the economic status of Iran but it's about the modesty of the leader

Oblivious, the topic isn't about the corrupt Umayyad leaders

What I'm trying to say...we're talking about how modest he is, that doesn't make him a great leader, does it? benefiting his country makes him a great leader...etc. Being modest makes him a great 'person'.

I agree, modesty does not necessarily make you a great leader

Nor does immodesty make you a bad leader

At least we all agree that Ahmednidididajab is a lously leader.

I agree, modesty does not necessarily make you a great leader

Nor does immodesty make you a bad leader

speaking of the moderate of the two leaders, has there been word from the boy in the well lately?

(hello hitman!)

speaking of the moderate of the two leaders, has there been word from the boy in the well lately?

(hello hitman!)

Hi Giggles!

Which boy in the well & how is that related to the discussion?

wudjab, I think people here are educated enough to realize unemployment and inflation rates are no good indicators and prove nothing. You know what are the inflation and unemployment rates in countries like US or even Oman? They fluctuate and its basic economics.

And I wonder whether you're smart or you act smart, look at the numbers you published, there have fluctuated too:

Unemployment Rate
2003 16.30 %
2004 15.70 %
2005 11.20 %
2006 11.20 %
2007 15.00 %

Inflation
2003 15.30 %
2004 16.40 %
2005 15.50 %
2006 13.50 %
2007 15.80 %

A rise or fall of few percents doesn't prove anything. Now go and read a good book on economics.

Iran has grew stronger in all means under Ahmadinejad. People around the region love him, not only the Iranians. If that doesn't make him a great leader, I don't know what will.

Maybe sleeping with the secretary in the white house would make him a good leader for people like wudjab :p

Hi Giggles!

Which boy in the well & how is that related to the discussion?

it's a little side note on the "modest" president of iran. you know, the one that claims to speak to a boy in the well.

but yes, you are correct, i digress from the topic at hand. my humble apologies.

it's a little side note on the "modest" president of iran. you know, the one that claims to speak to a boy in the well.

but yes, you are correct, i digress from the topic at hand. my humble apologies.



Are we not required to support our claims with a link now-a-days ? !


4egzampo

If GW Bush claims to have spoken to his 'god' at one time one w'd come with something like this :

" Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse. "

Link: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/2764


Could we ?



.

Apologies to Sting.

It's apparent that you Economic performance statistics is not your strong point (if you have any that is).

If you were able to work logically, you might find that Iran ranks among the top 5 countries in terms of Inflation rate.

Ahmednidididjab came to power on the platform of economic reform and reducing unemployment.

He's done neither.

But in your upside down world, that makes him a great leader.

ROFL

wudjab, first of all, I expect you to be older than the whole ROFL stupidity, but again, maybe you're not! ROFL :p

Anyhow, you know the international aggression against Iran and economical sanctions. In spite of that, Iran is and always has been independent and strong.

I commented on your ignorant post with Iranian inflation and unemployment rates. You tried to blame Ahmedinejad for it, which is totally irrelevant. It would have been different if those rates had increased by 1000% after he became President, something like what happened in Zimbabwe.

And yes, again, I see you didn't comment on the declining economy in Pakistan thanks to Musharraf's stupidity and alliance with America.

Iran stands alone, Musharraf receives billions in aid from Bush government, still, Iran is much more peaceful and strong, at least, economically.

Now stop twisting words and facts, and please, don't even try to act as if you're wise and an expert in economics, you're not.

ROFL :D!

Iran is a massive oil exporter, but still very poor. To me that doesn't smack of great economic management.

I respect Ahmedinejad's personal humility, but I would not agree that he has made Iran stronger, or loved around the region (!).

wudjab, first of all, I expect you to be older than the whole ROFL stupidity, but again, maybe you're not! ROFL :p

Anyhow, you know the international aggression against Iran and economical sanctions. In spite of that, Iran is and always has been independent and strong.

I commented on your ignorant post with Iranian inflation and unemployment rates. You tried to blame Ahmedinejad for it, which is totally irrelevant. It would have been different if those rates had increased by 1000% after he became President, something like what happened in Zimbabwe.

And yes, again, I see you didn't comment on the declining economy in Pakistan thanks to Musharraf's stupidity and alliance with America.

Iran stands alone, Musharraf receives billions in aid from Bush government, still, Iran is much more peaceful and strong, at least, economically.

Now stop twisting words and facts, and please, don't even try to act as if you're wise and an expert in economics, you're not.

ROFL :D!


