Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
 

I hoped this letter would make it to the 'net and it appears Le Monde has acquired and translated a copy. One of the things that makes this letter so unusal is that there has been no direct contact between Iran and the US in 27 years. I would like to discuss what each of us believes is the intent of this letter. My initial thought is that Ahmadinejad is hoping to gain world sympathy for Iran, rather than offering diplomatic engagement to resolve the nuclear standoff. I need to read the letter more closely and give more thought to it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051006A.shtml

Holy crap that isn't a letter that's a novel! I started reading it but it flows very poorly. I'm guessing this is due to the translation and differeces between the two languages. From the bit I read it only seems to take jabs at the US and Bush and wasn't designed to start dialog.

Ye i agree with Rekna. it is jab after jab, mixed in with a little but of religious rhetoric and topped off with a forecast of the impending end of "cruel governments."

next please..=P

He's definitely right about bush being a horrible christian.

LOL

I am not a religious person nor have i ever been. i didnt really care what the man had to say in regards to relious piety or anything of that sort. i was more interested to see if the man had anything constructive to bring to th epolitical arena besides wiping jews off the face of the map or how evil everyone else is.

Sounds to me either a case of Pot v. Kettle, or jealosy that, in his mind, our President pulled something off that he is trying to do.

What I find worrying about this letter and the previous "gaffes" by Ahmadinejad is that they seem to show that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about him. I'm not sure if this is simply due to a lack of diplomatic skills or if he truly doesn't care. If it's the latter, that makes him and his regime potentially dangerous.

I wonder how long it'll be before the Republican hacks start comparing this letter to the rhetoric from Democrats.
Well, a quick search from Google reveals that it didn't take them long at all. Fox News' John Gibson, who's never been afraid of making intellectually dishonest arguments, started things off about 6 hours ago. It's so bad I won't even bother linking to it.

It's quite poignant really, while I disagree with the man and his policies and his views that the belief in an abrahamic monotheist god is the proper solution, he covers a lot of important points about the inherent contradictions of such styles of political parties- parties which preach the opposite of what they do and deliberately fail to distinguish such things, and at the same time those very parties are cheered on by a stupified populous who, as it turns out, is ridiculously bad at judging what is in it's best interests.

But, you don't have to worry. In the western world, people don't think with their brains anymore, they think with their gut. This letter will be rejected for what it will make it's rejectors feel, rather than the ideas it presents.

The first few cases in proving the above point would be taking a gander at the first few replies this thread has garnered.

Like the truthout article explains: "more to be gained by sabre-rattling than peacemaking," and I believe both sides are horrendously guilty of sabre-rattling (to say the least).

hmm... i seem to have gotten something very different from this than most of you.

i am an atheist, but that is beside the point.
this was a letter from a devoutly religious man to another who professes to be so. for people who are deeply religious, the principles of their god/religion is a integral part of ... well, everything.
i think the points he made about the enormous gap between the ideals of christian mythology and the actions of a man who claims to subscribe to them is valid.
however, the religious tones of the letter were of less interest to me than the injustices mentioned of the current conflict between the bush admin. and the iranian government, the iraqi invasion (including the events leading up to it), and various global relations.

do i think think his letter was an attempt to come to some sort of solution or compromise? no.
but i don't think that he should even be asked, much less, required to compromise or desist their nuclear program, and i think he articulated the reasons for that quite well.

i think it is pretty obvious that the letter was meant to outline the hypocrisies that bush, his administarion, and their agenda represent.
to draw attention to the contradictions and all the harm that has been caused by the demands, threats, military invasion/attacks, and the spineless, regurgitative media- (as well as several global issues, in which the u.s has either been complicit or has been the catalyst).

he was, in essence, saying: 'go look in the mirror, and tell me how you can live with yourself. is this really who you want to be? is this really the legacy you wish to leave behind?' ... telling him to denounce his 'evil' ways and return to god. (i was pretty amused by this.)
what is the motive?
perhaps, he was attempting to appeal to bush's senses. (not likely)
or, maybe, he knew this would draw interest and circulation, and that all of his points would be brought to the attention of the american people and the world (including those who are not, already, aware of the issues he addressed or have not made all of the connections), without filtration or spin by the corporate-controlled media.

Yep. That was my first thought too.

"Here's a Terrist (He's Muslim, right? He doesn't like America, right? So he's a Terrist!) who's criticizing Our President. The same way those damn liberals criticize Our President! So if you criticize Our President, you're just like those Terrists!"

All that aside, there's a certain diplomatic cunning in this letter. It says what many other leaders and countries have wanted to say for a long time. As the next target in US sights, he has very little to lose by telling it like it is--and perhaps a great deal to gain by aligning the sentiments of those nations that are sick of being bullied by the great hypocrite America.

It's funny you could change, Ahmadinejad, for Bush and the statement would still be valid.

holy cow. I was just thinking that very thing. change anything muslim with christian and vice versa and it could have been a letter written by W.

I wonder how long it is going to be before the Democrats and the liberal talking head media starts spouting " we are with him, this letter is awesome".

I hope Bush's reply letter reads something like;

Hey whack job Ahmadinejad,
Keep building nukes and your going to meet allah sooner than you think.

This letter sounds like a speach Hitler would have rattled off during the late 30's.

Opps, didn't take long for the first Hitler comparisson only 13 posts.

As for the letter, he makes some good points, but both leaders are too much the same to truly see just how alike theyreally are.

peculiar letter.

i am a little perplexed by rice's reaction to it--i wonder if things would have gone the same way had the fact of the letter not been released to the press. you could read it as a curious kind of overture for talks. the response--that the letter does not address the specific questions about the nuclear program--is at once correct technically and beside the point in fact---it makes me wonder what rice et al were expecting--perhaps a more grovelling letter, something more in keeping with the delusions of the Hegemon.

Hey mike....c'mon over to my new 31 percent thread. I'd enjoy reading your reaction to the Goss, Foggo, and Lewis news reports.

Who has more innocent blood on his hands....involvement in more foreign coups, appointments of more corrupt and dysfunctional cronies....as far as dollar for dollar impact on their respective, national treasuries....Bush or Ahmadinejad? Isn't amazing that such a question could even be asked?

More amazing that the answer is not Ahmadinejad.
mike....you voted for our own version of "Ahmadinejad", isn't it time to hold him accountable here, instead of scapegoating the Iranian head of state?

To be fair, that's not SO surprising - the holocaust and Israel are integral parts of Ahmadinejad's letter.

I agree with roachboy in that I was struck by how peculiar the letter was. It actually struck me as surprisingly personal and informal... This is definitely one of those times when we're losing a lot of important tone and nuance by reading translations.

