The Worm in the Apple - Editorial
New Yorkers have, God knows, welcomed plenty of truly disagreeable dignitaries to our shores...
And now we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran...
[He] assert[s] that Iran is divinely entitled to secret nuclear programs that UN inspectors aren't permitted to inspect. If the UN wants to give a speaking invite to a man who regularly spits in its face, well, there's not much to be done about diplomatic courtesies. We're stuck with Ahmadinejad. We try to be polite. Welcome to New York, you medieval goon.
(New York Daily News)
5 comments:
Any leader that calls for the destruction of another nation, in this case the annihilation of Israel as well as claiming the Holocaust was a hoax, is truly an evil and dangerous person who invites ostracism and sanctions. Nevertheless, it is laughable to attack him for spitting in the face of the UN, for claiming his nation's rights to pursue, really, whatever it chooses. Afterall, the UN and the world said "don't invade Iraq", but America did. We invaded another country and deposed their leader, as well as having no clue about the internal workings as we have invited in an al-qaida that was proven to not be there before, as well as thrust that nation into civil war. We arm ourselves and test weapons systems however we see fit, and if they go against previously signed treaties, our administration disavows them. We ignore calls of the indurtrialized world to control emissions and worry about global warming. And his stalwart supporters applaud our President for his strength amidst all the detractors. Given that, I believe that the current leader of Iran will no doubt go down in history as the George W. Bush of Iran. They have so much in common, that it is no suprise they cannot respect, or tolerate each others pompous self righteousness.
I hope you're speaking in a hyperbolic fashion to make your point.
No matter how bad a leader you think Bush is, he is hardly evil.
There are alot of tortured Iraqis that might diasagree with you. Bush says he plucks them from the battlefield, but they might say he plucked them from their streets. His administration not only condones torture, but fights for the right to continue using it. I could go into a lengthy discussion with many more examples but what would be the point. Whether you believe Bush is fighting terrorism or not, I didn't realize anyone still questions if he is evil.
You can't possibly be implying that saying Bush is evil is an exaggeration. I have a riddle for you. Can you name a man, who is a leader, who believes that it is his job as a believer in God, to spread his belief system to the rest of the world? He is willing to sacrifice innocent civilians who haven't attacked or threatened him, sacrifice the lives of young men who believe in his cause, and will focus all the resources of his people to insure the destruction of his "enemies." I can only think of two people in the world who meet all these criteria. Both of them are evil. (However, only one has actively pursued trying to make torture legal.)P.S. If you share the belief system of either one of these men that doesn't make their actions morally superior. I think we've already learned that the ends doesn't justify the means.
I gotta tell you, even after I commented on this already, I have to say: whatever kind of leader YOU think Bush is, even if you believe he is really trying to protect America. Even if you believe, despite all the evidence, that he really believed there was a tie between iraq and terrorism, when he should have been finishing the job in Afghanistan, even if you believe all that. We torture and kill innocent Iraqis because some of them might be guilty. We fight to legis;ate torture, to turn back the hands of time and obliterate the Geneva Conventions. We have obviously given up on any chance our captured soldiers will have here (which has not been good anyway) but ever and anywhere we may fight. We have thrown out due process and the rule of war except for American citizens, oh wait, except for American citizens that meet with this administrations approval. The problem with making the ends justify the means is that the end could be evaluated in many different ways. Suppose Hitler had handled things differently, did not open a two front war, and quietly went about wiping out all the Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, etc. in Germany. Then with lower unemployemnt, redistributed wealth, and a comfortably slimmed down electorate, he presided over a prosperous time for Germany. He could point out to the rest of the world that the 'riff-raff' really do hold nations back, and that a cleansing is what is in order for the future of humankind. And of course, during the process many Germans, getting the spoils of their exterminated neighbors, would have extolled the virtues of 'Dolph, and how he was working to keep germany safe and make it a better country, and international citizen, by rooting out the trouble makers. No laws, no due process, because Adolph, and his administration just "know" that these people are up to no good. It really isn't 'different times'. Ther ehave always been terrorists, since before the days those upstart American terrorists, threw all that tea into the harbor. We need better intelligence and technology to deal with the terrorists, and we need to punish nations, either with sanctions like Libya, or "realignment" with Afghanistan. If we "break" America, to protect it, much like a Nazi Germany, what would we be fighting to protect? Our nations founders knew it. They understood it. I hope soon, we will have a government that understands what makes America great once again. Not our arms and armies, but our people and our ideas and our resolve to back them up even when it is diffcult and costly.
Post a Comment