There come times now and then when the world must endure a certain kind of leader. This leader has certain characteristics that make him unique in the world. They are the most dangerous because the importance of their cause becomes higher than the importance of their people. Some common characteristics are:
- He believes that he has a destiny to fulfill. There are hints that this destiny comes from a higher calling.
- He is successful in manipulating or controlling the media. Different leaders have had to resort to different tactics to make this happen, but the truth remains that this essential characteristic is up and running.
- He controls the language. By that I mean he controls what is discussed and he commandeers the issues, bending them to his agenda. He even rewrites history to pave the way for his agenda.
- He guarantees future success by stripping power from the opposition. Obviously, there are lots of ways of getting this done. There is brutal murder to vote manipulation all done by operatives loyal to the leader.
- Then there is an uncanny respect that these kinds of leaders have for each other. They are not as hard on each other as they are on the leaders who champion freedom and democracy.
Obviously, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of these leaders. Perhaps Hugo Chavez is another. Maybe some other leader?
5 comments:
George W. Bush
HA! I couldn't resist.
I was typing that in before I even read your list of characteristics.
Seriously. I -- and every other sane person in the world -- am so disappointed with the reality coming to light in Iran.
More than Pakstn, Afgnstn, Iraq or N. Korea, or Lebanon, I believe Iran is the real pin to the "big war" grenade-- thanks to Amad-idiotjob.
But consider this. What if Netanyahu of Israel is another leader that fits your characteristics? Are these two destined to clash?
You've made your thoughts clear, and I've heard this from others who drink your brand of kool-aid, (No disrepect. We all have our flavor of kool-aid.) that you would prefer Israel take out Iran sooner rather than later if at all.
I'm still of the feeling that the impending apocololypse from that action by Israel would be self-fulfilling. That our lifetimes would see the rift between Israel and Arabs wider than ever and never mending.
My hope, specifically in Iran, is that internal revolution by peace loving, Western-tolerating Iranians can still happen. It would be far better than bombs from the outside.
Case in point for Westernized Iranians? The word is that tomorrow's protests and rallies may be speckled with pictures of Michael Jackson and moonwalking Iranians. Say what you will. But he was a symbol of western freedom to them. And how more anti-Amadidiotjob can you get than Michael Jackson?
I would hate for the US or Israel to do anything drastic that would literally blow up the positive, or at least tolerant feelings of pro-Western Iranians. And the pre-election rallies suggested a huge lot of them ===kb
Thanks for your thoughts Kevin. I have an Iranian friend here. We have been friends for 30 years. His family members in Iran have always been educated or "westernized". He wants his country back. He has no illusions about bad America out to blow up Iran. He also has no illusions about whether or not a peaceful transition will happen. When violence erupts it will be the Mullahs slaughtering the moon-walking Western-tolerating people. And they will only survive if they prove you wrong about them being peace loving. They will make it if they are freedom loving. How long should we ignore them in the name of peace if we continue to see them being slaughtered?
Kevin While I am at it - you said;
But consider this. What if Netanyahu of Israel is another leader that fits your characteristics? Are these two destined to clash?
He doesn't fit #1. He has no goals above protecting his country from destruction. He doesn't fit #2. No leader of Israel has ever controlled its own press much less the press of the rest of the world. He doesn't fit #3. He is the biggest proponent of reminding people of history, not reinventing it. He doesn't fit #4. Israel has the most difficult political system for staying in power. His coalition has a slim majority. It can change anytime and they have to have an election as soon as that happens. He doesn't fit #5. He is probably the one leader who is the champion of freedom left in the world.
Think of another world leader that fits all of these. Here is a hint. His criticism of the Iranian election was even more mild and tolerant than that of the President of France!
To your first reply. Don't get me wrong. When I mean peace loving, I'm not talking about pacifists. I mean peace loving to US and Israel compared to the crazy hardliners running the country now.
With apologies to 'Anonymous Sister', the revolution that has to happen will likely have to be as bloody as the first one 30 years ago.
In fact, I heard on NPR this morning that an Iranian military person said a military coup was underway, although I have not seen any further confirmation yet.
As for "ignoring them in the name of peace", choosing not to send the bombers does NOT constitute as ignoring them. But the regime change has to happen from within. We can't force it.
To your second reply:
I thought Netanyahu would catch your attention. I know he doesn't fit your criteria. But I'm worried that he might be inflexible about attacking Iraq.
Doing so would solve a problem, but create a thousand new problems.
As for your evil world leader game. NO, NO, NO! I see where you're trying to take me and I won't go.
If you think you can match Obama's marbles with Idiotjob's then you need to change cigar brands because you're smokin' wacky tobacky.
#1 Thinks destiny comes from a higher calling? You're talking about the guy who fired his crazy pastor?
Obama and W. Bush: Which one did "God tell to attack Iraq"? Obama is quite grounded, trust me.
#2 Controls the media? You and I will never agree on this but I still have to tell you: Just because the media isn't saying the things that YOU want them to say doesn't mean the other side is controlling them.
Sorry, but Katie Couric is not the False Prophet.
As for the rest of them, let's just get to the heart of the matter. Lindsy Graham, John McCain, and Bill Bennett are not the president and never will be in a million years.
Obama is the president. He has to think about not only what is happening today or tomorrow, but what could happen in 10 years.
All this time, he has been trying to resist giving Idiotjob the satisfaction of taking any of his words and twisting them through his state media to make "Death to America" the message. He never even said the word 'Iran' before the election; and he didn't want to give any appearance of meddling immediately after the election. As it turned out, Idiotjob said the US and Britain were meddling anyway.
But what Obama is trying to do -- something America has consistently FAILED to do in the past 60 years -- is SHUT UP and let Iran handle Iran's problems.
I know. You're asking, How can we sit on our hands at a time like this? Because history shows that every time we meddle in Iran's affairs, we make things worse.
What would you have us do? Invade them, throw out the current power system and intall a Shaw? We tried that already. Look where it got us.
We got rid of our crazy leader. The hope was Iran would do the same. And they tried. I just thank God that our election system is fair and just; and the will of our large majority was granted.
Had it not. You would have seen ME in the streets throwing rocks at Cheney's Secret Police. --kb
AND ANOTHER THING: Looks like the Blazers are stacking up on young tough forwards in the draft. Look for them to cut Channing Frye and Travis Outlaw to bring in a prize point guard in free agency now that Sergio R. is gone.
Post a Comment