I didn't read the entire letter, but of this portion I did read, this stood out:

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Why shouldn't Iran be able to pursue nuclear development? Solely because they might develop a nuclear weapon as well? Is that the sole reason, or am I missing something?

It seems to me that the countries that currently do have nuclear weapons are now speaking out against those attempting to developing their own. I'm curious if their reasoning is solely to maintain a tactical advantage, or if their reasons for opposition are otherwise justified.

I'm also interested in these questions. Discussions never seem to go in this direction.

My second read of the letter found greater inner coherence and a more respectful tone. Ahmadinejad (A) first acknowledges the faith shared by he and Bush (B). B has certainly presented himself as being guided by God, so this would be appropriate. A also emphasizes our shared profit, Jesus, which is always followed by "peace be unto him." I believe that phrase is ordinarily reserved for Mohammed so clearly A wishes to be respectful.

Then, very much like the teacher that he is, A lays out the tenets of faith and asks B to compare his behavior to those tenents. He remains respectful, but one can only come away with B is seriously misguided or a hypocrite. Ouch.

I don't think the letter is going to budge B in any way and perhaps it was never intended to. I read recently that political and religious leaders of Islam attempt to model their behavior after Mohammed. One specific behavior was that he wrote letters to his enemies.

Because it would be nice if nutballs didn't have bombs able to level a city.

Its called common sense.

It was bad enough with the USSR vrs NATO, now imagine if every piss ant unstable backassword nation had nukes that could strike any target in the world. Sooner or later one of them is going to use them, I'd rather we not see that happen anytime soon.

This is not a game of chess, its not about whats fair and playing a good game, its about survival and winning. A nuclear armed Iran is not in anyones best intersts, including the Iranian citizens as if these nutballs try to use them, just what do you think the response would be?

The letter is a pretext for a declaration of war.

Ok, I'll give it a shot (we are talking theory and statecraft here, not whether or not they actually have nuclear weapons):

In theory there really shouldn't be any reason why Iran should not be able to pursue nuclear development, especially in a vacuum.

The argument that it makes economic sense to do so - export oil, use nulcear energy at home makes a ton of sense. It is indeed smart for them to take this path.

However, taken from a US or western point of view, Iran should not develop nuclear energy(unspervised) for the following reasons (as far as I can tell):

1. Start with the premise that Iran's nuclear energy pursuit is actually for weapons - that changes things drastically - NOTE: No one is opposed to Iran having nuclear energy; it is a trust issue - the opponents want check/inspections in place to make sure that nuclear energy isn't diverted to weapons use.

2. So what if Iran has nuclear weapons? Well, there are a couple of angles on this one.
a. Nothing wrong at all - realists such as Kenneth Waltz posit that EVERYONE
should have nuclear weapons to ensure that NO ONE (in their right mind)
would use them - sort of a MAD gone wild. Further, the argument follows
that having nuclear weapons make an actor more responsible. So in that
vein, nothing wrong with Iran having them.

b. What "threat" does Iran pose if nuclear? Well, the main problem stems
from Iran's grand strategy in terms of foreign policy.
i. We know that they have "threatened to wipe Israel off the map". It's
really hard to justify this as anything other than a threat (at best,
rhetoric).
ii. Iran is a known state-sponsor of terrorism: this is pretty significant.
Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah.

On those 2 points alone, a nuclear Iran is most certainly a "threat" (at least in terms of assessing potential). That seems fair and reasonable regardless of partisanship.

c. So, what about the nukes? Well, even with Iran "threatening" Israel etc. it
is also reasonable to assume, that Iran would not actually use those nukes
on Israel AS LONG AS there is a CREDIBLE THREAT of retliation by the US
or Israel. This is the critical part. A "rational" actor, assuming the state
looking out for state interests, would include survivability of the state.
Thus, any calculation of a "nuclear exchange" has to conclude ASSURED
DESTRUCTION of one state (Iran) and possible damage (extensive) to
another. This is different for US-USSR MAD as US-Iran are not equal
binaries, that is, not necessarily a mutually deterrent pair (yet). This is
also critical as a power asymmetry can produce unstable outcomes. For
example, Iran, most likely does not possess enough nuclear capability to
"deter" a US attack unless the US acceptable loss number is excessively
low. Most likely, Iran can only deliver as far as Israel anyways, or US
forces in Iraq etc. (Israel has a different threat matri and grand strategy
than the US). So, realistically, Iran would not attack the US, maybe Israel
(but a long shot) as to do so, would most certainly invite disaster upon
itself - not in its own interest.

Ok, so what's left?

Proliferation - in my opinion, the greatest and most credible threat. A nuclear capable Iran, can potentially spread nuclear weapons to non-state actors (no way to hold a non-state actor accountable) such as Hamas, Hezbollah and potentially others (assuming al-Qaeda etc). What makes this more "threatening" to the US and allies is the poor relation between the two: US-Iran. Therefore, the Us hold no diplomatic influence over Iran whereas it might hold some influence over say Pakistan or India (obviously this is debatable, but I'm using t for illustrative purposes).

Other reason might include:

The obvious: Nuclear powers would prefer that non-nuclear powers stay non-nuclear.

It's ok for some countries (friends) to be nuclear but not others (not friends)
EX: US treatment of India compared with Pakistan

Bottom line: From a US standpoint - the US has nothing to gain and a lot to lose with a nuclear Iran (not saying who's right or who's wrong, we're just looking at things from a strategic standpoint).

MojoPeiPei is a Political Science/international relations theory student, hopefully he can elaborate on my summary.

Oh yeah - What do I think? I think that Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons.

Jorgelito, what if it isn't about potential nuclear weapons but another more immediate threat? Consider that Iraq intended to switch to petroeuros rather than dollars before the US invasion, and Iran has already set up an international oil trade to be exchanged in petroeuros.

Our government needs to keep it simple for the likes of it's citizens, so the big mushroom cloud will do just fine. We seem to respond to fear mongering quite nicely.

Citizens don't care if foriegn oil trades in euros, yens or dollars. Exchange rates will determine the price consumers pay. Oil companies and oil producing countries hedge against currency fluctuations. Many people (individuals, hedge funds, corps, governments, warren Buffet, etc) make billions trading currencies and currency futures.

If I controlled a tanker of oil I would sell it using the most profitable currency at the time of the sale. However being less of a risk taker today I would hedge at about $70. But it seems for some reason Iran doesn't want to trade in dollars even if it made them more money depending on market conditions.

