world

Obama must apologize for U.S. crimes against Iran: Ahmadinejad

102 Comments

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded on Wednesday that President Barack Obama apologize for past U.S. "crimes" against the Islamic republic, after the new U.S. leader extended a hand of diplomacy to Tehran.

The firebrand Iranian leader also called on Washington to withdraw its troops from across the world as a proof of Obama's promised policy of change.

"You were standing against the Iranian people in the past 60 years," Ahmadinejad said in an address in the western region of Khermenshah that was broadcast on state television.

"Those who speak of change must apologize to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran," he said, suggesting it could be a condition for any talks between the arch-foes.

In an interview on Monday with Al-Arabiya television, Obama promised to lay down a framework for his policy toward Iran, whose leaders have long regarded the United States as the "Great Satan."

"As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," Obama said. "It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran."

But Ahmadinejad on Wednesday launched a fresh tirade against the United States and said he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

"Meet people, talk to them with respect and put an end to the expansionist policies. If you talk about change, it must put an end to the U.S. military presence in the world, withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders," Ahmadinejad said.

He said the advocates of change must "stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals" and also called on the United States to "stop interfering in other people's affairs."

"If someone wants to talk with us in the language that Bush used ... even if he uses new words, our response will be the same that we gave to Bush during the past years," he added.

Ahmadinejad will run for office again in Iran's presidential election on June 12.

Tension between the two nations, which severed diplomatic relations almost three decades ago, soared over Iran's contested nuclear drive, which many in the West fear is a cover for a secret atomic weapons program.

Bush -- who famously declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" -- refused to talk to Tehran until it stopped sensitive nuclear fuel work, but on Monday Obama extended a diplomatic hand.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that a U.S. envoy would join multilateral talks next week on Iran's nuclear program.

"With respect to Iran, there is a clear opportunity for the Iranians, as the president expressed in his interview, to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community," Clinton told reporters.

Washington's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, also pledged "direct" nuclear diplomacy with Tehran if it halts uranium enrichment, a process which makes fuel for nuclear plants but can be diverted to make the core of an atomic bomb.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany (known as P5-plus-1) have offered Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for halting uranium enrichment.

But Tehran is pressing on with the work, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful and solely geared toward electricity generation.

The Security Council has already adopted four resolutions demanding an enrichment freeze, including three which imposed sanctions on Iran for its defiance.

Representatives of the P5-plus-1 are expected to meet again next week in Germany.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said Tehran would "wait, see and listen to what they (the United States) say and then consider what they do. If there is a real change, we will welcome it."

© Wire reports

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

[“stop interfering in other people’s affairs.”] Good Advice. Stop supporting Hezbolla and Hamas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can imagine an apology for Iran. But not while that guy is the leader, and not one without an apology from Iran as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have supported Hamas and Hez, which killed about 200 Marines in 83. They took some US hostages and I believe held them for quite a long time. they have denied the Holocaust.

I don't think we have a whole to say sorry about that they haven't gotten in revenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As per usual, fifth column maggots spin spin spin. They do not really lean left nor right, but lean toward whatever generates enough outrage to sell a newspaper.

The actual words from the man do not quite match the headline nor the "interpretations" in the article. And I think these people know perfectly well the effect of tainting the words before the simple minds of the masses hear them.

They keep this crap up and they get lucky and have a nice war to report about. That will really sell some papers. The war junkies will be happy too, as their happiness seems to be dependent on misery.

What Ahmadinejad needs to do is to stop peppering his speeches with truth. The U.S. will be more inclined to do the right and honest thing if only he would stop suggesting it. But then I suspect he is just like so many of our leaders and yes, "journalists"; only interested in fostering conflict by which he can profit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very interested to see the White House's reaction to this. Some countries were always going to try and push their agenda early on... let's see how Obama reacts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran's president has to try to look strong to continue Iran's role as the heroic state standing against US imperialism. So this speech would not be unexpected or particularly shocking.

There is an opportunity here and I firmly believe that Iran sees it too. But they have a point in wanting to see tangible change before opening the door too wide.

President Obama's rapid moves to look at the Palestine issue is a good one. Movement there will mean movement with all the other mideast issues. So I hope that is the priority.

Iran should think carefully and the US should be patient.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is good orally. I bet he knows exactly how to satisfy the request.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

January 20th was a day a lot of the world was looking forward to. Hopefully June 12th will be another one and Iran will have a new more easy to deal with President because just as Bush this figure head for Iran is a bad reflection on the trully wonderful people of Iran. The people who we chose as our leaders must be educated and more to the point diplomatic. Ahmadinejad should consider extending a hand for peace and goodwill and he just may surprisingly receive it in return.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Those who speak of change must apologize to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran,” he said,

The source of the headline: "Obama must apologize for U.S. crimes against Iran: Ahmadinejad"

Seems to me FAR more likely that he was defining what real change is and means rather than demand Obama, specifically, apologize to Iran. Of course, the latter is what will get Americans' gander up, so that is the tack the disgusting newspaper men take, as they are far more interested in profits than understanding.