I think there is something to this. I wouldn't blame Ahmadinejad alone for Iran's economic woes. But he DID come into office promising that he would change failed policies from the past that had made Iran a basket case. He hasn't really even tried to do that. So...I would not blame him for the situation entirely, but I would say that he has failed to take the steps needed to reinvigorate the economy.

I think I'm with Mimo on this. I respect his personal habits...I think they are a genuine reflection of his modest, self-effacing personality. But I don't think he's a very good leader. And I don't think he's beloved of Iranians.

Think about it! Mimo is a Muslim convert. If you succeed in converting us to Islam, you might STILL be faced with Western imperialism! ;)

Not being an admirer of Ahmedinejad's policies does not make me an imperialist!

I'm a...er....reformed imperialist :D

I was half-teasing....and putting things in STING's frame of reference anyway.

STING and I are buddies from way back since the days of Liberty!

No, but I am serious that just as Iran and Saudi Arabia don't always agree and the Ottomans and the Persians fought each other, so it's certainly not beyond possibility that a "Muslim West" and the Arab World would not necessarily see eye to eye either...

HALF?!!!!! "%$&^$%&£^$!!!!!!

Hahaha...the "Muslim East" doesn't see eye to eye with itself either, and you'll find the same divisions in the West.

Regarding Sting's last. erm, comments, all I can add is another

ROFL.

Indeed!

I was just thinking about the picture of a "revitalized Islamic West" taking a deep breath of air, looking over at Iran and saying,

"Now...what's all that about the Straight of Hormuz?"

Who knows? We might even still support Israel! That would be a laugh!

Alright Jeff, no one is forcing you to believe that Ahmadinejad is a "great" leader. Thats not even the topic, but just out of curiosity, if everything else constant, who do you think is a better President? Ahmadinejad, Bush or Musharraf. Maybe you can rank them :)

You know, this would help us better compare.

Note to wudjab: ROFL, sir ;)

Sir ?

You finally got that right.

Work on it. You'll soon be debating like an adult.

Off-topic: wudjab, you are missing the other, essential, part of that sir :p

Alright Jeff, no one is forcing you to believe that Ahmadinejad is a "great" leader. Thats not even the topic, but just out of curiosity, if everything else constant, who do you think is a better President? Ahmadinejad, Bush or Musharraf. Maybe you can rank them :)

You know, this would help us better compare.

Note to wudjab: ROFL, sir ;)

Well, I think Bush truly is a great leader.

About Musharraf, I honestly don't know what to think of him. You are much more of an expert on Pakistan and I am still learning, partly from you (I enjoyed the YouTube very much, btw). That's the honest truth. When I haven't understood something well, I want to be able to say: "I don't understand it well."

Ahmadinejad I would definitely rank low as a leader. The only thing that saves him is his personal integrity. That puts him far above a Saddam, since the basis of leadership is having integrity and showing that as an example to others.

I DO accept his personal integrity. And I definitely believe in Bush's. When all the clouds of earthly existence and limitations of human understanding are removed, I hope they will rejoice in each other in Heaven. But: as God wills it.

Jeff, you think Bush truly is a great leader? That is a first time :p

American economy? American unemployment? International instability? Death of thousands around the world?

Anyhow, since I see you as a wise man, may I ask, why do you think he is a great leader?

I think the American economy is humming along fairly well. Presidents (including Ahadinejad and you saw I didn't blame him for the economy too much) have limited impact on economics. What they CAN do is basically be on the side of the free market and keeping money where money works: in the private sector. That Bush has done. He has continued the basic Reagan pattern, which broke the Johnson, Nixon, Carter stagflation pattern.

We have a very different view of what's going on in international politics. I see Bush as a man of principle who faces challenges and doesn't back down from them. He isn't fazed by people saying he's dumb and doing it all wrong. He just does what needs to be done.

Bush's reaction to 9/11 was to completely rethink American foreign policy. Where you see only war and killing, I see a defensive of basic human values. Wars can do that: World War Two killed far, far more people than Bush, but though it was sometimes fought inhumanely, it was a noble cause and did great good in the world on balance.

As far as international instability, I don't see that either. Bush saw it through and now we have European leaders that basically back his approach.

We have very divergent views on what's going on in the world, Brother STING! :p I think I can see why you look at things the way you do. And I respect you for it. But I think you're wrong.

What can we do? No doubt we both have some heavy preconceptions we are laboring under. All both of us can do is try to keep being at least a little bit open-minded. Thanks for helping me do that.