Conspiricy Theory Alert - If Iran wants to lock everyone into using any currency but American dollars (limiting his choices needlessly) it indicates that Iran doesn't want to get caught with US dollars - which is another indicator Iran may be preparing for war.

Citizens might not care, but it does effect them and Iran knows that the dollar is approaching it's intrinsic value (which is literally the paper it's printed on). Gold at 700, oil at 70, prices aren't neccessarily going up so much as the dollar is going down. Foreign countries are ditching the dollar because they no longer want to trade in currency that is being printed at will, and because our country has fewer and fewer assets to offer the rest of the world.

As more countries drop the dollar, our national debt is going to become a serious problem real fast. Maybe that's a more significant reason Iran is seen as a threat, once again it's about oil and money, not nukes.

it didn't take long because the resemblance is striking. your post was obviously written out of self-consciousness. take away the religious tone and this letter could have been written by any number of "progressives". what a strange sensation it must be to have your own grievances with the Bush administration presented (nearly verbatim) by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Fat effing chance.

I'm combing through initial media reports of the letter in an experiment I'm conducting to see how the media have portrayed the letter.

The problem is that you cannot make an appeal to the American public through the major newsmedia, it is run by contrary interests, plain and simple; see the wikipedia entry about Rupert Murdoch and News Corp for a fairly transparent example.

I've only seen one CBS news article which had the letter at it's disposal, and it basically ignored many of the important points in the letter.

I disagree with Ahmadinejad as a person and as a politician completely, but even with the incorrect intentions, if he called for peace? I wouldn't say that he is wrong. In fact, when people say they want peace, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt- especially in this situation. Because the alternative is pretty damn grim and it costs a lot of lives, and that fact is only exacerbated by the willingness of the Bush administration to use nuclear weapons to win it's war should one occur in Iran. That basically means that it won't just cost Iranian lives, because the rest of the world as a whole will be pushed further into hating what America has come to represent- unilateralism. And that just means more insurgents and terrorists; exactly what the administration failed to take into account before attacking Iraq. Like they say, discretion is the better part of valour.

There you go. "The letter is bullshit because it's written by a fundamentalist muslim; therefore there is no merit in any of the ideas presented in the letter."

I guess we should just nuke the bastards, right? This is what I mean, people are horrible at judging what is in their very own best interests. reconmike, what you are is a latent nationalist- or perhaps even an overt nationalist. You submit that the nation-state in which you reside has precedence over your thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and overall sense of self; and you do this by failing to rationally respond to, for example, this letter.

I agree. What benefit do we derive from putting either the party who Ahmadinejad represents or the party who Bush represents- what benefit do we derive from giving them access to nuclear armaments?? Absolutely none.

The real issue is complete global abolishment of nuclear weapons, because as you say, Ustwo, our survival depends on it. In the extreme long run, the future is just way too unpredictable to allow entrenched political parties to hold such weapons. So, why the double standard then? Get rid of all nuclear weapons. Globally. Permanently.

But surely, even you must submit this is unrealistic. Thus, it is unfair for Iran not to pursue nuclear energy, even if it means it can develop nuclear weapons. Because, quite seriously, it is no less dangerous than the overwhelming partisanship and nationalist rhetoric which dominates the United States today.

=====
But I guess at the end of the day, none of the ideas that are presented matter. At the end of the day, the people who need to listen to these things are not going to listen. They're just going to fabricate some theory as to why others are wrong that compeletly ignores what the presented ideas were about in the first place. This is the logical outcome of ideologies like unilateralist nationalism.


edit:
Oh, and in response to people talking monetary values and currencies- I have to say one thing:

Let's hope alternative currencies can provide better solutions.

Did you know thats actually true for the US penny. The value of the copper in a penny is greater than a penny.

You can't be serious about US paper money. But if you are. Please go to your bank and get as many $100 bills as you can, send them to me, and I will give you the value of the paper in Euros. Deal or No Deal.

If you bought a pound of gold and a barrel of oil 25 years ago and sold them today, your purchasing power would be materially less today than it was then. Now the trick question - does that mean the value of a dollar went down or the value of gold and oil?

Exchange rates go in cycles. Our dollar has been too strong for too long, making imports cheaper and exports more expensive. If the rest of the world lost confidence in the US dollar interest rates would be materially higher than they are. Our current economic policy wants the dollar weaker relative to other currencies. Economic growth in Europe for example pales in comparison to the US economy.

You forgot security. I want economic stability in the world and stable oil prices so I can enjoy life and raise my son. I want him to grow up secure in the world. I want to address the problems in the world now. I don't want to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is cool when people say they want us dead.

Not at all. Bush's failures are many and obvious, well, obvious to 69% of our country. I imagine the sensation i would feel would be pretty strange if for once a bush supporter actually rebutted criticisms as opposed to attacking the messenger.

I don't even understand why one would need to take out the religious tone of the letter for it to come from a progessive. I know both leftists and democrats who find themselves to be religious and/or christian.

Only if Bush chooses to read it that way, or more importantly chooses to sell it to us that way.

He is still trying to control us by his fear "policy."

Ah yes, good question - I believe that is an entirely different matter.

One could make a good argument that the US, as a matter of good policy SHOULD be more careful with deficit spending AND also take a serious look into resource dependency in others' hands.

A. Energy and resource dependency

The US need for foreign oil (is it like 20%? I don't know the statistic) could be considered an element in how our grand strategy and foreign policy is shaped.

1. Alternative energy sources as one solution - if the US is less suscestible to the oil market, then the dynamic of international politics and foreign policy changes.

2. Or, release the reserves on to the domestic market. Open up ANWR for drilling, limit environmental restrictions on oil exploitation and processing (gives more incentive for oil producers and refiners to invest in infrastructure). *I don't necessarily advocate this - just showing the options I guess.

B. Deficit spending
I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I will attempt to make an analysis.

1. Swithing to the Euro could potentially cause a lot of problems because the Chinese are major consumers of oil and buy in US dollars. They also hold a lot of US dollars as well. The switch to the Euro COULD cause the Chinese to buy Euros with their dollars to purhcase oil with, especially since they are "in" with Iran. This could conceiveably cause the dollar run people speculate about.

Thank you for saying that. Some people love good stereotype, and progressives as Godless leaf eaters is still PC enough for people to use it.

But it is a stereotype. A bad one at that.

As to the letter and any resemblance to left leaning American thought, it's so much nonsense when you take into account the scope of Ahmadinejad's other statements, such as the one where he wishes for a real holocaust to happen to Jews. And the rhetoric he preaches that women must be covered head to toe and are not deserving of civil rights.

Yeah, those ideas are so similar to what progressives push.

