Originally posted by djohnsto77
When have two heads-of-state ever publically debated like this on TV? It's a ridiculous offer that breaks all diplomatic protocols. We don't even
have any diplomatic relations with Iran!
Of course the usual suspects will use this to make fun of and attack Bush. :shk:
I don't think such an event has ever taken place, it is true.
However, that is not say that such a thing Could
To debate is not the same thing as to negotiate. So even if the US, through the Bush administration, views President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian
government as "representatives" of a terrorist nation", they would merely be debating the issues which divide them; no expectation of concessions
need be implied.
That said, I perceive a possible ulterior motive in Ahmadinejad's challenge/offer; one that gives me pause to consider what else might be hidden up
By all accounts, President Ahmadinejad, along with being a very intelligent man, is also a devoutly religious Muslim. I'm sure he realizes that the
paths Iran and the US are heading in could easily lead to armed conflict. Iran, at least in terms of shear military might cannot but see itself at a
severe disadvantage should a conflict of arms erupt. By the dictates of Islam, the faith he holds dear, in such a conflict, he would be required to
fight the US with every weapon and tactic at his diposal; no quarter would be given to any of the oppressor.
I'm sure many of us have heard of the "warnings" profered in the form of audio and video tapes by another "radical Islamist", Osama bin Laden. As
I understand it, OBL was pressured into making these recordings by his spiritual advisors as a way to reconcil the bloody violence of his attacks
against the West, with the demands of his faith; the enemy must be warned, and thus given a chance to "repent" before he may be justifiably
Is it possible that the Iranian President, no less a devout Muslim, views this offer, and perhaps the "Secret" letter to President Bush which
preceded it, as similar warnings to a potential enemy?
Are these "Unprecedented Acts" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's way of observing the "Protocols of A Righteous and Holy War"?
In this light, I find it most disturbing (and potentially telling
), that President Ahmadinejad insisted upon the condition of No
On the surface, such a stipulation might seem to be nothing more than naive posturing; at most, perhaps, a sly dig at the US's honesty.
But I think there is more to it than that. I think, perhaps President Ahmadinejad, compelled by the strictures of his faith, wants to make absolutely
certain that, having heard both men detail their positions, that the American public (and perhaps the western world at large) is given the opportunity
to make an informed consent
with regard to which side they are to be counted amoungst.
Therefore, in Ahmadinejad's mind, fair warning has been given, as required by Allah. The choice is ours to make; the consequences of our choices,
ours alone to face.
Iran is thus free to do whatever it must to defend itself, no matter how otherwise heinous such acts might seem. And the populace of the the US, by
their consent/support/acquiessence of President Bush and the US military, are thus to be put on notice that they, too, will be considered fair game.