celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure
Gholam Hossein Elham has it wrong. The President's misguided offer to "talk" shows his personal failure to comprehend the history of Iran, the history of Islamic fundamentalism and islamofascism, and the history of attempting to play sheep to a pack of wolves.
The President's offer of talk was as irresponsible as it was inept. Iran is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah--those charming charitable defenders of such Palestinian virtues as digging tunnels to smuggle arms but never shelters to protect the civilians, of housing rockets and arms caches in and near schools and hospitals so as to turn children into legitimate targets, demonstrating "victimhood" by launching repeated unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel, and all the while loudly proclaiming that Israel as a nation should be eliminated, and the Israeli population exterminated. Iran is an evil nation, not because it is an Islamic theocracy, not because it seeks to export to the world its version of virtue, but because it does so on the sly, providing cowardly support to that most cowardly of villians, the terrorist.
The President's' offer of talk was feckless; one cannot defend ideals without articulating those ideals--and one cannot have an honest talk about ideals, political, social, or religious, without defining one's own ideals and the willingness to defend them. Unconditional talks only serve as a prelude to brokering a "peace for our time"--Neville Chamberlain might have some interesting comments on how well that strategy works.
Finally, the President's offer of talk was stupid. Iranians are not just Muslims; they are the descendants of peoples who created some of the world's great empires. They are a strong people, and a proud people, and a vital people. The unconditioned appeal to "unclench their fist" does not speak to strength, for it does not speak from strength. There should be no surprise at the Iranian response, which is charitably described as contempt; how else could a strong people respond to an overture predicated upon weakness?
However, this President is also ignorant of the nation he presumes to lead--a nation that at once has an advanced and capable military yet leads the world in foreign aid and charitable giving, a nation that enshrines in its Constitution the virtue of liberty and freedom, a nation that did not respond to 9/11 by mass persecutions of Muslims, but instead went on to elect the first ever Muslim to Congress.
Personally, I would be glad if nations such as Iran "unclenched their fist." However, I would also be glad if the President was possessed of sufficient manhood to remind such nations that their clenched fist will be met with an American fist. It seems I am doubly disappointed--Iran shakes its fist and the President cowers before it. The saving virtue: the President does not speak for me or mine; ultimately, he does not speak for America.
Gholam Hossein Elham has it wrong. The President's misguided offer to "talk" shows his personal failure to comprehend the history of Iran, the history of Islamic fundamentalism and islamofascism, and the history of attempting to play sheep to a pack of wolves.
The President's offer of talk was as irresponsible as it was inept. Iran is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah--those charming charitable defenders of such Palestinian virtues as digging tunnels to smuggle arms but never shelters to protect the civilians, of housing rockets and arms caches in and near schools and hospitals so as to turn children into legitimate targets, demonstrating "victimhood" by launching repeated unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel, and all the while loudly proclaiming that Israel as a nation should be eliminated, and the Israeli population exterminated. Iran is an evil nation, not because it is an Islamic theocracy, not because it seeks to export to the world its version of virtue, but because it does so on the sly, providing cowardly support to that most cowardly of villians, the terrorist.
The President's' offer of talk was feckless; one cannot defend ideals without articulating those ideals--and one cannot have an honest talk about ideals, political, social, or religious, without defining one's own ideals and the willingness to defend them. Unconditional talks only serve as a prelude to brokering a "peace for our time"--Neville Chamberlain might have some interesting comments on how well that strategy works.
Finally, the President's offer of talk was stupid. Iranians are not just Muslims; they are the descendants of peoples who created some of the world's great empires. They are a strong people, and a proud people, and a vital people. The unconditioned appeal to "unclench their fist" does not speak to strength, for it does not speak from strength. There should be no surprise at the Iranian response, which is charitably described as contempt; how else could a strong people respond to an overture predicated upon weakness?
However, this President is also ignorant of the nation he presumes to lead--a nation that at once has an advanced and capable military yet leads the world in foreign aid and charitable giving, a nation that enshrines in its Constitution the virtue of liberty and freedom, a nation that did not respond to 9/11 by mass persecutions of Muslims, but instead went on to elect the first ever Muslim to Congress.
Personally, I would be glad if nations such as Iran "unclenched their fist." However, I would also be glad if the President was possessed of sufficient manhood to remind such nations that their clenched fist will be met with an American fist. It seems I am doubly disappointed--Iran shakes its fist and the President cowers before it. The saving virtue: the President does not speak for me or mine; ultimately, he does not speak for America.