The real failure (so far) with this letter is the utter lack of response from the US. Sec. Rice's response can easily be interpretted as "nyah nyah I can't hear you.." Karen Hughes, who was put in charge of world diplomacy just for this kind of situation is on vacation and not responding.

So the world looks at this letter and sees some thoughtful rhetoric, despite the fact that it is almost entirely hollow BS, because Ahmadinejad doesn't practice what he preaches. And we say nothing. This is why the Bush adminstration is so pathetic and dysfunctional. They can't get out any sort of coherent message to engage the rest of the world, despite creating a position and hiring Karen Hughes to do just that.

The US has helped a great deal more muslims than Ahmadinejad has, and nobody is mentioning that. I imagine some of the earthquake victims in Pakistan might be aware of it. I wonder if Bush is even aware that his country has sent over millions in aid dollars.

How about responding to the line about our "liberal" values being detrimental to the world. He's talking about liberal values like the right to vote, live, and dress as we please.

Nothing. Nothing from Hughes, or Rice, or Bush.

that's really the point.

on one hand you have Ahmadinejad advocating despicable things like those you mentioned (which, i agree, do not sound anything like a typical American liberal). yet, there is no denying that this letter in and of itself (one of the few high-profile communications intended for a western audience) reflects the talking points of the American left. why does Ahmadinejad make such a bold appeal to this audience? what about the American left does he judge suitable for a potential foothold?

Ahmadinejad is nothing if not an ideologue. we can reliably suppose that whatever foreign policy/diplomacy actions he takes it is for the benefit of his ideological agenda (or that of the ayatollahs). between the two major poles of American politicics he has clearly chosen the side of the left with which to garner sympathy. this leaves us with the conclusion that the American right holds the most potential for adversity to his ideology.

knowing what you know about the actual goal/temperment of the Iranian government... would you rather support a foreign policy that is judged to be sympathetic to Ahmadinejad's goals or one that is seen (by Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs) to be more antagonistic?

Yet, our country is the one doing the levelling of other countrys' cities with bombs and missiles.

The Iranian citizens are not in opposition to Iran developing nuclear energy. Iran claims to be interested in developing nuclear energy as an alternative resource, and they are at least 5-10 years away from even being capable of having enough plutonium to fuel a reactor, which would then put them at least an additional 5 years from developing a bomb.

The Iranian "nutballs" are a developing people, like ourselves, and if they have a desire to pursue alternative energy through nuclear development, why shouldn't they be able to?

They may develop a bomb, yes, but they also could develop other means of attack, even if prevented from pursuing nuclear energy. Perhaps we should just wipe their country off the face of the Earth now so that there is absolutely no chance that they will ever threaten America.

Taken this far enough, suddenly we are the country that looks like it shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons; given our propensity to heavily bomb and invade other countries.

I don't see why Iran should be prevented from potential technological and scientific achievements, on the sole basis that they might be able to develop a nuclear bomb 6-10 years from now. Especially when the prevention is coming from those outside their country.

Where does it stop? Education leads to intelligence, that leads to scientists, that could potentially lead to developing weapons of mass destruction. As a result, should America also put it in their best interests to qwell education in the Middle Eastern countries?

If the goal is to eliminate nuclear weapons, and the development of nuclear energy, then that's fine. America, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea can all initiate programs to start deactivating and dissambling their nucelar weapons; but that would be regressing, and thus unacceptable. It's a nice double standard for America to have. We have our nukes, and no one else is allowed to develop any of their own; regardless if such preventions restrict a country from developing into something more.

Lastly, you seem a bit quick to label Iranians "nutballs." I can't say I understand where that is coming from. Just because they are a Middle Eastern country that has views different than our own, they are all "nutballs" that want to destroy America?

I think certainly should be at odds with his attitude towards non-muslims and women, but I think it's also important to make our case to the world at large. We completely squandered all the good will we had after 9/11 by not communicating our ideas to other nations. That, and well, the whole WMD nonsense.

"Lastly, you seem a bit quick to label Iranians "nutballs." I can't say I understand where that is coming from. Just because they are a Middle Eastern country that has views different than our own, they are all "nutballs" that want to destroy America?'

to be fair, i think he meant people like A, not all iranians.

And yet could the same not be said of the Bush Administration? Observe:



In effect both foreign policies are the same- the Bush administration's foreign policy seeks to subdue Iran's development in it's own interests; the Iranian Regime's foreign policy seeks to subdue the U.S. in it's own interests. To ask which one is better is.. basically a trick question.

Enjoy the Star Trek and South Park references, by the way! :p

I'd have to agree. This seems to be exactly the case. Bush puts on his "unhappy" face and the letter flies into the garbage.

The letter brought up a lot of good points. I think what was said can be agreed with by me (except of course the destruction of Israel.. tho there were also good points about the UN resolutions being vetoed).

I think not agreeing with everything said because the guy believes in God and tries to make his points through his belief is a little... childish. He seems to want things like peace the non-blowing up of young children and families. Disagreeing with those things (even when yuo agree with them) just because he says its stuff God also wants doesn't make any logical sense.

To be honewst i think he was trying to put foward the point that he isn't trying to make nukes and is instead doing things for peace. While he may not have come out and said it.. i think it was made pretty clear. He doesn't want to be like Bush.. killing thousands and thousands of people.. the lies.. the fear. He wants peace.

For those who said he doesn't care what the world thinks about him i think you may need to reread. He wrote atleast 1 paragraph about how history views people long after their presidency/regime is over. MOST of his message is about how the world views the US and stuff liek that. If you ask me he is very interested in what others think.

To be fair, I'm making a sweeping and unfair generalization to say that only the western world does it. That's complete bullshit and I admit that. But, frankly, the consequences from the people committing such an act here are really taking their toll, and although it would have to be controlled on a global scale, it would probably be best to start over here.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2438&l=1

links to the iran page(s) from the international crisis group--they provide an interesting, useful and short set of background papers on the situation that pits the americans and the iranians against each other at the moment.

this:

http://first.sipri.org/index.php

is to a much larger set of databases on the international arms trade, both governmental and private, which has been, is and will remain a central motor in crises like this. the data is extensive and sobering, though it requires a bit of thought to access (the link is to an interface).

the exchanges of "well this sounds like x [fill in the political position you do not like]" seems played out...the interpretations of this quite strange letter can only go so far without access to an expanded set of contexts...these contexts are not being given you on television or in the print press (in any systematic way), so maybe the above will help switch the terms of debate.

