The President of Iran's Letter to President Bush...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

that's not too accurate. because saddam did let the investigators in for a long time.
I think even if iran shows complete good faith that is not going to change a thing. Presentations can be made up in front of the security councel again.

While he was a despot and a butcher, when he said he didn't have any WMDs, he wasn't lying. Three years later, and none have been recovered yet. Iraq was not about any of the reasons that the "Bush Administration" said it was about.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

....Something I notice about the letter. Much of it attacks/discusses the policy based on Christianity and Christian principles. The removal of Saddam was not based on scripture, but rather for the good of the region (and on supposed bad intel). The US is not governed -strictly- by the Bible, nor does Bush base his decisions solely on the Bible. Can we say the same about Iran (with regard to the quaran/islamic fundamentalism)?

He was removed for the oil and to obtain a new strategic foothold in the region. First Bush said that this had to do with 911, and that there was a connection between Saddaam and Al-Qaida. For those of you who don't know, the 911 commission confirmed there was absolutely no connection and prior to that it was confirmed through CIA and foreign sources that Osama Bin Laden had issued a contract on him back in the 90's that has not yet been cancelled.

Discovery Channel did a story on Al-Qaida where former CIA operatives who were assigned to tracking them noted in 1991, Bin Laden asked the US and Saudi governments for permission and support to remove Saddaam and he was told no. This is when he turned against the US and Saudi Arabia. There was an opportunity to get rid of the butcher and the opportunity was thrown away. Would have saved the lives of over two thousand US servicemen.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

nothing but political. If it were sincere, he would have sent it to Bush. Open letters have marginal believability, at least in my book. Just for image or propoganda.

It was sent to Bush not to the media. Condolezza after discussing it with Bush allowed it to be released.

 

[Andrew Green]

What countries have used Nukes to attack another country?

 

[Don Roley]

It was sent to Bush not to the media. Condolezza after discussing it with Bush allowed it to be released.

But is was common knowledge that it had been sent. If it had not been released, there would be speculation and such that would have been very disruptive politically. It was a safe bet that it would be released or Iran could have gotten some political hedgeway from it.

One of the things that I'm struggling with is whether or not this letter is a sincere attempt at communication or if it is just another political shot. If one believes that it is sincere, then a whole set of assumptions regarding Iran breaks down. If it is just politics, then they do not.

Obviously political. There is a saying by Dave Barry of all people that if someone is nice to you but nasty to the waiter, then they are not a nice person. Marginal kind of expands on this with the following.

IMO, it breaks down when you put it in its place next to the same guy's claims that the holocost never happened etc.

Which is a great point. He sends this flowery letter supposably to bridge the gap between nations while at the same time stroking the fires of hatred as hard as he can. One is for one audience, the other for another. And I tend to look at the lowest rung as the stature of a person just like I would look at the guy's treatment of the waiter to tell their true nature.

If he were consistant with his tone even outside of this letter, you could think that it was something other than politics. As it is, I see no reason to think that this is an honest attempt. This was written to strengthen his status with other countries by appearing to be reasonable. I am sure that China and Russia which both are tied in finacially with Iran will use this letter as an excuse to veto anything in the security council. It is a great excuse in the best tradition of politics as usual.

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder what the effect and reaction would be if the United States government accepted the text, and intent, at face value? Regardless of the motivations of the sender (not even going to attempt to spell the President's name).

 

[Brother John]

Its quite simple, and a potential conflict can be easily avoided. Complete transparency of their nuclear programs. If indeed they are having only peaceful intentions with their nuclear power, thats fine, but I still hold to a saying thats proven useful... "trust, but verify".

Great point.

I read it all, a couple of times. I think that it's terribly slanted and that if you observe actions taken in his and other Islamic Nations, they can't totally account for their actions based upon their faith as well. I'd bet that's common in international politics.

...there is much in there to ponder; but really it was written as a political slant....not an honest attempt to reconcile / come-together / or have any form of diplomatic discourse.
It was a lecture.

Your Brother
John

 

[mantis]

While he was a despot and a butcher, when he said he didn't have any WMDs, he wasn't lying. Three years later, and none have been recovered yet. Iraq was not about any of the reasons that the "Bush Administration" said it was about.

even if they knew that for a fact before entering war (which they probably did) they would have still invaded Iraq.