Take note. This is how the papers lie to us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - I dunno... Obaba's done already apologized for "dictating" to the Middle East...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's Obama, of course!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apologize!!!! hahaHAHA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well.....I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad need hold his breath for that apology. Barack Obama may have some nice words, but an apology.... we'll see.

VOR at 09:14 AM JST - 29th January

Obama is good orally. I bet he knows exactly how to satisfy the request.

He might. He does have a silver tongue.

But I'm a little baffled by this demand. I'd have thought that Iran would just be glad to talk to someone. Not demanding some apology. I hope they aren't their breath. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Humm.. Dream on. On the contrary, Iran must apologize to the US for the hostage crisis of 1979. Get on the freedom bandwagon now before you miss the last train.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apologize for keeping 52 U.S. embassy personnel in Iran for 444 days. By the way, that was during the Carter administration, not the G.W. Bush administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everytime I see a picture of Ahmadinejad, he reminds me of a NYC taxi driver -- probably he smells the same, too.

We should delivery a written apology taped to a cruise missile containing a nuclear warhead...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that what Ahmadinejad said was that Iran is willing to move forward to a new relationship with the United States if the United States is willing to move forward to a relationship that was different from the past in something other than words only.

Specifically, he cited a need to hear a US acknowledgment of and an apology for its role in the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 at a time when the US was determined to stamp out big-C communism everywhere in the world and when just the fear that a government might lean communist was enough to merit US machinations.

At this point it seems to me that an apology for that would harm us as little as it would harm Israel to actually admit that it has nuclear weapons. I think almost everyone knows we interfered and that we, as much as anyone else (if not more), were responsible for installing the Shah and that we continued to support him even as he created conditions that led to the Islamic Revolution and the takeover of the American embassy.

If we could just acknowledge that it's not right to go changing regimes willy-nilly and that we were wrong to do so in the case of Iran in 1953, that opens space for the Iranians to counter with apologies of their own. If they do not, what has the apology cost?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Learn from mistakes & apology ASAP before Iran change their mind not to accept apology anymore.

Mr Obama told Al-Arabiya that the US sometimes made mistakes and stressed that his administration would adopt a more open diplomatic approach.

See details at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7852650.stm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama: "No."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pushing his luck isn't he? Even those at the center of US politics can understand that Iran has been a distabilizing influence in the region for years. Its problems are not just with the US, but with the West in general. If Obama were to "apologize", what would the US get out of it? Iran's promise to stop supporting Hamas and other undesirable elements? What about Iran observing a raft of human rights with regard to dissidents of the current regime, etc? Cannot see the current regime in Tehran giving much ground on either of these issues. Then again, before the US considers engaging Iran, I would suggest that it try and understand the country as a starting point. Let's face it, starting with the overthrow of the Shah about 30 years ago, the US has had a pretty pxss-poor performance when trying to understand Iran.

Just as a final point, when the US pulls out of Iraq, they better make damn sure that there is no power void left in their wake that Iran can exploit. The very possibility of such happening sends shivers down the spin of the ruling elites in Kuwait and Riyadh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: you really have to grow up and stop being so bitter.

'I don't know (SuperLib), Obama's already apologized for dictating to the middle east'...

That's so immature!

Anyway, it's doubtful that if Iran is really demanding an apology in such a way that they'll get more than they got the other day. I respect humility in an effort to reconcile things, particular when no one party is necessarily more guilty of something than another. However, Obama's statement the other day is about as far as his humility should go, methinks, unless Iran is willing to take some steps at the same time.

That being said, taking a hard-line and talking even about war with Iran, etc., as sarge and his ilk have said 'might be NECESSARY', etc., before, has clearly got the world no closer to being safer than since bush took office. In fact, bush proved just how miserably taking such a hardline and closing off any chance for dialogue fails.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama to Iran: We are not your enemy.

Iran to Obama: Fool!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The road is starting to get rough here, but will anyone surprise? This is classic, you give them an inche ,they will demand a yard. Perhaps Reagan should apology..what? he is not available? bad luck then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahmadinejad is just calling Obama's bluff. It's nice to see someone not falling for Obama's song and dance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If we could just acknowledge that it's not right to go changing regimes willy-nilly and that we were wrong to do so in the case of Iran in 1953, that opens space for the Iranians to counter with apologies of their own. If they do not, what has the apology cost?"

True, we forciably changed a regime, but mind you many of the Iranians at that time were present in that change and welcomed it. Now, I am not giving an excuse, as you know I'd say its up to them, kind of like those Bulgarians cutting their leaders' head off after having enough of him and I expect others to do the same - and we should not participate. But that's another time. However, could you image if we had that bright idea back in the 30's and did the same to Germany or Japan? In all actuality, I consider the Iranian regime worse then either of them.

I have an issue with kissing up to Iran. This is a government that places fatwas on writers, poets, women rights groups, painters, and film makers and that is only what I know. How many more is there?