in general, you have the official positions of states on questions of armaments and you have the realities of the international arms trade on the other. the latter operates both within and at cross purposes with the former. you have parallel general scenarios in the context of nuclear weapons development programs.

the united states is the worlds largest armaments exporter--larger than all other countries combined. the us is involved heavily in the transfer of technologies related to nuclear power development, which is a preconidition for fabricated nuclear weapons.

the general set-up----wherein your have state and private suppliers selling whatever they can to whomever they can----creates obvious problems of control.
this makes state policies into little more than a set of shifting boundary conditions within international markets for weapons that exceed the control of states. this is a system that we have created, in general terms, and if you are worried about the consequences of it, the problem lay in the nature of the international arms trade itself--in the assumption that private firms should be allowed to seel weaspons systems direct, say....but the nature and extent of such markets is quite complex and requires more information than messageboards usually can accomodate to be discussed coherently. the above database can give access to information that coudl inform a more coherent discussion, one less predicated on illusions as to the roles of states within the trade and the relative importance of state actions/policies within that trade.

suffice it to say that, in the present context (which, btw the bush people did not invent) all problems of proliferation of weapon systems, conventional and not conventional, can be seen as the chickens coming home to roost.

Osama sent a similar letter before his announced holy war against the US.

I am curious, how many different ways do we need to be given ultimatums and death threats before we take it seriously?

Remeber when Iraq and Iran were at war in the 80's? Iran wanted to cripple all oil exports from the region and made threats against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We sided with Iraq in that war to tip the balance after Iran started acting on those threats by bombing oil tankers in shipping lanes. Iran never forgot our support of Iraq. They want revenge.

Without being too lengthy, I will connect the dots for you.

Iraq hates Iran and Iran hates Iraq.
Iraq invaded Iran.
Iran started winning and wanted to control the entire Middle East.
The US helped Iraq. The war ended. Iran was embarrassed. Iran adopts terrorist tactics against the west, plans revenge, want nuclear weapons.
Iraq invades Kuwait and wanted to control the entire Middle East.
The US helps Kuwait. Iraq is embarrassed. Iraq begins plans for revenge and supports terrorism, defys UN resolutions, wants nuclear weapons.
US invades Iraq and Afganastan. (Look at a map-Iran has Iraq to the west and Afganastan to the East). Iran would never support Iraq in a war. It is poor strategy to move on Iran without having Iraq under control.

What is next?

Resolution of the conflict with Iran. Iran knows it. Their terrorist President knows it. Every country in the Middle East knows it. Our military knows it (Remember the recent controversy about the "plan" to invade Iraq - we had plans for a very long time - the media is slow and the Democrats made it an issue dishonestly), Bush knows it, half of this country knows it, most of the world knows it, why don't the rest of you know it?

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established : Many thousands were killed in the process.

Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




Just from this part of His most excellent leader of the free nation of Iran's little letter, makes me believe he is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, and anyone who supports them.

But in a way he is right, we should allow the middle east to settle their own land disputes. So my thinking is we should allow Israel to expand their borders as much as they can.

And as for his carving out land theory, maybe he should look at a map from 100 or so years ago of a place called Persia and have him point out, Iraq as a nation, or maybe Saudi, hell even Iran as the borders are now.

Very interesting letter~ There where several good topics in it~ Very well laid out actualy ~ It was like a bash~reasoning~Sermon*

btw my keyboard is messed up< thats why this is allweird>

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush was a very serious offer to open direct discussions which the Bush hardliners chose to ignore.

WaPo

This is a subscription link. The text follows.

This is the second overture from Iran to engage with the administration in a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. I think it would be difficult at this juncture for the Bush hardliners to continue refusing direct talks with the Iranian leadership, unless the neocon policy toward Iran is something other than was has been stated. There will, however, be increased pressure upon the adminstration to engage in direct talks. We shall see.

How about Ahmadinejad picking up the phone and calling Bush.

Isn't that what you would do if you seriously wanted to talk to him?

The letter was not intended for Bush and was not intended to foster direct discussions. The letter was intended to get Muslims around the world to support Iran. The letter was intended to stir Bush haters in the US. The letter was the basis for a declaration of war if the US doesn't start doing thing the Ahmadinejad way.

I hope I am wrong. But realistically we all know the path we are on. For the Bush haters - the war won't happen while Bush is President, so you won't have him to blame. But, I hope you realize the dilemma we face.

I have provided sources. Please provide yours, unless this is merely your personal opinion. Bush haters? I hope you realize how stuck you are in your ideology.

Provide sources for what? Above I simply made a logical inference (a sincere attempt for diplomacy would not involve a public letter but a direct contact) and asked you a question ( what would you do?).

Then I agreed with your original post:

Then I gave an added opinion based on emperical observation (Bush haters being stirred up). I don't have an citable source for this, but do I need one?

Then I gave an opinion about the intent of the letter (pretext for war). That is what the original post was seeking:

The last paragraph was clearly my "hope" and a statement of the obvious.

Your are 100% correct that I am "stuck" in my ideology. I look for my ideology to be challenged, that's why I participate in these discussions. So far nothing said has caused me to become un-stuck.

Thanks for trying to trivialize my positions

If I have misjudged your meaning, then I would wish for a better understanding. If you believe I was trivializing your positions, it may be because I found your above statements unworthy of the intelligence I have seen in most of your posts. Please tell me that you know it is far more complicated than just "picking up the phone." Rhetorical banter has it's place, but it doesn't allow for hurt feelings if the strategy fails.

I don't know that it is more compicated than that.

Remember how the Cold War ended. Reagan and Gorbachav sat down in a meeting and talked. Prior to that the situation was hopeless with ugly public rhetoric from both sides. Phone calls where made, seeds planted, a meeting set up, a third party helping break the ice, BINGO, a new hope!

Oh and here is a cite:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissin...=1117480864000

Your tone suggests my "rhetoric" was foolish. Did I misread that?

Also, do you think indirect communication (letters in the media) is more effective than direct communication (picking up the phone)? If not, why are we on this point?

Don't you think Bush would pick-up if Ahmadinejad called? If not why not?

Again, you have not answered the question - Wouldn't you call Bush to see if you could prevent war if you were the leader of Iran?

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052301540.html

so it appears that there have been a couple letters: the one being discussed in this thread, and a subsequent one that asks for direct talks with the states about the nuclear program. this provides a necessary context for interpreting the first letter, i think. it is interesting, particularly in light of the curious reports about a timetable for amerian withdrawal from iraq by 2007 (we'll see---i hope it is a reasonable timetable--it is definitely a midterm election matter, and clearly refers to that--as for the ways in which is may or may not refer to realities in iraq, we'll have to see)---which places iran in a particular, very advantageous tactical position, regionally.


no time at the moment.

