Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
Is it lost on ditwits like these that Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the President of Iran, is tough-talking and taunting George Bush? Why? Because so far W's regional foreign policy has accomplished for Teheran's corrupt regime of religious fanatics in a couple of years what the Iranian army couldn't do in eight - namely unleash the rule of mullahs and thugs on the streets of Southeastern Iraq and dramatically weaken, probably permanently disable, the role of the central government in Baghdad.
I'd love to hear some tough talk about what kind of response Teheran would feel if it raises a hand against Israel. With sentiments as they are, some of it could play very well on the international stage. But right now I think the mullahs in Iran are just laughing at the President. Sad.
TrackBackIf we did "hear some tough talk about what kind of response Teheran would feel if it raises a hand against Israel", I would have thought you'd be decrying more reckless, un-nuanced rhetoric from our cowboy unilateralist president.
At any rate, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" beats "Talk tough and get your ass handed to you".
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at October 27, 2005 08:30 PMRichard Clark made the point about Bush doing Iran's work for them on Fresh Air on NPR last night.
2000 lives, $300 billion, and Iran is the only winner.
Posted by: Bryan at October 27, 2005 09:05 PM"I would have thought you'd be decrying more reckless, un-nuanced rhetoric from our cowboy unilateralist president."
And you would be mistaken. Admittedly I probably would have remained silent; it'll take triple-axles with one hand tied behind his back for me to stand up and cheer President Loser at this point.
But there are places for tough talk in diplomacy, and in response to calls for genocide is one of them.
Posted by: froz gobo at October 27, 2005 11:19 PMTough talk? Certainly. Perhaps more.
In the matter of the first, however, Reagan's foreign policy was so woefully short of tough talk that it overlapped into complicity.
In the matter of the second, we could have used diplomatic pressure and military actions to limit the human and environmental devastation but did not.
Posted by: froz gobo at October 28, 2005 08:48 AMReagan had a lot on his plate, what with winning the Cold War and all.
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at October 28, 2005 08:58 AMThere's something about mentioning Reagan in the context of Iran that bothers me, but I can't recall what it is...
Posted by: Sterling at October 28, 2005 09:21 AMThe speech is obviously for domestic consumption. If tough talk about Israel substitutes for more substantive concessions to the mullahs (this guy is not one), it could even be a good thing.
I really don't see any benefits flowing from a US response.
Posted by: lemuel pitkin at October 28, 2005 10:00 AMRayguns was a simple, senile old man, kinda like I wil be in twenty years if I live that long. (minus the money and power)I've heard he was reasonbly smart but I don't recall it ever showing unless you give credit for sneaky. A puppet for the most part. "If you've seen 1 tree you've seen them all."
Posted by: Dave McLeod at October 28, 2005 09:07 PM