I think if Obama apologized it would be political suicide as well as I can imagine the Iranians saying it wasn't sincere enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If an apology is made, would that mean all is forgiving? Do Muslims believe in the ridiculous Christian approach in forgiving?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So Ahmadinejad wants Obama to apologize for something that was done BEFORE he was born? Go figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And demanding an Apology is one thing, but Taunting the US president because he wants to talk to you instead of blowing you away is another thing entirely. If talks with Iran don't work, then I say we take the George Bush method of doing things and blow them away. What do you got to lose?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apologize for keeping 52 U.S. embassy personnel in Iran for 444 days. By the way, that was during the Carter administration, not the G.W. Bush administration.

If I were to call this a bizarre line of reasoning, I would be mistaking this for what this is. It is not reason at all, but an extremely childish attempt to redirect blame.

In fact, there were two very specific reasons why the hostage crisis occurred. 1) the U.S. overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, a full 16 years earlier, so that the U.S. could instill the Shah who would in turn grant the U.S. favorable oil contracts and 2) the militants who took the hostages were demanding an apology for that incident.

This is like a bully blackens a kid's eyes. So the kid steps on the bully's foot a few days later and demands an apology. Then bully demands an apology from the kid.

I would say its the bully that has to apologize. He not only started the whole thing, but he did more damage. Is it so hard to see this? Is it so hard to climb down of your high horse, admit the wrongs of your country, eat a little humble pie and apologize? Is it so repugnant? Are you so weak in the heart, just like the bully, that you cannot do this?

All our problems with Iran go right back to 1953. Every last one of them. And for what? Because some jerks in our government felt we could kick around whoever we wanted in order to make some bucks.

It was called Operation Ajax. Its well documented. If anyone seriously expects an apology from Iran for anything, anything at all, the U.S. must first apologize for this despicable act of the U.S. government. Then, and only then, should we even bother to discuss whether Iran should apologize for what militant students did during a revolution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So Ahmadinejad wants Obama to apologize for something that was done BEFORE he was born? Go figure.

Go figure indeed. Quote him where he says he wants Obama to apologize. He would probably prefer Kermit Roosevelt apologize, but that particular skid mark in America's underwear died in 2000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

Apologizing for a wrong against Iran is not kissing up to it. If it does nothing else, it would be a curative for ourselves. Denial is a disease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True, we forciably changed a regime, but mind you many of the Iranians at that time were present in that change and welcomed it.

As a justification for overthrowing a democratically elected government, that has got to be the weakest ever.

I have an issue with kissing up to Iran. This is a government that places fatwas on writers, poets, women rights groups, painters, and film makers and that is only what I know. How many more is there?

You need to learn to separate the government from the people. There is no reason whatsoever to apologize to Ahamadinejad or the current government of Iran. None. An apology to the Iranian people, clearly to the Iranian people and the Iranian people only, would be sufficient. Even an acknowledgment of the incident combined with a hope for warmer relations and a vow for more American responsibility would probably be enough.

There will be small hearted petty losers on both sides who will not be able to accept it. Ignore them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which sounds better and is more likely to get a positive reply?

a) I demand that you apologize... .

b) I ask that you apologize... .

Use of a) above sounds guaranteed not to help things move forwards. In other words it is not in Iran's interest to make progress either on the the nuclear issue, or on the issue of Iran's supporting rebellious regimes in the Middle East. Put another way, Iran IS developing a nuclear weapon, and Iran IS actively interfering in the Middle East, and is probably hoping to step into the vacuum left by the US when they move out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But I'm a little baffled by this demand.

As well you should be adaydream. There was no demand.

nandakandamanda, see above. Which makes the whole basis of your post unfounded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If talks with Iran don't work, then I say we take the George Bush method of doing things and blow them away. What do you got to lose?

Your point is so stupid... You still haven't learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq!! Declaring war (or even worse, not doing so) and invading a country doesn't mean in any way being successful. Have you seen how many US soldiers died in vain during those last wars? Was stability and peace achieved? Do you consider it as a victory? Then you're really a fool! Moreover, there's no guarantee that the US would military win such a war. The two last wars were against poorly equipped and untrained armies. Don't go try your luck on more solid troops else you have good chances of biting the dust.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An apology to the Iranian people, clearly to the Iranian people and the Iranian people only, would be sufficient.

To the People of Iran;

The people of the United States wishes to apologize that we weren't able to prevent you in the past from having to live under your current regime.

Regards

President Obama

That should do her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likethis:

As a justification for overthrowing a democratically elected government, that has got to be the weakest ever." No, that's your excuse because you prefer the US to be under the feet of all. I know quite a few Iranians whose parents preferred the Shah. Democratically elected, hey I wasn't born in 53. So, if I need to separate the Iranian people from the government, should that not work both ways?

Were you born around that time? Did ALL the Iranians oppose that over throw? And the incident happened in 53 and then they took the country back in 79. What's the problem?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That should do her.

I think you just want to argue today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't go try your luck on more solid troops else you have good chances of biting the dust.