Ace, I assumed that you read the entire article and had absorbed it's key points. I know that you are not obtuse, so your "pick up the phone" suggestion didn't strike me as being serious and not worthy of a response. But for some reason, you continue to insist that your question be answered. I can only assume that you are either being stubborn or that you have no understanding of the rules of diplomacy. I sincerely believe that the latter can not be true.

Here are some relevant snippets in case you missed them:

Why doesn't Iran just pick up the phone? Because Bush will not take the call.

It appears that the Bush administration's response to Iran's overture for direct dialogue is to squelch the already agreed upon discussions concerning Iraq.

U-Turn by White House

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.

I read it. I think it would take an Iranian leader of great courage to initiate direct contact with a US President. Reagan and Gobechev were men of great courage. They both face hostile factions in their home country, many from both nations were against any talks or agreements. Neither man thought highly of the other, both were reluctant. However, they both did what needed to be done. After the initial meeting the men talked regularlly (by phone) and actually became friends. The situation with Iran can be handled the same way.

The Soviet Union and United States never ceased to have diplomatic relations.

Ace, can we agree to disagree? I think both of us are getting nowhere with this and it is a distraction to the topic.

If you want to ignore my posts, that is your choice. I continue to want to be challenged and to challenge the point of view of others.

The central point of the OP was the intent of the letter. I stated it was a pretext for war. I still believe that to be true. The 800 pound gorilla in the room, that many want to ignore, are the threats against Isreal. Central to his letter and this entire issue is the question of Isreal's right to exist. If that is a distraction to you, so be it.

The distraction that I refer to is your repeated insistance in my answering your following questions:

1. Why doesn't Iran pick up the phone? Ace, I've done my best to explain to you that formal diplomatic relations do not exist between the two countries and that is why Iran doesn't pick up the phone.

2. Would'nt I pick up the phone? Irrelevant, but it will help to end this impasse, my answer would be no. I would follow diplomatic protocol.

May we move on now? If the central question of the OP asks about the intent of the letter (which is correct), why then must we continue this "pick up the phone" thing.

Let's start again.

I believe that the content of the letter deserved further analysis by experts of the region.

You believe (and I am working from memory) that the letter was nothing but a stalling tactic and didn't deserve further consideration. (Please, if I don't have you thoughts exactly correct, correct it and don't make an issue of it).

I believe that Iran's second overture via the diplomatic community to open direct communications with the US lends significant evidence of the intent of the letter.

You maintain your same view of the letter.

I believe that both initiatives should be taken seriously. Iran must know the Bush will strike, and is trying to step away from the precipice without losing face or a negotiating position.

You believe that this is just another stalling tactic as Iran pursues it's nuclear ambitions.

Would this be a reasonable assessment of our differences of opinion? I will gladly discuss those with you, if you wish. I just have no interest in chasing red herrings.

You have given a basic assessment of our differences of opinion but I am not sure you understand why I have the view that I have. Perhaps the "why" is what you consider chasing a red herring.

I would welcome a clarification of the "why."

1) Iran would not publically maintain the position of wanting to destroy Isreal if they sincerely wanted to establish diplomatic relations with the US and the rest of the world - if they truely wanted to end the stand off on "nuclear power".

2) The US has made it clear that we would not recognize or support Hamas as long has Hamas supports terrorism, Iran supports Hamas and in the letter criticizes the US for not recogonizing or supporting the elected Hamas government.

3) Muslim leaders look for moral justification for war. The letter outlines Iran's moral justification for standing against a nation that has done and continues to do evil, from their point of view.

4) Reasonable people would not use a public letter intended to embarass the other party as an attempt to open the lines of communication. Real diplomacy happens "behind the scences".

5) The US has made it clear that Iran must stop its nuclear program before diplomacy. A sincere appeal for diplomacy would involve a willingness to at least freeze the nuclear program in Iran. They have nothing to loose by stating a willingness to freeze the program and initiate talks.

6) Iranian hatered of the US runs deep, and goes back at minimum 30 years, and I would bet even further through the US supported reign of the Shah. Nothing has changed that would have an affect on the level of hate.

7) The initial letter parrots many criticisms commonly made against the US and Bush in the media here and around the world. Those criticisms have no value in establishing diplomatic relations.

Thank you, Ace. I really didn't have a clear perception of your thoughts. I would like to share mine, point by point, not for the purpose of being argumentative, but to clarify my thoughts as well.

I agree with you that the rhetoric is foolish, but with the exception of Egypt, Israel is surrounded by nation states that agree with Iran. The arbitrary creation of Israel by the West following WWII, created many enemies as you know.

I also think that the Bush rhetoric such as "axis of evil" was not helpful. Iran made an attempt to normalize relations with the US following Bush's State of the Union address, but was ignored then as now.

I am as frustrated as you are in the secret language of diplomacy. In the articles I have posted, it is as if each response is a calculated chess move. "Obviously, Iran is desperate" for example. When you see me asking, "why" it is a sincere question. I just don't get 'it'.

Ace, our country is promoting democracy and free elections throughout the world. This would not be the first time that our government was not pleased with the outcome of a popular vote. I can step back and see why middle eastern countries in particular would view the US withdrawal of previous funding as a hypocritical move.

Did you see in today's news that President Abbas has given Hamas ten days to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel? This would be an action that would imply the recognition of Israel. We live in interesting times.

Ace, isn't Bush using the very same justification? Bush views Iran as an "axis of evil." Iran responds with calling the US "the Great Satan." I fully realize that you and I disagree about the intent of Ahmadinejad's letter. Bush has claimed that his actions are guided by God, and the president of Iran responds to their shared Abrahamic beliefs. If I had an opportunity to question Bush in terms of his moral choices, I would be asking the very same questions. Forgive my cynicism, but it is my belief that Bush was and continues to placate the evangelical right.

I really can't speak to whether Iran knew that this letter would become public, but it certainly did via Le Monde. Please excuse my small smile when you and I needlessly debated the "pick up the phone" and now you acknowledge that would be outside "real diplomacy."

President Bush has proclaimed over and over that all diplomatic measures will be taken before resorting to military action. I completely agree with you that Iran has been given a golden opportunity to move forward by the UN and the participating negotiating countries. If Iran agrees to temporarily cease uranium enrichment, do you think Bush will agree to opening a dialogue with Iran? I do not believe he will, hence my concern about an Iran policy other than what we have been told.

