Diplomatic Logic
In a reassuring turn of events, George W Bush has declared the UN security council relevant once more, saying it is "logical" to refer Iran. "I'm not going to prejudge what the United Nations security council should do," he said, "but I recognise that it's logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations security council." The diplomacy was carried out by Europeans so, logically enough, entreaties were permitted.
Bush also said that he "wanted a peaceful resolution to the crisis", although apparently he failed to specify whether it would be the peace in which several tens of thousands of Iraqis are now resting. He and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, spent some time "talking about the Iranian issue and the desire to solve this issue diplomatically by working together." The desire does exist, then; logically, Bush would hardly waste his time talking at length about something that wasn't there. A chat with the German chancellor is hardly the same thing as a State of the Union address, after all.
Meanwhile, the Vicar of Downing Street's foreign affairs spokesman said that military action against Iran was "inconceivable" for the present because "Iran is not Iraq". That may well be true. However, military action against Iran does not seem altogether inconceivable to some people; perhaps Jack Straw should be told. Straw also said he had a "strong suspicion", but no evidence, that Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb. Since Iran is not Iraq, perhaps we are to deduce logically that Straw had no strong suspicions, as well as no evidence, about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
For her own part, Angela Merkel declared that the US and Europe, with their thousands of nuclear missiles, "would not be intimidated" by Iran, which has yet to build any. This certainly shows a logical perspective on the matter. She also made clear that President Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel are "totally unacceptable". After the US, Germany is Israel's biggest supplier of arms, and one cannot have the customers insulted.
Bush also said that he "wanted a peaceful resolution to the crisis", although apparently he failed to specify whether it would be the peace in which several tens of thousands of Iraqis are now resting. He and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, spent some time "talking about the Iranian issue and the desire to solve this issue diplomatically by working together." The desire does exist, then; logically, Bush would hardly waste his time talking at length about something that wasn't there. A chat with the German chancellor is hardly the same thing as a State of the Union address, after all.
Meanwhile, the Vicar of Downing Street's foreign affairs spokesman said that military action against Iran was "inconceivable" for the present because "Iran is not Iraq". That may well be true. However, military action against Iran does not seem altogether inconceivable to some people; perhaps Jack Straw should be told. Straw also said he had a "strong suspicion", but no evidence, that Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb. Since Iran is not Iraq, perhaps we are to deduce logically that Straw had no strong suspicions, as well as no evidence, about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
For her own part, Angela Merkel declared that the US and Europe, with their thousands of nuclear missiles, "would not be intimidated" by Iran, which has yet to build any. This certainly shows a logical perspective on the matter. She also made clear that President Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel are "totally unacceptable". After the US, Germany is Israel's biggest supplier of arms, and one cannot have the customers insulted.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home