Unfortunately, this is not correct. Troop casualties would be a bit higher but the military victory would only be more solid. This would create an opportunity to avoid guerrilla fighting in the after math, but that chance could easily be wasted.

The true downside would be a further tarnished image of the U.S. as well as a brand new rallying point for terrorism against us, being as the action would mostly be without any real merits and totally against world opinion.

But your point about the poster not learning anything despite hard lesson after hard lesson is certainly a good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know quite a few Iranians whose parents preferred the Shah.

If you think you know enough Iranians to constitute anywhere near a majority of Iranians, I would say you need lay off the hookah for a while. I could also find quite a few Iraqis who preferred Saddam. It hardly qualifies as a point, does it?

No, that's your excuse because you prefer the US to be under the feet of all.

Yeah, you just want to argue today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, you just want to argue today.

Or, sorry, you too just want to argue today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likethis: You are still on the 53 issue. I don't think any of us on this board were born even in decade of that date. In fact, I think hardly any of us here were old enough to remember 79'.

The current government got their country back and took revenge against us. Its a tis for tat as far as I am concerned. Look at that government, led by religious laws and some of most right winging beliefs known to modern humans. We over threw the Nazi government and instilled a new government for Germany. I don't see them asking for an apology. We over threw the Japanese government and instill a new one, again, I don't see them asking for an apology. We did it to the Italians, the Austrians, etc.. We should have done it to the Cubans (at least you wouldn't get to know my acquaintance and who mind you did not democratically elect their government).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "The current government got their country back and took revenge against us. Its a tis for tat as far as I am concerned."

Your logic is quite a ways off. How did they get their revenge, and how was what they did tit-for-tat? Overthrowing the presidency of the US at the time and installing a leader they wanted would have been tit-for-tat revenge, my friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We over threw the Nazi government and instilled a new government for Germany. I don't see them asking for an apology.

In both cases, the U.S. overthrew an elected governmentment -- although despotic in both cases, too.

The difference:

In Germany, the U.S. replaced it with a friendlier, more democratic government. In Iran, the U.S. replaced it with a friendlier, despotic government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hm the country that is most outspoken about what they will to the western unbelieving dogs wants an apology?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We over threw the Nazi government and instilled a new government for Germany. I don't see them asking for an apology.

We were at war with Nazi Germany for FOUR YEARS! It was not a coup from out of the blue to get cash! We did NOT overthrow the government! We and our allies whom that country/ government attacked defeated it in battle! We tried the leaders for war crimes (sham trials, but no unfounded) That has got to be one of the most whacked comparisons I have ever read! Kermit Roosevelt's coup is NOT REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO WWII!

You are still on the 53 issue. I don't think any of us on this board were born even in decade of that date. In fact, I think hardly any of us here were old enough to remember 79'.

It was OTHERS who brought up 79, and that was 29 years ago! So I feel no guilt in bringing up the issue that was the impetus for the whole thing and is only 16 years older. Saying anything else is like saying 1993 is not relevant to today.

And what Smith and Nessie said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We should have done it to the Cubans (at least you wouldn't get to know my acquaintance and who mind you did not democratically elect their government).

Maybe you should ask him who he would have preferred over Castro. Batista?

Anyway, we did "try". It was known as the Bay of Pigs invasion. That particular round of meddling strengthened Castro. Which is why you do NOT meddle.

No, we should do nothing for no one except to support democracy, which tearing one down most certainly is not. And any military action should take place in the form an officially declared war.

Now quit being a spineless whiner and admit America should apologize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran is a Thugocracy and Lunocracy.Obama`s offer to speak with Iran is therefore only interpreted as weakness by the Iranian regime. This is unfortunate, but nevertheless true. I believe in freedom of religion, but the fact remains that as Islam expands its influence around the world, the world becomes a more dangerous place. The state of most Islamic fundamentalist nations resembles very closely Christianity in the Middle Ages. No one wants to go back to the Middle Ages, now do they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Overthrowing the presidency of the US at the time and installing a leader they wanted would have been tit-for-tat revenge, my friend." thanks for calling me you friend! I feel good now. And I think if they over threw Carter, many, at least from what I read here would have welcomed that. Anyway, they did get what they wanted didn't they? But, you got me. Ok.

Likeitis: We were at war with Germany and Japan. Ok. Hey, back in 89, Iran declared war on the US. Of course it was laughed at, but, we are at war with Iran, just luckily we are not sending in troops (man, Iran won't be no walk in the park).

Look, I don't approve of this apology for the following:

An apology is often an admittance to guilt. Would this used against us? You can't possible be on Iran's side, they are the model of what a right winger is. Up until Obama, you basically had right wing against right wing.

No, we should do nothing for no one except to support democracy," Ok, I'm down with you on that but what if the government elected only uses elections to put itself in power and replaces all? and in turn makes the place non-democratic?

Again, if that is the government of the people there, I have no objections to leaving them alone. Its none of my business.