I very much agree with you, and it does go beyond the Shah when the US toppled Iran's democratically elected president. He made the serious mistake of nationalizing the country's oil reserves. The US installed the Shah which had the unintended consequences that are often seen when we interfere with a nation state. The shah's despotic abuses led to the rise of the Islamic mullah's. I believe we can assume that the "hatred" is mutual.

This is similar to your statement in your third comment and I can't think of anything else I would wish to add.

I appreciate the opportunity that you have given to allow me a better insight on your thoughts.

Pen

There is a long term conflict being played out within the Bush administration, and "moderates"....sane American diplomats who believe in exploring alternatives to war....do not...IMO....stand any chance of prevailing in their attempts to engage Iran in peaceful dialogue and possible compromise. The same BS plays out...again and again....but direct talks between the U.S. and Iran will not occur. The folks in the Bush administration affiliated with JINSA, and corporatist interests like the Carlysle group and <a href="http://www.vinnell.com/">Northrop Grumman</a> (read next post for background...) will see to it that "lip service" is paid to diplomacy.....and then the bombing starts.

First....there are news reports like this one:
The only thing that CON-doleeza "fears" is that actual diplomacy, could remove the excuses intended to escalate the Iran confrontation into a limited and successful series of military attacks to coincide with the November congressional elections.

Is my view, too partisan....too unreasonable? I don't think so....here's why:

Folks....the U.S. has deliberately sabotaged two seperate opportunities to improve ties with Iran in a spirit of mutual co-operation. The following new article excerpt details how Bush himself ended the first chance to improve relations by adding Iran to his early 2002 "axis of evil" speech, before the effort of potentially promising secret diplomacy with Iran by Powell's State Dept., could result in mutually beneficial improvement of relations.
<b>Here's the background on the target of the May 12, 2003, Riyadh attack. I've included a link that provides background on the Australian newspaper that reported the story. Vinnell was sold by the Carlysle group to TRW, which was then swallowed by Northrop Grumman....</b>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Morning_Herald

The Mujaheddin-e Khalq or "MEK" is the anti Iranian terrorist organization that the neo-cons armed in late 2001 to signal Tehran that there would be no co-operation between the U.S. and Iran in the "war on terror":
Six months after the May, 2003 Riyadh attack provided an excuse to avoid talks with Iran, it was time for the U.S. to appear to put on it's diplomatic "face", again....to fake a sincere desire for peaceful resolution under the watchful eye of the European community:
Consider who is "in" and who is "out"....in the Bush administration, three years later. Powell is gone, and Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Hadley are still there.


I doubt that my observation that the U.S. administration appears to have a personality disorder, would be much different from the impression that Iranian political leaders would harbor after watching the Bush administration gradually turn it's own State Department into an irrelevant branch of Rumsfeld and Cheney's DOD. In Gareth Porter's new article, this sums it up:
The intent is not the "win the war on terror". It is to win fat contracts for connected contractors, U.S. elections, and pave the way for a corporatist government with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theory">"unitary executive"</a>, unencumbered or restricted by the consitution, congress, the courts, or the common people of the United States.

To an Iranian official, or to anyone else who once perceived the U.S. as a country that could be assumed to act in it's own best interests, all hopes of that happening, appear to be dashed. There was a struggle for power and influence....and the neocons won. The reports of the longterm damage that they are doing to our country's reputation in the world community, and to it's treasury, security, and military capability....will be streaming in far into the future.

I hope that I am wrong and that you have the correct view of Iran's intent.

I planned on walking away from this discussion until I read your post.

Here is another perspective, an editorial from Investors Business Daily. They are as conservative as it gets. They agree that Iran wants bilateral talks with the US, but see it as a no-win situation for us. Seems that they think that Russia, China and the EU have the most to gain. Like me, they see little to feel good about. And, it is truely sad that about half of the people in this country have no faith that our President can do the right thing, Iran is smart enough to know that and will use the information.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060526

If your were President what would you have to say to Iran? What would you negotiate? What do you want from them? What are you willing to give up? Would there be consequences? What would they be? I sure you, or anyone who agrees with your view, won't answer these questions, but at least it is food for thought.

Just for the record, this is bigger than Neo-Con v. Conservative v. Liberal. In my view this is like the Cuban Missle Crisis, handled well by a Democrat and the End of the Cold War, handled well by a Republican.

It's not at all similar to what was happening in Oct., 1962.
I was in 5th grade, and I recall what happened clearly. Kennedy demonstrated that he was negotiating with Kruschev, in the best interests of the American people.

It is not possible for me to undermined Bush in his strategy with Iran. He does not represent my best interests, or those of my family, friends, or neighbors. He sold out most of our interests after 9/11, and probably before that. Bush is president of an elitist corporatist entity, not of the formerly existing government and it's constitution, that he swore on Jan. 20, 2001, to protect, preserve, and defend. That government was "planned" into irrelevance, it's gone.

My point was that, in the months following 9/11, there was, with the government of Iran, just as there was for the U.S. in it's relations with most other governments on the planet, an opportunity to buid co-operative relationships, and trust.

It was to the mutual benefit of both Iran, and the U.S., for example, to share information and work together to apprehend and neutralize the "evil doers" operating in or near Iran. That opportunity was squandered, and any hope for trust building is gone. It was inappropriate for the U.S. to allow the MEK to operate in Iraq, once the U.S. invaded and took "control".

I see no other conclusion that an informed person in the U.S. could draw, other than that, the neocons and their two former secretaries of defense, Rumsfeld and Cheney, have drawn on their past experience and ideology to bring the U.S. to it's present confrontation with Iran, and the circumstances that our military finds itself in now, positioned in Iraq and Afghanistan, directly east and west of Iranian borders.....with under 3000 American troops dead....so far, and with the U.S. military, industrial, intelligence, and security private business sectors flush with "no bid" contracts and profits, while the oil business and oil service multinationals that financially sponsered the candidacy of Bush/Cheney enjoy record returns and unprecedented opportunity for near term profits.

The new, 100 plus acre, 23 building, $1 billion dollar U.S. embassy complex, nearing completion now in Iraq is a sign of the success and permanency of this hidden strategy. Unfortunately....because corporatism and Israeli influenced ideology trumped what was in the best interests of the American people who are now saddled with the debts, and the casualties that the neocon agenda and it's implementation are costing, we the American people are not given an explanantion of the strategy and goals of the master plan.

We are to be exploited, just as the Iraqi people are. This "culture" of "leadership" always ends up with the profits from the no bid contracts that emerge from decisions of the key players, whether it is in Baghdad in april, 2003, when post invasion secuirty was "not planned for", or in Sept., 2005, when political appointees, Chertoff and "Brownie" failed to respond in a timely and organized manner to the N.O. Katrina disaster.

