I've just finished the reading of Ahmadi-Najad's (AN), the Iranian president, letter to Bush. Full text is available at:
http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/doc/20060509/769629_lettre.pdf

It's quite interesting reading. Whether against Bush or not, I must admit that this letter brings near the ideas from other side of shelter. I agree with the letter partially, some of the sentences are very true, with some of them I agree less or don't agree completely.
--
First I'd like to point out one amusing discussion when I was going through various discussion forums to see other people's opinions on this letter. I was amused when one of the discussants from US quoted part the letter:

:

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But...

But he forgot to add entire paragraph which is:

:

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it.

So you can look on the letter more ways. If you shorten a sentence, the meaning changes and unfortunately people tend to simplify thing and miss out some points (in fact as I'm writing this post I do it too and if you read this, well, welcome on board.) The point is that don't be blind completely but try to understand also the motivations of the opposite side.

AN doesn't like Israeli people, that's obvious (yeah, I hate some people too), but the truth is that Israel has been created after WW II. Still, his quote about removing entire country from the globe is too strong coffee. And I don't agree with it.

But...

:

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one?s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make ?War and Terror? his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community ? a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ? of a ? criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women ? as occupation troops ? put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families.

This idea is nice. And I think that's the main reason why so many people hate Bush and his policy nowadays. This paragraph forced to think about the letter and today's situation more and enlighted me few details. If I look on Western and Islamic civilization then I'm thinking how one can judge which is better? Bush brings "freedom" and kills hundreads of people in the name of peace(?!!). Islamic terrorists say the fight and die for freedom. So who the fuck is right?

Of course, don't agree with me, don't agree with the letter, don't agree with Bush. Believe whatever you want, that's your right. But, please, show respect to those who disagree.

Anyway, I must admit that Ahmadi-Najad is an excellent speaker and he influences the world's opinion the smarter way.

-- Ghaan