Posts
Arnold de Borchgrave makes a number of important points about the probability of military action against Iran in the coming months, in his latest column in the Washington Times. At the end of the day when one cuts through all of the horse manure, it’s a rather simple situation; stand by and do nothing (i.e. talk endlessly about sanctions and all the rest of it), or take action to halt the Iranian march to the bomb before it’s too late. That is the stark choice facing us, all the rest is commentary. Nobody denies that these are two bad choices or underestimates the serious consequences of military action, and even de Borchgrave raises the specter of the draft. The question comes down to which reality is more disturbing? An Iran with the bomb (and all that implies for future generations and for Western culture), or the fallout from taking action to stop it? For the Neocon, and I believe for the President, there is no question where our duty for future generations lays. 
"The president keeps reminding private interlocutors to think of how history will judge this critical period 15 to 20 years hence. He sees personal and national humiliation if he were to leave office having acquiesced to an embryonic Iranian nuclear arsenal. So odds makers bet sometime before the end of his second term President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers. Mr. Bush is convinced a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to U.S. national security and, as one former intelligence topsider put it, "he is firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership."
Arnaud de Borchgrave
NASRALLAH'S BLUNDER
Tehran by the Sea
Pronouncing Blame on the Israel Lobby
Tags: Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, G-8 Summit, Hezbollah, Fox News, CNN, Media
Larwyn’s Linx: An Invalid Presidency
-
*Send us news tips! Sponsored by My Private Journal*
Nation
• An Invalid Presidency Truth Over News
• Biden Commutes Sentences of Most on Death Row, Inc...
5 hours ago
How do you feel about Iran's President Ahmedinejad offering a live TV debate with President Bush, Joe?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5295550.stm
I hear that the U.S Government has dismissed it as a "diversion" from the ongoing process, and is not interested. As loony as Ahmedinejad seems, we can't fault the man for having the guts to go one on one live on TV with Bush. He has concerns about U.S government global policy, just as Bush has concerns about Iran. Perhaps it would just end up as a mud slinging contest? Fact is, refusing something like this would look bad to the rest of the world. It will look as if the U.S doesn't have the guts to talk man to man with onlookers. It looks as if the U.S is in a mindset of "Just do as we say and stop development, or face the consequences". That uncompromising threat is what is causing Iran to be so stubborn in the first place. So how do you feel about such a debate? Would you support it? Do you think it would help matters, or not?
Dear “Anonymous,”
ReplyDeleteUsually I find that folks who have the need to be “anonymous” tend to be fairly weak kneed to begin with and their questions reflect it, no offence. As for the substance of the question, I take Ahmadinejad’s challenge to debate President Bush on TV about as seriously as I would take such a challenge from Fred Flintstone or Mr. Magoo. If refusing such a debate would make us “look bad” to the rest of the world, than that is certainly more a pathetic reflection on the “rest of the world” than it is on the US. Only a truly confused individual would see some kind of moral parity between the concerns of US and this brutal and primitive Iranian regime. I also cringe at the shallow and intellectually bankrupt implication that it is the US that is causing Iran to behave that way. Anyway, that’s my answer. Best,
Joe
Hi Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhen Ahmed sent that letter to Bush and was ignored, it "really" looked bad.Ahmed had some very real concerns that reflect the frustration of many nations worldwide right now, about the bullish uncompromising approach of the western world, and how it's history contradicts it's so called moral high ground. Bush ignored it. Why did he ignore it? perhaps it was because there were some truths in the letter that needed to be addressed once and for all? The "Do what we want,or else" stance of the U.S (and other western countries) is giving him more fuel to be more defiant politically. Dismissing his concerns, is counter productive (IMO). Because we see that frustration building up all over the world, and it can't be just "there" without something having caused it. True, in some cases we have groups who's whole ideology is a world without the west. But most ordinary people are just sick to death of being bullied about by the U.S. Plus, we all know what Ahmed is like. He gets a buzz from playing the rebel, and the U.S doesn't help matters by being totally uncompromising over this issue.
Such a distant and "hands over our ears" stance is handing him the means by which to be rebellious, rather than talking it out with him one to one and putting his rebellious arguments and concerns to rest (if they could be). As far as I understand (and I could be wrong) there seems to be absolutely no room for compromise in the U.S stance. Iran is being told that under NO circumstances can it develop nuclear material,for "whatever" reason. Iran is saying - "Who the hell are you to tell a developing country that it can't have nuclear power, when the western world does, has also built a massive nuclear weapon arsenal, and you hardly have a good record on being peacefull with other countries?".