An alternative view would require making an argument that these guys are sincere but inept, have the best interestd of the American people in mind, appointed the best people that they could find to manage Iraq occupation and reconstruction, Katrina disaster and reconstruction response, the awarding of government contracts in Iraq, the Gulf coast post Katrina disaster, and in Homeland security and the "war on terror".

I can't make that case, because....when I follow the money, I see all the "no bid" contracts, the "planning" that seems at every turn, to make more of these contracts neccessary, the disappearance of $9 billion of Iraqi oil money, the near shutdown of post invasion Iraqi oil output that caused oil profits to transfer from the pockets of the American public into the pockets of Bush's campaign contributors, due to an unpredicted scarcity of oil....a scarcity that the invasion "plan" was predicted to reverse, after the ousting of Saddam and an ifusion of western capital and knowhow "poured in" to modernize and mazimize Iraqi oil production.

For us.....the average U.S. joe sixpack, everything that these folks have done, seems to have turned to shit....diplomacy, the war on terror, FEMA, the $2.5 trillion in new federal debt, the 20,000 war wounded troops, the direction of our paper currency, and our health and retirement benfits and prospects for high paying jobs for labor union members.

For them....and their rich supporters.....look at where they are, as far as their consolidation of political and law enforcement power....how much money they're making from all of these "setbacks", and how their tax obligation stacks up now, compared to when they took over on Jan. 20, 2001.

Too many gains for them.....and too many setbacks for the bulk of us Americans and the rest of the world (except for Israel) to be dismissed as coincidence or baseless conspiracy theory.

Iran is surrounded by U.S. ground troops and land based air force assets, the business folk closest to Bush/Cheney enjoy record profits and low taxes, and the POTUS enjoys the fewest checks and balances and the least constitutional restraint on his presidency than has been observed, with the possible exception of Lincoln and FDR. The oil industry enjoys record sustained prices...the kind that oil services companies like Haliburton can use to attract new investors and ramp up the
scale of their service capabilities. The stock, HAL was in the low 20's on the eve of the Iraqi invasion....it's in the $70's now!

I submit that all of the above "results" are by design, and that the key goals that result in the direction that money and power flow in, have all been achieved, according to plan. Our best interests were never planned for....just theirs!

Can you make an argument that the post Iraq invasion, the rebuilding of Iraqi oil production, the pacification and reconstruction of post war Afghanistan, Iraq, and post Katrina Gulf coast, not to mention the "war on terror", intelligence management "reform", energy and budget policy, port and "homeland" "security" have all just "gone wrong" due to poor planning or via misguided but via an administration sincerely interested in the "public good"? To do that, you have to tell us why the money and the power has landed where it has, with such precision, and consistemcy......

True - different situation. However, Kennedy stood firm. Reagan and the Cold War - different situation. However, Reagan stood firm. Bush and Iran - Bush is standing firm. I have no idea what you or Democratic leaders would do different than what Bush is doing, yet "we" use this has an opportunity to bash Bush.

What are your interests?

I know this question is off point, but it might help me understand your point of view.

The thing of it is.......in just five years, so much damage has been done to the U.S. .....in every way that I can think to measure, that it seems past the point where it is even possible to get back to "normal". I think that the only option is to use the military to intimidate the rest of the world into coughing up their nulear weapons and long range missles, and allowing permanent U.S. monitoring, on the ground in the countries that formerly possessed those capabilities. My "interests" are supporting the purchasing power of U.S. paper curreny, "by any means neccessary", and the same goes for access to vital raw materials and for assuring a level of national security that the expenditure of $600 billion plus (annually) on military and intelligence infrastructure, should result in, to "justify" that expenditure.

My interest is in urging the government to make and execute these "desperate" decisions when the military is in the strongest position possible to potentially achieve success at carrying out a plan to intimidate all other countries into capitulation and submission........ which is ASAP, before the coming "crash" in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar erodes the our overall military capability. Either the currency is supported by a bold, "grand plan", or post currency crash, our military will be reduced to attempting to sieze raw materials that the currency will no longer have a value high enough to permit purchases in the stupendously large quantities that we were formerly accustomed to obtaining....

IMO, it is that bad....there is no way out of the rapidly accumulating federal treasury debt, or the trade debt, combined with growing budget deficits and the destruction of the progressive system of taxation that existed five years ago.

Here is a new anecdote of "how bad it is". A destructive "joke" of an executive administration, almost openly organizing a second "fake war", in just three years. I never thought I'd be reduced to writing anything similar to the "plan" that I outlined above, but these "bad actors" have reduced our options to "kill or be killed", and the problem is that they have brought on and accelerated the inevitable demise of the paper fiat currency and shattered the structure of checks and balances in our constitutional government, and their own credibility, so quickly that they have created a scenario of "pre-emption", that must be "scaled up" much more rapidly than they seem to be doing. It's akin to partially sawing through the branch that the U.S. currency, credibility, integrity, and force projection capability is standing on.
It is in my "best interest" now to leverage the military buildup that was achieved with borrowed money to compensate for the weakened financial, and diplomatic state, and the consequences that weakness has and will cause to future security and standard of living, by using the military to dictate terms of capitulation, and to make examples of, by use of conventional and nuclear weapons, of any country that decides to resist.

If the following is any indication, our "leaders" are too arrogant, too petty, and too "small time" in their planning and execution to do what I've described above, while there is still a reasonable chance of success:
<b>Here is a report from the Canadian news source that was first to publish the newest slander designed to demonize Iran:</b>
At least half the country hasn't accepted the truth about the Bush regime and it's "mouthpieces", such as foxnews and powerline blog....that they are incapable and uninterested in providing the accurate details neccessary to build an opinion "rooted in reality":

Yea no shit.
Well what do I know Im neither

Errr... Is that how the cold war ended? Is that how the Berlin Wall fell? It's a country to govern, not a company to manage. A president doesn't pick up the phone and call another ('unfriendly') president to shoot the shit. Both of them are busy. They are on opposite sides of the world. That's not how political opportunities occur. You make many intelligent points, but you have to see the folly in the above quote.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad... but then again, I don't trust Bush either, so it's a crapshoot in my book. We're just the audience in a grand show... we have to sit back with our popcorn and pop and watch the plot thicken. *shrug*

Yes. The begining of the end of the Cold War started through non-formal channels. The two leaders spoke by phone regularly. They actually began to like each other. They both faced opposition at home and in their own political parties. They found common ground in the "big picture" and let others workout the details. Two honorable men, who got the job done.

How did you think the Cold War ended?