Jeff, people who do stuff when everybody's calling them dumb for doing it are either stubborn or just going for it for the experience.
In both cases, there is a degree of stupidity invovled in charachter. Risks are taken with wisdom and thought...Unfortuantely President Bush practises neither.

I don't need to prove Bush stupid or a liar.
His acts and sayings speak for themselves.
When President Nixon would say stuff like,
"The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker."
President Bush would say stuff like,
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."
President Bush sat in an interview on May 2003 and declared,
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
About a year later President Bush joked,
"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
About four months later he said quite seriously,
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
On October 8, 2004 and in his second presdential debate, President Bush said,
"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons [of mass destruction in Iraq]"

I don't think I'll need further comments.
Except maybe that after reading this one has to think twice before comparing Bush's charachter to that of Churchill's or Roosevelt's.

But, Threadlike, NOT everyone is calling Bush dumb for doing what he is doing. Lots of people have supported him.

"Everyone" is not the same as the Fashion of the Day.

Nixon was not a forthright person. Very few people have called him or thought of him as a man of integrity.

Roosevelt was a war president. It has fallen to Bush's lot to be a war president. The first quotes that you have excerpted simply show his frank acceptance of that fact.

Bush--and every other world leader at the time--believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Their intelligence services were telling them so. Why? Because, according to David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, the investigation team which finally concluded that there WERE no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had tried to play both sides of the field, making his generals believe that other generals still had them, making the Iranians believe he still had them. So his underlings told us that he still had them!

What the Iraq Survey Group told us was not just that Iraq had no active programs. They told us that the programs were there on ice and that as soon as sanctions were lifted (and there was simply ENORMOUS and growing pressure to do just that), those programs would be reconstituted.

At the time of the First Gulf War, we discovered--as everyone admits--an active nuclear program FAR in advance of what we had believed. Within a year or so of producing a bomb, in fact. But even then we did not get the whole program as Iraqi chief nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi's book "The Bomb in My Garden" shows. The gas centrifuge was taken to pieces and the materials for restarting the program were buried in his garden, to be handed over to the Americans when we invaded at the start of Gulf War Two.

After Gulf War One, when Iraq had been crawling with inspectors, we thought we had found the complete bio weapons program. But after the inspectors had pulled out, unable to do their jobs properly, Saddam's son in law fled to Jordan and told us there was a whole huge program going on under the surface that we had simply never found. And Saddam admitted it and turned it over.

This program and others remained poised to go into production as soon as sanctions were lifted, as David Kay's report showed.

The fact is that the first Gulf War ended in a truce, not peace. We were still at war with Iraq...just a low level conflict involving airplanes over no fly zones, etc. Saddam was holding out against sanctions, determined to become the same regional power that he had been before that war. Sanctions were dissolving and facing massive pressure to be lifted by practically everyone except the US. If Saddam had remained in power, we could not have kept sanctions on him indefinitely and those programs that we though were active would have BECOME active again in short order.

This was a festering problem of huge proportions facing the Clinton and Bush administrations before 9/11. Everyone acknowledged it, Democrats and Republicans, Europeans and Americans. But there wasn't the political will to bite the bullet and do something about it. Plenty of people, including me, were spending the months wringing their hands and saying, "When is someone going to finish this job?"

Because Gulf War Two was not a "new war". It was simply a finishing of an old one. After 9/11, the Bush Administration rightly concluded that the time for hoping that such problems would simply go away had passed.

The "No Weapons of Mass Destruction" meme has become so prevalent in the press and the world at large that people have forgotten much of what they knew. I haven't forgotten.

Bush, who had come into office deemphasizing foreign policy and stressing non-internventionism, was forced by events to reverse himself. He did so beautifully. He took exactly the right decisions exactly when they needed to be taken and stuck to them.

He didn't invade "every country" nor did he have, nor DOES he have any plans to do so. When Rumsfeld advised invading Syria, Bush refused. Rightly. He has had a carefully calibrated policy of military pressure and sanctions against Iran.

And all of this is coupled with a refusal to buy into the old notion that Middle Easterners were somehow psychologically too primitive to have governments based on popular consensus, but had to have strongmen to keep them in line.

No: I think emotionalism and cultural pride have made Middle Easterners misunderstand what George Bush is all about. This may have been inevitable and it is certainly understandable. But a misunderstanding it is.

