Barack Obama spent the better part of his election campaign blasting his predecessor for using too much force and too little diplomacy.
Now that Obama is moving missile shields to the Mideast, and his entreaties and threats to Iran have all followed each other into history's dustbin, perhaps it occurs that Mr. Bush wasn't such a reckless renegade after all.
It appears now that talk is not only cheap, but in some cases may be dangerous: The bloodlust in Tehran has only had another year to simmer.
The deployment this week of U.S. ships to the Persian Gulf and missile defense batteries to Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, says The Guardian newspaper of London, "comes after Obama's attempts to emphasize diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran -- a contrast to the Bush administration's approach -- have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls."
After brutally cracking down on his own citizens following an illegitimate re-election, Iranian madman and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- whom Obama wanted to court, and Columbia University once gave a dais to -- has now promised to "deliver a telling blow to global powers" on Feb. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran.
Whether that's an idle threat or not cannot be taken into account: The rabid leader of a terrorist-supporting, nuclear-seeking, Western-hating regime must be taken at his word. When the world's despots, dictators and mass murderers hold their semi-monthly oppression planning meetings, they don't invite the special-needs leader of Iran; he's too crazy even for them.
Thus come the U.S. military maneuvers -- perhaps in advance of a possible lashing out by Tehran for economic sanctions the world may install for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The time for talk may have passed.
It most likely passed long before Barack Obama took office.
Too little...Too late. However, since the bully-pulpit is now occupied by the "Enlightened One", maybe he will now have the chance to actually earn his Nobel Peace Prize.
Mr Bush had Saddam Hussein, and was constantly criticized about any decision he made. Now Mr. Obama has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and imho he will be tested by this despot. The world will judge how he responds to terrorism on his watch. How easy it is to pass judgement, when you are not the one sending young men into battles that will result in death and injury. Now we will see the mettle of his resolve tested and if the lamestream media has the will to give his decisions the same kind of scrutiny.
My wife and I had planned a trip to Jerusalem next Christmas. I hope that Israel is still there after February 11th., 2010. This guy, Ahmadinejad, scares the living stew out of me. I say the heck with Osama and his underwear, we need to nix this maniac in Iran!
I think the editors had a Rahm Emanuel type moment when they described Ahmadinejad as a "special needs" leader of Iran. Otherwise I totally agree with the editorial. This is for real. When we have French pilots practicing landing on U.S. aircraft carriers things are very serious. At least the free world seems to be united if we go to war with Iran. I'm betting Ahmadinejad's "telling blow" is going to be a nuclear test on their own soil. They could be way further along on their schedule to produce nukes than we imagined. With their regime in trouble at home war would be a way to ensure the support of their people, if they live. One point that worries me greatly is the proximity of large U.S. forces in concentrated bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Multiple small nukes aimed at each base could decimate our military. They definitely have short ranged missles to deliver those.
Notice how The Chronicle refers to the current President as "Obama" and the former President as "Mr. Bush." The prejudice is not missed. It would be folly to begin a military action against Iran when our resources are already sorely taxed.
We probably have more missles than boots on the ground in the mideast. What a great opportunity to use them. Think of the jobs created if we start using up missles! Rather they than troops. Catch the little worm in one of his rants and show them what nuclear power is all about...
Anyone that travels in the mideast before the mushroom clouds clear either has a death wish or is foolish. And, the reason Mr. President Obama seems to be following bush`s idiocy is someone has to clean it up...a good job for those unwelcome illegal aliens...
Obama is using Bush's same aggressive macho tactic of making demands and calling it applying "diplomatic" pressure. When those demands are rejected the adversary then becomes our enemy, and we bomb them claiming that all diplomatic measures have been exhausted. United States must seek peace if it is to be a world leader.
Obama's big stick won't work any better on Iran or any place else than Bush's big stick did. Humanity must move beyond warfare if civilization is to survive on this planet, and a President of United States who touts himself as an agent of change must be the catalyst for a new peaceful paradigm for settling international disputes. Military prowess is insufficient to preserve United States preeminence and self-proclaimed exceptionalism.
United States is already at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan where 3 American soldiers were killed today. United States is ill prepared for a regional conflagration involving the entire Middle East and South Asia.
Even if Iran eventually develops a nuclear weapon, it will do nothing except change the political dynamics of the Middle East. Israel will no longer be the region's sole nuclear-armed hegemonic power. That is the only dynamic that will be affected. There will be no mushroom cloud over the Middle East. Nuclear arms ensure that a nation will not be attacked whether that nation is Israel or Iran.
I guess that`s why I didn`t run for president...former Marines have our own unique methods...
It's not a big deal to me personally, but I'm surprised the Chronicle didn't apologize for the misuse of the term "special needs" which is generally used for school children. Merriam-Webster defines it as: Main Entry: special needs
Function: noun plural
Date: 1915
: the individual requirements (as for education) of a person with a disadvantaged background or a mental, emotional, or physical disability or a high risk of developing one.
Let's not jump on the Sarah Palin 'That's not nice' bandwagon here, Riverman. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously has mental and emotional disabilities, and hopefully is at high risk of developing physical disabilities after a serious tail-whuppin' courtesy of a coupla well placed tomahawks.
His education should begin immediately. :)))
Dominioinfs, I don't know. The Wall Street Journal reported Emanuels "retarded" remark first. Sarah Palin demanded an apology, plus his resignation. Emanuel did apologize. I thought the Chronicle's remark was out of line. If they don't get that my opinion of them changes for the worse.
River- The remark was made at a private meeting and was a response to an idea he thought was ridiculous. Sarah Palin is using it to keep her name in the spotlight, not of any moral ground. Does this mean anyone can demand a public apology from me if they hear I have used words they feel offensive in a private conversation? If it does, I'm gonna be spending a whole lot of time apologizing coz I am not real PC, and never will be. Emmanuels mistake was not in using the word but in capitulating to the woman.
My granddaughter is a "special needs" child. She is physically handicapped but we never tell her that nor do we allow her to think that she is handicapped. She is as active as she can be. Calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somebody with special needs does not offend me. Mainly because I think the man has many mental problems. I just wish he could have further special needs -
Rahm's remarks were made to liberal activists and White House aids. He called the activists who wanted to run ads criticizing conservative Democrats "expletivie retarded." He has apologized for the remarks so I don't know what we are debating here. I actually liked his slamming the liberals even if I didn't like the word he uses. Sarah Palin has a child with Downs Syndrome and had a right to be upset. But back to my point here. The AC used the term "special-needs leader" to describe the Iranian madman. Special-needs is a well known term to describe kids with disabilities. The AC was wrong to use that term and should apologize.
Roeschen, you sound as if you are rightfully proud of your special-needs grandchild. I'm sure she is a blessing to you. But the AC didn't say the idiot Iranian leader is somebody with special needs, they used the adjective form, special-needs, which refers to those with educational needs due to various handicaps. I take it as an insult to those kids. I looked it up in several dictionaries. The AC said, "When the world's despots, dictators and mass murderers hold their semi-monthly oppression planning meetings, they don't invite the special-needs leader of Iran; he's too crazy even for them."
Everyone stay out of the southgate recruiting parking area tomorrow or else the AC staff will plie into you in their efforts to sign up and get this war on the road. I assume with such strong words they are willing to back them with action, aren't they. Or are they like sooo many " we need to do something, go get em boys". We had better look at our military and see what we have left after 8 years of back to back deployments. I was always taught not to start a fight if you aren't ready to finish it and I don't know if our people have the energy for another battle for oil. So just make sure that if you are so willing to send the youngsters to fight and maybe die, that you are willing to join them in your cause.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