How far into the past must one go to have something apologized for?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hopefully old Mahmoud will be forced to step down from his shriek-box in the up-coming elections. I fail to see how anyone can honestly hope for negotiations with this man's involvement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the record

The U.S has already offered its responsibilty and accountabilty for harming the Iranian people by supporting the coup attempt in 2000.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright in a Major Speeech on the U.S / Iranian relations.

It's not surprising, then, that there is much common ground between our two peoples. Both are idealistic, proud, family-oriented, spiritually aware and fiercely opposed to foreign domination.

But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light [of] our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein. http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461578517/madeleine_albright_speaks_on_improving_relations_with_iran.html

So Folks

Were already on record for our part. You want the U.S to just grovel some more???????

No thanks. It didn't work the first time in 2000. It's going to work now?

Brooklyn has a bridge you can buy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, back in 89, Iran declared war on the US. Of course it was laughed at, but, we are at war with Iran, just luckily we are not sending in troops (man, Iran won't be no walk in the park).

Where are you getting your info?

An apology is often an admittance to guilt.

This is typically expected from the guilty! Crap, I hope you are not teaching your kids to behave that way!

Would this used against us?

Both apologizing and not apologizing will be. But at least we will have gained a small amount of moral high ground for apologizing.

You can't possible be on Iran's side, they are the model of what a right winger is.

I do not like the current Iranian government. But apologies and admissions of guilt are just and right, and it matters not one jot who I like or who I don't. I apologize when it is the right thing to do, not because about how I feel about the receiver. I have apologized to people I would just as soon spit on, because I wronged them.

How far into the past must one go to have something apologized for?

Must? I have been floating 50 years for a while.

Should? There is no statute of limitations on how far back a continuous entity should apologize for or admit its wrongdoing.

The U.S. government can apologize for anything it did going all the way back to 1776, although I prefer that the people wronged at least be alive to hear the apology. I hate pompous self-righteous people and governments that cannot admit guilt. They get....pompous and self-righteous after a time. It is embarrassing for me to have to admit affiliation with such people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is always better to say 'sorry' and get it over with. It takes a real man to say 'sorry'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Were already on record for our part. You want the U.S to just grovel some more???????

Obviously, you have got no idea what it means to grovel. Unfortunately, too many Americans have a back just as stiff as yours, and will not bow, and are so full of pomp and pride and self-righteousness, that the slightest pin (insert apparently offensive word for stab or stick) will cause them to explode.

Those statements were not addressed to the Iranian people, and the excuses of "strategic reasons" completely destroys any sincere feelings of remorse. The American tendency to panic is another reason for the coup. Calling it a "strategic reason" is just more glossing over of things we need to face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yo likeitis:

An apology is often an admittance to guilt. This is typically expected from the guilty! Crap, I hope you are not teaching your kids to behave that way! "

The current government of the US had no part in any wrong doing in Iran. I can not see saying you are sorry for something you did not do. Now, first of all, I happen to like every Iranian I know of, I have dated an Iranian woman, my maid is Iranian (although she is now an Australian citizen) and she takes care of my kid .... I have nothing against anyone of Iranian decent.

the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent." And so has every other left leaning leader in the world today. My family is proof enough of that and yet I have so called left leaners here calling me a right winger, cheering for a right winging government. I'll apologize to the citizens of Iran if they want it, but not when some right winger like Mr. Ahmadinejad comes out and says you better...... diabblo, he ain't even asking for one, he's demanding one.

likeitis: I've been floating for 50 years" now what in the world does mean? What's been floating for 50 years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama needs to apologize on behalf of USA for the atrocities and crimes the country has carried out if it ever dreams of stabalizing the Middle East. Iranians and especially Amerticans must never ever forget the 290 victims of a commercial passenger airliner shot down by a US warship in the Gulf 12 years ago. This is just one of many horrendous crimes committed by Americans in cold blood.

CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after Mossadegh tried to nationalize Iranian oil from the Anglo American multi nationals. The CIA then replaced him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, was trained and funded by CIA was as brutal as the Gestapo. For decades Americans together with it's Iranian counter parts terrorised and murdered Iranians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

islamdoko: In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[5] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay $61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. The United States did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government.[6]" FYI

Replaced him with the Shah? No, the Shah's family ruled Iran for 2000 years. FYI, the US and Britain are the ones who initially got him thrown out only to put him back in power. So, we got an issue, on one hand we get rid of him and on the other hand, we put him back in power. http://persepolis.free.fr/iran/personalities/shah.html

And, your point of view about him being placed back into power is a little short, you fail to mention that the so called elected leader was in the pockets of the USSR. As for the brutalities of the SAVAK, well, I know a place many here support who uses the same tactics and also to be noted, it wasn't American performing those brutalities but the SAVAK, which was made of Iranians.

No apology from me man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I tend to support likeitis and Sez. What that means is that I demand an apology from Iran, and both of them will support me.

Waddaya say, guys? Are you on board? It will be a very positive experience for the Iranians. And the Iranians have a lot to apologize for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those statements were not addressed to the Iranian people, and the excuses of "strategic reasons" completely destroys any sincere feelings of remorse.