He was an is a great American president, who knows how to keep sight of essential things that get lost by many in the whirling maelstrom of public pressure and the vicissitudes of the day. He knows how to listen to counsel, take a decision and stick to it. He is a fine leader, who is greatly underestimated and -- like Reagan -- when all these present struggles have receded into the past -- will be recognized as such in the future.

And I will be one of those people who will be able to say: "You don't have to tell me. I knew it all along and never doubted it." Just like I have been able to do with Reagan.

Well Jeff, that was a shocker, but now I have come to realize that you're one of those people who believes if everything at home is good, to hell with the world!

As for the economy, America's economy was among the strongest when Bush came to power, he ruined it.

How has invading Iraq anything to do with "defensive strategy"? What about bullying Iran? Are those who attacked you on 9/11 there?

World War 2, like all wars was a mistake. No war should result in death of innocents. All American wars, at least of late, have killed more innocents than fighters, and their blood is your responsibility.

I believe in justice, don't you? Killing thousands of innocents will go without being noticed? I don't think so :)

May god help us all.

I don't know why it's a shocker. It's the same thing I've been saying over and over again in politics Sabla.

No, I don't believe everything at home is good and to hell with the world.

My basic attitude is that we should be against tyranny and dictatorship and for freedom, even when it costs us.

So, it would be very convenient for us to simply allow China to pressure the Taiwanese into being absorbed and digested. But that would be breaking faith with them, it would be the easy way out. So we should support the Taiwanese, even though it cost us billions and gets us very little in return.

This is why I was for intervention on behalf of Bosnian Muslims and Muslim Kosovars in Yugoslavia. War might well kill innocents. But peace was killing them too and the injustice of their situation demanded help through military action.

Wars are not the only way innocents die. More innocents were killed under Mao and Stalin in peacetime than in war. People died in Cambodia during war, but when "peace" came, the new dictator executed approximately a quarter of his own population. As a direct result of Americans getting tired and abandoning their responsibilities.

I don't disagree with you because I want to see "innocent die". I disagree with you because I DON'T want to see innocents die, nor do I want to see them ground under the heels of a tyranny. I want to see people live in places like Oman and America, not in places like North Korea and Iran.

I understand why you feel the way you do...many people that I love and respect feel that way. But I think you are mistaken. Still I trust you to follow your own instincts and judgment.

My basic attitude is that we should be against tyranny and dictatorship and for freedom, even when it costs us.

I don't disagree with you because I want to see "innocent die". I disagree with you because I DON'T want to see innocents die, nor do I want to see them ground under the heels of a tyranny. I want to see people live in places like Oman and America, not in places like North Korea and Iran.



I guess I never read your post where you praised Bush! Anyhow, never mind :)

Your basic attitude is very noble brother, and Bush claims thats what his attitude is, right? But if you look at whats really happening, do you think that noble attitude is being implemented?

Let me give you a couple of example that actually match our topic as well:

1. Iran: A freely elected president. Ahmadinejad is neither a tyrant nor a dictator. He was a professor who turned to politics and wants to do good for his people and country. Bush is against everything Iran does and constantly threatens it.

2. Pakistan: A dictator who came to power by removing a freely elected Prime Minister. He later removed he elected President and even recently got rid of the Judges of the supreme court. And the list goes on. Musharraf is closest ally of Bush.

Jeff, you are a sincere and wise man, what I stated above is simple fact. You don't need to be an expert to know how Musharraf or Ahmadinejad are. Look at the facts, one leads a stable country and the other has invited suicide bombers in it. One is loved by all, the other is hated and all politicians and people want him gone.

You will ignore all this only because Bush is friends with one and not with the other? Or you, as a man with brains and ability to think and differentiate, would make your own decision?

You know, in Al Qaeda, I simply can't stand how those young men agree to blast themselves only based on what their leaders tell them and preach to them, although its against basic Islam. What good is our most precious god given gift, our brain, if we keep it idle?

Jeff, what are the chances of the CIA screwing up?
I mean, seriously...What are the odds of saying, 'We found em over here' and the next day, 'Nope, not there I guess. We're just gonna have to go back'. You know how that looks to the world Jeff? You realize how it sounds, don't you? It sounds like, 'This is a reason to invade Iraq...I think it'd be a pretty good one too. And no problem, I'll just tell the people that I was 'disappointed' after we don't find anything'. It doesn't sound like, 'Damn, we were tricked into it' because to assume that the entire American intelligence system was 'tricked' is very very very far-fetched and completely insults anybody's intelligence.

