Word of the Day: Intransigence

So today I read an article about the recent National Intelligence Estimate which contradicted the White House administration's official stance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. On this issue, I've always felt that Bush has needed to tone down his rhetoric over Iran, the battle drums beat in his heart endlessly, and this is just another example of how loud they beat. Instead of reassessing his position on Iran's purported nuclear weapons program, Bush is simply reaffirming his stance that Iran is dangerous, and that America should continue to pressure them diplomatically, and of course, our country should not rule out preemptive military strikes if they don't acquiesce to America's demands.

Instead of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, Bush had this to say, "So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it." This reasoning, seems faulty and completely intransigent since no matter what we find out about Iran Bush will craft an argument which portrays Iran as a threat. One would think that a logical, reasonable individual would reach the conclusion that perhaps pressures have worked against Iran, and that this should be a hopeful sign; But, we're not dealing with a logical, intelligent individual here, Bush only understands violence, and he doesn't understand compromise or what diplomacy really means.

Now of extreme importance here, at least to note, is the blatant hypocrisy of the United States ostracizing a country for developing nuclear weapons, when America has a hefty arsenal of nuclear weapons itself, and always important is that this country is the only one to have actually used the devastating weapon. So who is more dangerous to world stability? This isn't to say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but neither should the U.S. or Russia or Pakistan or Britain, etc. Violence, destruction, devastation is not subjective, it's all wrong.

The always unyielding Bush responded to criticism over the increased credibility gap he faces with the American people by saying thus, ""No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life." Fantastic, our president feels great about life, of course he wouldn't have to worry about a surreptitious terrorist attack on himself, it is usually civilians who feel the impact of war or terrorism.

There are so many things wrong with this man, this issue, and this country's stance toward the rest of the world. What's so wrong with saying, "hey, we had it wrong, let's go to the bargaining table and bring about a practical, long term solution to this situation." Well, there a few things that are wrong with it, mainly that the United States is not sincere about any non military solution to problems with countries such as Iran. The United States does not know the meaning of compromise and must have all diplomacy conducting under its own terms, how can this be an effectual way of conducting international relations, it's not possible. It's is extremely suggestive of America's stance on diplomacy when one of the conditions for talks is suspending of a nuclear program, and after information is revealed which dictates that that program was suspended three years ago there is no attempt at pursuing a peaceful solution. Instead, Bush is stronger in his resolve to portray Iran as a threat, which means further fabrication of disinformation.

Power is the fundamental element of our leaders intentions. I'm not sure how else this could be explained. I think it's perfectly clear that this country needs to be more conciliatory, and genuinely so, toward the rest of the world if our government really wants to make its citizens safer. Think about personal relationships, if you constantly talk down to a friend or significant other, disregarding their opinions and concerns; if you constantly bully them and preach to them ideals you yourself do not follow, what chance is their that they'll listen to you? Not good. Generally, they will get angry and all reason and logic will go out the window and there will then be no rectifying the problem. However, the effects in the international realm are much different, and the grudge of far greater consequence. The grudge doesn't take the form of an ignored phone call, but an increase in mistrust resulting in further misunderstanding, which in the case of some countries leads to radicalism, violence, and terrorism toward the United States.

We're victims right now of one man's stubborn nature; but, this is a sickness that many in this country suffer from. This uncompromising attitude permeates American society. We're taught almost from the moment we're born that it is our way or no way. Their needs to be fundamental changes about America's arrogance, and intransigence before the world will be safer. If I were a citizen of any other country I would be petrified over the United States. Heck, even as a citizen of this country I am frightened, since I see no radical change occurring over this sort of war mongering in the near future.

Domestically Deceived.

I just finished reading an article entitled "Bush and Democrats Renew War of Words" on the New York Times website. A particular quote by Senator Harry Reid caught my attention and raised a few issues. Harry Reid was quoted as saying that "War costs have come at the expense of American priorities at home." Yes! Now what will be done about the confusion over what the real priorities should be for our government. I'm inclined to say, well, nothing for the time being because we have an administration who has their priorities grossly mixed up; but, that simple statement is important because it draws a direct connection to what this war is doing to the domestic agenda in America, that is to say that it has drawn attention away from it.

This is a primary reason why get so upset over the extensive coverage of the Iraq war in the media. Yes Iraq is important, it is one of the most critical issues of our time, but not because of what Iraq was and is, but rather because of what it represents. It represents American imperialistic tendencies and their desire to have hegemonic domination over the rest of the world at the expense of the citizens in the international community as well as at home. Quick disclaimer; by "American" I mean the government and those high on the hierarchy in America, not your average everyday citizen. This is crucial to understand, because it underscores certain ideas about what it means to have a "national interest." To some national interest means federal policy concerning the rest of the world or policy concerning our country as sort of one citizen of the world among the many. Think of it as we are America collectively, it's our individual identity that connects us all as Americans.

This concern of the national interest as I see it conceived above leaves many Americans out of the loop, so to speak. Bush and his cronies irresponsibly attempt to impose their neoconservative agenda on the rest of the world, while they vigorously engage in propaganda efforts at home to gain compliance of the citizenry of the United States. Part of the neocon agenda is protecting American business interests through the use of military supremacy. War is money, and furthermore, there are American business interests across the globe which want global stability with America dominance, two contradicting ideals. This impacts seventy five percent of Americans in a significantly detrimental manner. The people will have to fight their wars, all to often with a myopia, and compliance, that is extremely frightning.

Which brings me back to the New York Times article. Although I believe we are at the cusp of a potentially new, more democratic America, we (the people - not the establishment or government) fight the wars which are the cumulative effect of policy aimed at furthering the "national interest." And we do so while casting aside domestic agenda to our own detriment. We have a common plight in America, I think if we addressed the anger and disillusionment associated with the inattention our needs receive, then we may have a happier country which doesn't seek to make the rest of the world pay. I think a comprehensive overhaul of policy, coupled with a refocus on domestic agenda, to be cliche, kills two birds with one stone. You actually take care of the people of this country's needs, and address some of the extreme hatred for Americans throughout the world, which makes us (those below) safer. (Isn't this what neocons profess, an America safe from terrorism?, ah but they seek out military solutions which compound the problem, so it must be asked, is this what they truly desire?) Ultimately I feel it is the people's obligation and duty to serve as the catalysts for the change we need. How much to we have sacrifice the our own fulfillment for some ideological, self important group of individuals leading our country. Class warfare? Ha, most certainly, but there is already one being waged from above, but that is a topic for another discussion.