The world was a totally different place in 1952. A view of history that is not so one-sided as to the actual reasons we did all those 'horrible nefarious deeds' America has inflicted on the world we would be nice in this discussion.

Page 1 and page 3 para d. are in short fascinating, as is the whole document. It's from the archives of the National Security Council.

It's a declassified document that was classed as 'Top Secret' at the time. My guess if the Soviet Union was still in business it would have remained so to this day. Last page shows how far the U.S was prepared to counter them.

Yeah, I'd say there were some pretty compelling strategic reasons for the actions the U.S took in Iran in 1952. Doesn't make it right but doesn't make it wrong either if you view it from the prism of 1952 and cold war politics and the tough decisions a Presdient has to make in Foreign policy.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran521120.pdf

The main link if you doubt the veracity of the source.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama needs to apologize on behalf of USA for the atrocities and crimes the country has carried out"

No, President Obama needs to read up on what's been going on in the world and in particular the Middle East and how the U.S. has helped that miserable part of the world, and in spite of that, how many people in the Middle East despise us and want to destroy us and figure out how to make sure they don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're hated and despised in the Middle East yet you 'helped them' sarge? What kind of help is that then? Propping up authoritarian regimes, the House of Saud? Removing and installing your own govts? Providing gas making hardware? sarge take an honest pill, stop being so obstinate, makes you look real dumb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apologies, Apologies...... how about sitting down and saying, you now we politicians have made the world what it is today using religion and race as an excuse, but the real truth of the matter is pure greed. We humans are a cancer to this earth and cancer as we all know destroys it own vessel, so what cancer do we need to apologize for!!!! The world is being set up for WWIII, it’s funny how history repeats its self and we all think we must learn from it Ha-ha! The biggest joke for 6thousand years

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Obama and the US should apologize. We should apologize for being so nice. For doing business with tyrants and dictators. For trying to help people achieve freedom, rather then just terrorize them. Yes the US has a lot to apologize for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: Yeah America is very nice. The world ultimate killing machine in the Mid East.

America has a great deal to apologise for sonny jim. Their troops have been very naughty indeed. They turned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq into blood sports.

Strewth, It is harder to say sorry tah anythink else, does Obama have the bottle?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yang - "What kind of help is that then?"

Unappreciated help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never understood why everyone get so worked up over the # 3 guy (Ahmadinejad) in charge in Iran. Sort of like, why some people get upset about when the # 3 gal (Pelosi) speaks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the Iranians have a lot to apologize for.

Superlib--Maybe you could give us the short list?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama must apologize for U.S. crimes against Iran

Yes he should

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a nutcase and an evil dictator, who should be ignored. He is the one who should apologise, to his own people, for acts of agression, torture and murder - including the murder of kids whose only crime was that they loved each other, and happened to be males. The man should be treated like the pariah he is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

What do you demand an apology for? Perhaps after you specify we could talk more. But then we would really have to talk about substance instead of sniping at character.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doesn't make it right but doesn't make it wrong either if you view it from the prism of 1952 and cold war politics and the tough decisions a Presdient has to make in Foreign policy.

Yeah, I cannot tell you just how vital it was to mess with a country on the other side of the globe in 1952. Wrong is wrong Sail. National paranoia does not make such actions right just because Americans were (are) paranoid.

Replaced him with the Shah? No, the Shah's family ruled Iran for 2000 years.

Both wrong. The first mistake is forgiveable as the Shah filled the power vaccuum left by the arrest of the Prime Minister. The second mistake is a whole lot easier to verify and understand, and therefore, not nearly as excuseable. The last Shah's father took over in 1925.

FYI, the US and Britain are the ones who initially got him thrown out only to put him back in power.

I think you might have the US confused with the USSR? Anyway, they threw the father out and allowed the son to step in. This is in your own link.

Iran had a constitutional monarchy since 1906. It was not a perfect system, but it was certainly better than having the Shah in total control.

And, your point of view about him being placed back into power is a little short, you fail to mention that the so called elected leader was in the pockets of the USSR.

And paranoia is still not an acceptable excuse for meddling.

As for the brutalities of the SAVAK, well, I know a place many here support who uses the same tactics and also to be noted, it wasn't American performing those brutalities but the SAVAK, which was made of Iranians.

It was America that opened the door to the wolves!

Look, Charles Manson is American. If some country staged a coup to put Charles Manson at the head of the U.S., are you going to say "Well, Chuck is American, so its America's fault and the other country does not need to apologize"?

Your desperate wiggling and squirming is making you look quite the weak-hearted individual. I am pitying you too much now to be angry over this bull you are dredging up. It has already been said, but it takes a big man to apologize. The constant fishing for excuses is the realm of little boys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only asking for America to change which much of the world is asking.. If no one is to be held accountable for the horrors of the past, it can only be the latter. Barack Obama makes a promising start, but we need much more than words. Unfortunately, I don't think Barak Obama will deliver what he promises especially with regard to any significant changes in the Middle East and Muslim world. I wish Obama had some independence of his own and he could work and decide on his own. But this isn't the case. He reminds me of Tony Blair who was very popular when he first became Prime Minister of the UK promising changes but later failed to deliver and in fact became loathed for all his lies and deceit. Let's hope for the sake of Americans that Obama keeps his word and has the courage to instigate real changes which will reverse the damage done by Bush and many years of US destructive foreign policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Were already on record for our part. You want the U.S to just grovel some more???????"