I'm well aware of his anti Israel rhetoric btw. Yes, Ahmed has been sabre rattling over Israel because he also sees hypocrisy in that nation. But if we want to talk about public sabre rattliing, then the U.S, Britain, and other nations have done the same "publically" over North Korea, and have already acted out militarily over Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran and Syria in future. Ahmed simply points out the glaring hypocrisy of the western world which has dropped 2 nuclear bombs already on civilians in Japan, saying to another one that it is too "unstable" and untrustworthy to even own nuclear "power" (never mind weapons). Our nations have been keeping other nations under our thumb politically,economically,and militarily for a few hundred years now. And the rest of the world is noticing how we can't exactly play the moral high ground no matter how much we tie ourselves up in a pretty bow.
If the U.S is so concerned about him siphoning Nuclear power development off for "weapons" purposes, then has a compromise been offered where Iran's nuclear power program can be monitored as it progresses? Perhaps that has already been put to the Iranians? Perhaps they have rejected that? A TV debate would make all of this clear to everybody worldwide, so that things don't get diluted and twisted via the media along the way. Would Iran be open to such compromises?
We would find out once and for all. Don't American Presidents go on such TV debates before elections, to show the public who the more reliable one is, to see the weakness in the arguments of both sides when put under the pressure of public scrutiny where you can't dodge behind prepared speeches?
In writing all this, I'm just reflecting how the non western world seems to be thinking. Non western countries are noticing our hypcrisy and keep pointing it out. We keep ignoring it, and that is perhaps at our peril. How we "look" IS important (IMO) because not caring just boosts the notion to the rest of the world that we are bunch of un compromising war mongers. So how do you see the situation. I can safley assume you don't want Iran to build Nuclear weapons. But how do you feel about them having Nuclear "power"? Do you believe they have absolutely no right to own nuclear power?
Dear “Anonymous,”
ReplyDeleteObviously, you are one of the following: A Muslim who has immigrated to the West but has failed to yet fully integrate; or two: you are one of those hopelessly confused Western “liberals” who is immersed in the cult of moral relativism. (I suspect the former). You place all the blame on the West as if the West is the parent and Ahamedinejad (and Islam in general) is the child, and that the West is engaging in bad parenting, so the child Islam is acting up as any child who is not responsible for his own actions would. Unfortunately, the world does not work that way.
Hi Joe. Why didn't you choose to address the issues brought up? Why assume that anyone who is not rigidly,proudly,and stubbornly in a corner of Anti-Islam without exceptions,must be Muslim? No I am not Muslim. Although I admire aspects of Islam, I would never convert. I don't feel the need to.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it seems that people who look at the story from both sides,are accused of being "confused". What you mean to say, is that it is just so much easier to wedge yourself in a corner,and assert the same stance without deviation. Driving through a straight tunnel is easy. Going through mountain roads is a bit more tricky. That isn't confused. It's looking at the story from both sides, and it requires more effort.
History shows us that tunnel vision gets us nowhere if we wish to avoid conflict. Uncompromising tunnel visions makes us fundamentalist,if we are either a Muslim or a non-Muslim. As a backup why do you suggest that if not a Muslim, I must be a "hopefully confused western liberal" because I'm not rigidly,proudly,and stubbornly in a corner of Anti-Islam?
I don't blame the west for "everything". Certainly not. I know full well that Islamic nations have much to blame for their own failings at times. But, western history of the last few hundred years hasn't exactly been passive (and I'm not saying Islamic nations have been total saints either). The scale of our poking into other nations is huge (by that,I'm referring to both Europe and the United States). Now it's coming back to bite us in the ass. We can try to ignore it all we want. It is here to stay. Using our tried and tested method of supressing that dissent militarily, isn't gonna work this time it seems.Israel tried it recently and it fanned the flames.
There are too many questions that are never answered regarding very recent U.S Government global actions under the "war on terror". Questions that even the citizens of western countries don't seem concerned about asking anymore, because it appears we've been led like sheep to follow the global agenda of members in the United States/Brit Governments for our "own" safety. Quite the opposite has occured since Iraq was invaded (for example).We've had bombs blow up a lot of folks in London.
We've had people arrested for a major plot to blow up airliners,and a lot of people saying their motivations was anger over the invasion of Iraq.When western citizens do ask questions,they are deflected with spin. Like Ahmedinejad's letter to Bush, it seems that when "anybody" wants answers to very imporant questions,they are dismissed as being un-patriotic, confused, or a wooly minded liberal,etc.
When it comes to a debate between Ahmedinejad and Bush, I see it that the former obviously is confident enough in his arguments to go one to one on live TV. Bush obviously doesn't have confidence that he could keep his story straight, and is probably terrified of being exposed. Hiding behind media spin and government propaganda is easier.