Though any Republicans reading this would probably think the reason would be something like:
-- for security reasons
-- it's beneath the dignity of the U.S.
-- the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terra-ists
-- it's not an appropriate forum for international diplomacy
-- etc.
Everyone else knows it's because the President (current pretender/office-occupant/occupier) of the U.S.
Everyone else knows it's because we, the people of the United States, have a "President" who suffers from both a limited, sub-standard intelligence (IQ), and is verbally challenged (which for unknown reasons 'endears' him to Republicans).
So, the real reasons are that:
-- Bush's handlers would never allow him to face real questions (just like press conferences and presidential speaking engagements). No unscripted public appearances that have the potential of extending beyond his pre-packaged, capsulated, memorized platitudes for fear of embarrassment.
-- Bush is afraid of competing with anyone who is (a) of average or greater intelligence or education, and/or (b) not subject to pressure, threats or retaliation by his administration, political organization or others (minions).
-- The Administration fears anyone who might actually speak/present the truth (which is a highly awkward thing for such liars) (not that Ahmadinejad is much of a purveyor of truth; but if it was to his advantage...).
-- The Administration just lives in fear of anyone who might be able to challenge it--especially beause they exist on a foundation of lies and falsehoods which could easily come tumbling down.
-- Bush simply couldn't compete. In fact, he couldn't even hope to hold his own--and that would be true even if he had the truth on his side.
-- Bush and his administration fear embarrassment--and they would be sorely be shamed.
-- Bush and his administration haven't got a leg to stand on.
And it actually
is true that Iran's goals are antithetical to U.S. interests and to the real interests of the Iranian people and the people in the region and the world over. Deep down, Iran seeks to bring an Islamic theocracy to the middle east and then to the rest of the Muslim world (with themselves at the head; as supreme power). Given their interpretations of their religion, it probably wouldn't be long before they sought to make the world over in their image, defeating, cleansing and subjugating what's left of the non-Muslim world (yes, I'm saying they have, if not plans, then serious hopes to dominate the world, and in any such outcome in which a Muslim country holds power over the world, non-Muslims, to the extent they are allowed to exist, would be held as slaves)(right now, and for the forseeable future, they probably don't even let themselves fantasize too much since it seems their enemies cannot be defeated--hurt, yes, pushed-around, yes, defeated, no).
A few things are pretty sure. If they get nuclear weapons, terrorists in opposition to the U.S./Israel would begin to be given access to such technologies. Israel, even more than the 'Great Satan' (us) would be in a world of hurt--especially if the U.S. were seriously wounded. It's also a sure thing that Iran having a large piece of the world's remaining Oil Reserves is going to let them play major world powers (in both the west and the east) against each other--with such conflicts potentially escalating to war and mutual destruction. It's also sure that they're eyes are green when looking at their neighbor and one-time enemy, IRAQ, and considering it's even larger (potentially the largest in the world at this point since much remains unexplored) Oil Reserve, and if they did gain control of IRAQ (by the U.S. leaving, which is otherwise increasingly rational (rational would've been to never go in in the first place--alas)). Iran is behind much of the problems currently happening in IRAQ, and probably played a significant role in stirring anti-American resentments far beyond what they might otherwise have been (and we helped enormously by making the wrong choices at every turn). In any case, they're looking to add some Iranian national vacation resorts many hundreds of miles further east than any they currently have. We must prevent this new Eastern Iran (formerly known as IRAQ) from becoming reality.
Alas, thanks to Iran (and again, probably, in large part) there are no options remaining that are both consistent with our current and future national interests and peaceful/pleasing to our sensibilities. There will be no easy way through. We can leave, but if we do--we'll end up having to go back and back in, under much less advantageous conditions. If we don't go back, we'll have to deal with ongoing terrorism which will be truly devastating since it will have the resources normally limited only to "states" (nations). Indeed, their sponsors will be from among the wealthiest and most powerful (relative to non-G8 nations--and over time, potentially including them) nations out there--Iran with Oil Wealth/Power. Again, they aren't going to go away. Their power in the region (and inevitably the world--since
they have the Oil) is increasing and probably unstoppable. They strongly oppose Israel's existence. They hate us and, honestly, it appears that in the future--global conflict between Islam and everything else, will be unavoidable. In the cowboy vernacular, "this here world just ain't big enough for the two of us"--and it's not "us" that's saying that. Indeed, it's not even most Muslims that are saying that--yet. In Islam, all that has to happen is for one or a few of the "right" religious leaders to say that the West (Christianity, the U.S., Europe, whatever) must be conquered--and according to their own religious beliefs, their own God has commanded them to participate in the struggle to kill/enslave all non-muslims. Just like that, and they don't make and settle wars the way the "West" has done this last century, that's not in their law/religion--they either take no prisoners or they enslave them. Simple, but not "simple".