Give me ONE example where the US has groveled. The statement by Obama the other day to Muslims world-wide is the closest thing any responsible American leader has even come close to offering as an olive branch. Very far from groveling, and not even close to an apology. So do tell us, why you consider reaching out to be groveling.

Or perhaps this is a pretty good statement on a person like yourself; defend pretty much any US action and call a more moderate approach to a previously extreme one as 'backing down' and 'groveling', etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US has nothing to apologize for. Absolutely nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

loltehinterwebs: "The US has nothing to apologize for. Absolutely nothing."

The exact reason why you are always going to HAVE to apologize, and will lose pretty much every engagement you take part in, be it a war in a foreign land, or a conversation at the family table. Arrogance like that should always be accompanied with a placard that reads 'handicapped'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans need to agree to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court like the rest of the world. Americans can then finally begin to compensate for all the damage they have caused world-wide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama needs to know that this world is a dangerous place ,and needs to know that even if you want to hug someone you should prepare for all kinds of reactions and not neccessarily that someone will hug you back! evidence? Obama hopes to show friendship but American enemy already wants America to shrink, shrink ,perhaps shrink back to England. Withdraw all troops around the world ,back to America my foot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US has nothing to apologize for. Absolutely nothing.

Well said. If anything, the world owes us an apology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy from iran, the president of iran, is a raging lunatic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said. If anything, the world owes us an apology.

What is this Superlib? Stirring the pot? Sarcasm? I cannot make heads or tails of what this little blurb is supposed to represent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just stirring the pot a little. You say they US should give an apology and and than ask what Iran could possibly apologize for, so I thought I'd mirror your position and say that Iran should make an apology and say the US has nothing to apologize for.

Is that OK?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people here are so obsessed with seeing the Big Bad Yankee humiliated they are willing to sell their own country down the river. America needs to think of its allies. Apologizing to the "mullahcracy" in Iran would basically exonerate them of their many crimes, including the torture and murder of Canadian journalists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iranian president must apologize to his own people on religious purges and tortures. In Iran one can not have a vcr, dvd player because of western influenced videos "pollute their pure mind". Plus maybe iranian president ahmedinjad and bush need to throw shoes to one anothers face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, I cannot tell you just how vital it was to mess with a country on the other side of the globe in 1952. Wrong is wrong Sail. National paranoia does not make such actions right just because Americans were (are) paranoid.

Pretty footloose with your view of history. Any country on the planet pursues a foreign policy that is in its own National interest first. The American foreign policy after WW II was to contain the Soviet Union and communist expansion without having it heat up to a full out World War between the two.

In 1952 the U.S and the free world were already engaged in the first proxie war with the Soviet Union. You might have heard of a little thing called the Korea. Australia had quite the few troops there also I might add that gave their lives defending the South at that time from the communist aggression.

You claim national 'paranoia' at that time. It was national security decisions based on containment of the Soviet Union based on what was real world events at that time.

Please tell if you disagree with any of the below assessments made in the context of the world in 1952.

National Security Council

Policy adopted by President Truman and followed by Presdent Eisenhower.

It is of critical importance to the United States that Iran and independent and sovereign nation, not dominated by the USSR. Because of its key strategic position, its petroleum resources, its vunerability to intervention or armed attack by the USSR, and its vunerability to political subversion, Iran must be regarded as a continuing objective of Soviet expansion. The loss of Iran by default or by Soviet intervention would result:

a. Be a major threat to the security of the entire Middle East, including Pakistan and India.

B. Permit communist denial to the free world of access to Iranian oil and seriously threaten the loss of other Middle Eastern oil.

After you've had a chance to actually use a little real world context in your view of history, then maybe you might come to a tad bit different conclusion, maybe the one I have.

Instead of an apology, Iran owes us a debt of thanks for keeping the Soviets out and invading their country. The Soviets had to settle in latter years just for invading Afghanistan instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, at least under Bush he didnt cave to these idiots. America can do whatever it wants, who cares what Luxembourg thinks? Why should we do what THEY say? They should do what WE say or stay out of it altogether. I cant for the life of me see why you liberals think it should be ONE way ONLY and if we dont cave to their silly demands we are somehow "wrong"?

I guess these people arent even old enough to remember Iran took civilian American hostages for over a YEAR (444 days?) and only released them when Reagan was in office - because they KNEW he would use force. If you've ever lived in Arab lands, even an Arab neighborhood in America (I do), you'll know FORCE is the only thing respected and taken seriously.

