Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Why doesn't Iran just pick up the phone? Because Bush will not take the call.
Does anyone have an explanation on what game strategy is at work here?
|
I admit I am a simple person and I don't have an appretiation for subtle complexities or BS. I'll give an analogy (I already know it is simplistic but the basic elements are present) of how I see this and perhaps you or someone can help me, tell me how the subtlties would have an impact on what Sam should do.
Let's say you have Sam (US), Bill (Isreal) and Joe (Iran).
Joe makes publc statement that he is going to destroy Bill's home and wipe him off the face of the earth.
Sam and Bill are friends.
Joe says he is going to learn how to make gun powder, because his kids like fireworks.
Sam says to Joe that he has to back off of his threats against Sam, and stop making gun powder or there will be consequences.
Joe sends a letter published in the newspaper discussing how bad Sam is and how Sam should do what Joe wants.
How do you interpret Joe's letter as an attempt resolve conflict?
Why is it wrong for Sam to insist that Joe back off of his threats against Bill before they can sit down and talk?
If Joe wanted "peace" why wouldn't he retract his statements about destroying Bill?
Why would anyone believe Joe's intent is to produce gun powder for fireworks and not to blow Bill's house into little pieces?
Getting back to the real world - Elphaba says Bush won't take the call, I say he would. We both speculate. However one speculation is wastful "rhetoric" and the other is not. One is based on a real historical event, the other a citation quoting "sources" and "officials". One is reasonable and the other is not based on what Elphaba writes.
Perhaps some objective reader of this post can let me know if I am being unreasonable and obtuse.