There's no 'pride' involved in what I'm saying Jeff. I'm simply an avid reader of President Bush's quotations, interviews and facts. It's where you can get an essence of his personality and charachter. What exactly do you mean 'war president'? War is a situation you're PUT IN Jeff...It's not something you go asking for. After SIX YEARS OF WAR, President Bush's administration cannot find Osama Bin Ladin who was the leader of the 9/11 attacks on which the invasion of Afghanistan was based.
Again, a pure sourced quotation from President Bush:
"..Terror is bigger than one person..So I don't know where [Bin Laden] is..You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

God Jeff, if I was an American who lost his brother or even his dog in the World Trade Center, I'd be pissed off myself.

Sting,
There is a VERY LARGE slice of Pakistanis who are FOR Musharraf. FOR the government. I've talked to many of that kind myself.

^^

I take the point about pride. I was speaking in a general sense.

The CIA screws up ALL THE TIME. In fact, the CIA is astoundingly incompetent. Bush would do well to abolish it and start over from scratch. At this point in time, it's worse than useless.

Finding one guy IS dreadfully hard. Read the book "Killing Pablo" and you will get some idea of what I mean.

And I *agree* with Bush about hunting for him. There is a phenomenon of Terrorism which the world cannot afford in a time of nuclear and biological weapons.

That's a very good point about Musharraf. The most recent poll I saw was something like 35%, which is not negligeable at all...

STING:

Promoting democracy in the Middle East doesn't mean overthrowing every non-elected leader or refusing to have a relationship with anyone who is in power through force.

It meant that where we had a reason alread for taking out a government, we wouldn't simply turn things over to a strongman, but rather to an elected government.

And it mean encouraging publicly the democratization of the Middle East.

Obviously if Middle Easterners don't want democracy, we can't force it on them.

Iran has a rigged system, it's not a democracy, though I think there are democratic elements there. You can't run unless you get approval to do so by a board of mullah who disquality LOTS of people who aren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the regime. I agree that President A. is not himself a dictator. But the regime is a dictatorial one...you can't oppose it or criticize it. People who do, get put in jail, tortured and killed.

Pakistan is a ticklish case. As Threadlike points out, Musharraf is not OURS. He's YOURS. We didn't put him in power. We asked him to cooperate with us about Afghanistan and he said Yes. Good for him.

Do you really think the people blowing themselves up are doing it for democracy? I don't think so for a second. And I don't think they will be satisfied with anything less than taking control of the country. They want a Talibanized Pakistan. They will be happy if they can get it by simply going around enforcing their idea of sharia law themselves and not being interfered with (as they were in Islamabad when Musharraf finally took them on). But if they are resisted, they will fight back with a brutal campaign of violence.

I dunno, but it seems to me that if I were a Pakistani, I would think ANYTHING would be better than being ruled by those guys.

But again, I think you know more about Pakistan than I do, so I will yield to you as the superior expert on these matters. It is certainly possible that Musharraf is far worse than Bush or than I think he is.

My feeling, though, is that if your candidate took power in elections and tried to engage the Taliban in negotiations, it wouldn't work. They would simply go on taking things over and increasing their power and if police or government tried to resist, they would resume their campaign of violence.

And that campaign is directed not just toward Pakistan, but over the border into Afghanistan too. Why should the Afghans have to put up with Pakistanis coming over the border and shooting and bombing and not be able to do anything about it?

I know a lot of Afghans and ZERO of them want to be ruled by the Taliban.

Jeff, no one wants Taliban. Lets not discuss them here.

As for Musharraf being "ours" and not "yours", and that the Americans only asked him to cooperate, I think thats simple and nice old style HYPOCRISY. This is exactly why the whole world finds Bush administration amusing.

Terrorists attack New York, US invades Afghanistan and gets rid of Taliban. Later, it invades Iraq. I ask why? Saddam was "ours" too and not "yours"! Right?

And after all this, now you threaten Iran accusing it of things that your closest ally, Musharraf, is openly guilty of.

I don't blame Bush and his administration for this. They do whatever benefits them. The American citizens should worry about him, not us. All I say is that they are hypocrites and they have brought destruction and misery to innocents around the world for no good reason. WW2 might have had its reasons, but a terrorist group is not worth invading countries and killing thousands.

Also, I would have understood why you feel Bush is a great leader if he had done good for his people, but he has NOT! Why do you think his party did poorly in the polls?

back to the video ( the main topic ):

am really becoming a big fan of Ahmednajad as a person, we rarely see such a president who is so modest and lives like any normal Iranian native though he can have what he wants.

however, a great leader needs more than this.