I sure hope obama listens to the Reaganites on this one, rather than these silly damned "talks" he says he will have - catering to their every whim. But I know he wont, and America will have to lose liberty or pay in some way to them. ALREADY two Gitmo detainees are ready to attack America. Smooth move, Ex-Lax obama!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Post zkna0.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i agree,zkna0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lolte... Ignorance or denial there. Start with the removal of the head of state and placing that Palavi character as shah. Oh why bother you'll never understand until the chickens come home to roost...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" If you've ever lived in Arab lands, even an Arab neighborhood in America (I do), you'll know FORCE is the only thing respected and taken seriously."

What about Persians then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said, zkna0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

islamotoko at 02:44 AM JST - 30th January

Americans need to agree to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court like the rest of the world. Americans can then finally begin to compensate for all the damage they have caused world-wide.

Most of us don't know anything about what the U.S. really does in the world because we're kept in the dark. We don't get the real news. The real news is easier to access now, however, thx to the internet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zkna0 at 12:21 PM JST - 30th January

OMG! I cannot believe anyone is simple enough to back up that crap.

Nobody knew jack about whether Reagan would use force or not minutes after he was sworn in. And that was when the hostages were released, and released ALIVE I might add. The genius idea of using force would have ended up with a lot of them dead.

ALREADY two Gitmo detainees are ready to attack America. Smooth move, Ex-Lax obama!

Obama was sworn in ten days ago! He has as much do with the release of Gitmo prisoners as Reagan did the release of the Iran Crisis Hostages!

Dear GOD but it is APPAULING how some of you are HARD CORE set on seeing WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, despite clear evidence to the contrary and anything that would pass for the judgmental ability of an average 15 year old!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty footloose with your view of history. Any country on the planet pursues a foreign policy that is in its own National interest first.

What does the first sentence have to do with the second? What is footloose is your nasty habit of mixing unrelated things to get a result you like, particularly completely at the expense of right and wrong.

Of course a country's foreign policy is set up to further its own national interest. But its sad that your attention span will only allow for one thing at a time. Because of that, all sense of right and wrong seems to get completely lost with you just to further your interests.

Please tell if you disagree with any of the below assessments made in the context of the world in 1952.

Even assuming its completely true, there are ways to go about averting the disaster: right ones and wrong ones. A wrong one was chosen. It says right at the top that Iran was a sovereign and independent nation. You got to respect that. If you cannot respect that, you are no friend. You are the enemy. You are no better than the Soviets.

And you greatly exaggerate the Soviet connection to N.K.

But greater men than myself have declared the whole thing a smokescreen. One thing I note all by myself is that the Soviets already had access to oil. They hardly need to invade Iran to get it. And its not like they were directly involved in the Korean War unlike us, and really needed more oil. Correct me if I am wrong. But even if so, are going to tell me that all it took was one Shah to keep the Soviets out?

Instead of an apology, Iran owes us a debt of thanks for keeping the Soviets out and invading their country. The Soviets had to settle in latter years just for invading Afghanistan instead.

More seeing of what you want to see. Anything but admit to wrongdoing. Cowardly. Very little boyish.

Even if our action had kept the Soviets out, the Iranian people would be free by now, instead of living under two successive oppressive regimes. Is one better than the other?

And I scarcely think you understand that the reason Soviet troops went to Afghanistan were the same as why our troops went to Vietnam: they were asked to be there. (although I still would not get involved).

A great reason we have wars in this world is because of manipulative, cowardly people with a very selective sense of right and wrong on both sides. People who stomp and stammer and will lash out and spin in order to avoid having to apologize. People just like you Sail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real news is easier to access now, however, thx to the internet.

But so are the lies. So are the lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: Is that OK?

No. Its not. There are enough smokescreens and bullcrap out there without you adding to it. If you want to make a statement like that you should either back it up with something or not make the statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A great reason we have wars in this world is because of manipulative, cowardly people with a very selective sense of right and wrong on both sides. People who stomp and stammer and will lash out and spin in order to avoid having to apologize. People just like you Sail.

I'm sorry if my post offended you.

Gee, was that an apology?

Now back to your fit now about the U.S needing to apologize for being the leader of the free world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis:And you greatly exaggerate the Soviet connection to N.K. But greater men than myself have declared the whole thing a smokescreen.

Can you name them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oh boy... here we go again! lol

testing the water, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

who's apology are we talking about here? iran's the one with the criminal conduct against the U.S. and Israel, ahmad's ticket to jail... disbarring him from any public appearances would be a fitting tribute to his pedantic mismanagement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is doing NO apologizing until Ahmadinejad , or rather "I'm-a-nut-job", apolgoizes for the hostages. Hopefully naive Obama is starting to get a clue why Bush never gave him the time of day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't bother reading the article because it's ridiculous to think Obama has to apologize for anything. The only thing that Obama has responsibility for are the decisions he's made since Tuesday January 20, 2009.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US and Iranians have not need for this apologies issues,they need to up tourism between iran and USA to up people to people contact.

Heard US women badminton team in Iran,more sport/economic ties like these needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites