When Barack Obama gave his first interview to Al-Arabia television he extended his open hand of reconciliation to the Iranians. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slapped that hand away today.
Remember, in the YouTube debate, Obama was asked "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?..."
"I would," he answered.
He has since qualified that slightly, changing "precondition" to "preparation" but in the Al-Arabia interview he said "Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."
This Obama-as-Muslim reference was off-limits during the campaign, but apparently is okay now. But that's not what troubles me about that statement; what troubles me is that I'm wondering if he really is expressing respect for the leader of Iran or is this just poorly worded? I'm sure that's not what he meant, but really, I have no respect for Ahmadinejad and I think it's dangerous for America to pretend that we do. Offering legitimacy to a terrorist leader is a mistake.
Our differences with Ahmadinejad are not simple differences of opinion - they are deeply imbeded, fundamental issues. And the simple fact is, nothing will satisfy him or his regime, until the western world is annihilated. Period. He has no intention of "getting along" with us.
At any rate, it seems that Ahmadinejad has quite a few preconditions of his own, not the least of which is an apology from the the U.S. and that we "try to repair 60 years of crimes" against Iran. Oh, and he'd also like for us to quit supporting Israel. He wants us to "stop interfering in other people's affairs."
Meanwhile, he's going to keep working on his nukes which are expected to be completed by the end of the year.
It's all well and good to extend the hand of friendship to other nations but to expect "Imanutjob" to drop the deep seeded islamofascist hatred that he has for the western world shows a huge and dangerous naievete on the part of the president. In the first place, there is little reason for the United States to apologize to Iran, but if Iran is willing to apologize for, oh say, taking American hostages, continuing with their nuclear program, and as Ed Morrissey says: "I wouldn’t mind an apology from Iran for “death to America” and creating Hezbollah and arming Hamas and trying to wreck Iraq and starting a Middle East arms race and bombing the occasional Jewish community center and…"
2 comments:
I don't think Muslim Obama references were ever off limits - he spoke openly and often of his Muslim religious connections in his family tree in his published books and when asked. It was the idea that b/c of that he too must "be" Muslim (when in fact he was/is Christian) and we should fear him b/c well, we should fear Muslims - it was that tactic of the Republicans to make us afraid of Obama in hopes it would help McCain's campaign that was a "no no". ;)
I agree that you cannot expect folks like the leader of Iran to "understand" us or forgive or play nice. I also think that brute force on our part no longer works the way it used to - we have indeed lost the power to simply say "b/c we said so and we're the US" - so we are forced to try other ways to manipulate. I think you can absolutely manipulate through the idea of keeping your enemies closer, using verbal methods, etc.
I also don't get why it's called "legitimizing" someone b/c you agree to take that tactic? I mean - simply ignorning them b/c they're beneath you just doesn't work anymore. **shrug**
The only time I heard Obama talk about his Muslim religion was during his interview with George "Snuffleupagus" in September. Then that was a faux pas. And I remember Mr. "Snuffleupagus" had to correct him by saying "Christian religion." Other than that Obama denied being a Muslim.
"I also think that brute force on our part no longer works the way it used to"
Up until the late 1970's the United States and Iran were allies. We didn't trust each other, but we were allies. The United States had bases in Iran, and we were training Iranian military personnel on U.S. military installations. We, the United States, were supporting Iranian leadership which was the Shah of Iran.
In the mid 1970's the Iranians were becoming discontented with the Shah and a Muslim cleric, the Ayatollah Khomeini who was in exile in France, was able to stir up radical Muslims in Iran.
The great president Jimmy Carter refused to back the Shah, and the Shah had to abdicate his throne. What came next were radical Muslim students (and it is believed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in its leadership) attacked and seized the American Embassay in Tehran in November 1979. A couple of U.S. Marines were killed and hostages were taken. Eventually all but 52 American hostages were released. Those 52 hostages were held in captivity for 444 days.
Jimmy Carter tried dealing with these people on a peaceful can't- we-all-just-get-along attitude. He did eventually launch a half-baked military rescue attempt that ended in total disaster. (Once again military matters should be left in the hands of trained military professionals, not some civilian who thinks he knows more than the military, because he views military personnel as low-brow knuckle dragging neaderthals.)
The Iranians who were in control of Iran in the 1970's have the same mentality as they do now. Carter extended a friendly hand, blamed the U.S. for the problems, and the radicals in Tehran almost bit off his hand.
They thought Carter was weak, and he was the symbol of the U.S. and they played him like a cheap violin. Reagan, on the other hand, promised to bomb Tehran the moment he took office, and the Iranians believed him.
Moments before Reagan took the oath, the hostages were placed on a plane. The moment he said, "So help me God," the plane was rolling down the runway heading for Algeria, where American military plane were heading to pick them up and take them to an air base in Germany.
How do I know all of this? I was at that air base in Germany when the hostages were taken in Iran and at that base the exact moment that plane arrived with the hostages. We were placed on alert on both occasions. I was at the house of friend the night before the hostages were released, and was in his living room when he received the call to get ready for the flight to Algeria.
So, brute force on our part? It was the threat of brute force that got the hostages released.
It was verbal methods by Carter that allowed him to be manipulated like a puppet. These people laughed at Carter. They laughed at the United States and thumbed their noses at us, because they knew under Carter, we were not going to do anything but talk.
The Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1980, because they knew the U.S. under Carter would scold them.
Under Carter, every little pissant dictator laughed at the United States. Even Idi Amin "DaDa" of Uganda made a little power play, because he knew Carter would only verbally assault him.
PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!
Post a Comment