Anyway, Iran was largely behind Hizbullah in their recent success--which was spectacular in terms of winning Hizbullah and by extension, Iran admiration and support among whom? Primarily Muslims the world over. Again, their power is growing. While we could easily defeat Iran's traditional military, we couldn't hope to actually invade and win and even less, to actually occupy Iran. It's too big, and the people are infinitely aware of the success of asymmetrical warfare. No hope, at least none that don't involve genocide/depopulation of Iran--and that's not something I can see us, or any Western power, turning to unless the situation became truly desperate. I doubt that the individuals who would be making the decisions on the Iranian side would be so enlightened/restrained. I don't see any end to the conflict, and unless we truly do find an adequate, economic alternative energy source, other than Oil, they're going to be empowered while our economies are ravaged We will be faced with war, and such noble sensibilities might just go right out the window if we see something like 5 million dead owing to a nuclear blast in London, Paris, New York or Tokyo. If we would wish to avoid conflict escalating out of control, we have to show the Muslim and Arab world's that we really can see something through to the end, despite costs and casualties and at the same time prevent or dramatically slow the growth of Iran's power... Unless they see that we can and will defeat them, they won't stop or turn from their dreams (our nightmares).
It's easy to presume certain criminal elements behind the power in the U.S. governement, including the Bush Administration... is just trying to make Iran into the boogy-man, an alternate threat like the Soviet Union once was in order to use it to justify the continued expenditure of our military... Alas, the Soviet Union was a real threat. The world is full of them, and nowadays, they're even more insidiously dangerous since they're defined not by nations with armies, but by religions with ideas. Islam requires tremendous discipline and devotion--it's something that self-reinforces in an incredibly powerful way; imagine undergoing hypnosis and willingly practicing accepting instruction five times a day--then imagine that turned to directing it's adherents to make war by any means possible, especially terrorism/guerilla warfare. Tack on some nuclear, biological and/or chemical warfare and organized using wireless, encrypted, real-time networking. This is real. Still, you can believe it's not. You can presume that since some of this is being said by the Republicans/Conservatives and even more damning is that it's being said by the Religious Right (who is all the more biased against Islam), that this is all wrong. The scary part is, that just because they're often wrong, and often they're wrong because they hold wrong-headed attitudes, it doesn't mean they are always wrong. They can actually be right even if it's for the wrong reasons. And don't get me wrong, they are a bunch of ignorant, lying, cheating, intolerant jerks--and they are almost always wrong...
So you can presume this is all wrong. We can pull out and feel safe for a while, perhaps. The cost may well be far higherin the future because of our short-sighted need for everything our political opposition believes to be wrong, but we won't know that for a while. Perhaps we just really need to feel better for a while. Still, as I see it, owing to Bush's action of invading IRAQ, from that point forward there was going to be hell to pay--had they done things right, there was a remote chance for a good outome, but as usual, they screwed it up and so there really is a cost to be paid. We've paid some, and that's where we differ--you probably think we've paid enough and that we can get out without further suffering. Somehow you figure the violence IRAQIs are committing against IRAQIs will be relieved as well by our leaving. I'd say that if we leave or we stop trying to suppress the violence, we've not paid the IRAQI people the debt we owe them for having destroyed the forces that provided security--sure, it was a painful security that saw many people tortured and killed, but nothing by comparison to what we did, and then again what has happened to them since the invasion, and... Even all of those don't compare to the violence and suffering that will occur to innocent IRAQIs when/if we leave. They may even want us to leave; but they don't necessarily know what's going to happen if we do, either. We certainly don't have any business telling them what their government should look like--but we have to be sure to leave them with one that works before we leave, however long it may take (well, limit it to something like five years). Whatever, once they can maintain their security, we leave. We should warn them, though, that we'll gleefully seek to cause them to suffer unmercifully (at least initially free from violence) if they choose to align themselves with Iran--but we already know that the population, which is relatively educated, doesn't want a theocracy (such as Iran is/has). Complications abound, but we either pay the price now or expect things to go to hell in a handbasket and begin to come back and bite us in the ass in even bigger ways (that make losing 2000 or 2500 citizens/soldiers seem mild).
Alas, even with Iran standing accused and even admitting guilt in many problems throughout the middle east; Bush wouldn't be able to elucidate them. Bush is probably right, at least from our perspective, "Iran is a member of the axis of evil", and no doubt there are examples that could be given in support of that statment--yet, no doubt Bush wouldn't be able to make any supporting case. Ahmadinejad is a dangerously provacative loon, but this is just something he has in common with George--and "Dumbya don't want make that connection" (Karl told him so). So, in any case, under the best of circumstances, Bush simply couldn't hold his own in any debate with any other statesman from any country. Sadly, pick the least smart, most awkward speaking head of state (or any representative) on Earth--aside from Bush, I mean... and put him/her up against Bush and still Bush would lose. Heck, put Bush against himself, and give him the questions and answers ahead of time--and even with Rove's help and an electronic receiving device mounted in the small of his back--and he'd still lose.
To our great shame, we present our national embarrassment:
George W. Bush... "The Great Deciderer"
"I uh...", "Is our children learnin?"
(if he's an example of an Ivy League college graduate, they should be required to lower their tuition!).
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
