World turmoil venting of power-complex leaders
Isabel P. Ball
September 22, 2006
Fiery, bombastic, sarcastic, and spiteful flurries of rhetoric rocked the United Nations two days in a row on Sept. 19 & 20. Two highly ambitious leaders seethed with ire, as they delivered speeches before applauding U.N. delegates. President Bush preempted the speeches.
Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recalcitrant and defensive, as ever, of his nuclear weapons buildup called America an “Evil Empire” lashed tangential attacks at President Bush, who called him back leader of Axis of Evil. A buddy in revolutionary principles against America, and one staunch member of the nonaligned nations, Hugo Chavez, the articulate and fiery Jalapeno pepper talker, also blasted at Bush whom he called a “Diablo” or Devil, as he made a theatrical antic with a sign of the cross. Proceeded on his criticisms of Bush as a leader, he described Bush’s administration as a nightmare, and would need to be examined by a psychologist, and that he foresees the crumbling of American imperialism in the world.
What do these two leaders have in common? They are the leading spokesperson of anti-American discourses, propaganda leaders whose agenda is to unseat Bush and destroy America, at all cost, regardless of its consequences to the entire civilization. They are the rhetorical painters of a surreal scenario of a world, which could be a reality under their domination as tyrants, braggadocio, machismo and complex extremist leaders.
Ahmadinejad was bitter with America’s siding with Iraq during its war with Iran in the 80s. As a Muslim, he was showing to the world that bond of brotherhood, as he cozily switched side with Iraq, criticizing Bush for the invasion of the country, and his seeming facetious concerns about the tolls in life and property. Hitlerian antics, gesticulations, and arguments gained him nothing but denigration. He is reminiscent of Khadafi in his heyday, in the 70s and 80s. Against America, Muslims are one and united, which make Ahmadinejad a formidable, untrustworthy leader, therefore, undeserving and a suspect to possess a nuclear weapon. Iran has to outgrow a behavior of that of a rebellious child, and to act maturely, sensibly responsible and rationale, in order to gain the respect and serious regard within the community of nations.
Chavez, more like Castro, in fact, a disciple of the commie, socialist, leftist leaning friend, wants to lead in the Latino hemisphere, rebel rousing them to protest against America, an ultra-rich neighbor that is padlocking its doors from the Latino countries illegal immigrants. Harboring a vendetta against America, having been an assassination target in a botched attempt, he is a leader that wants to use the strategic power of his country’s oil resources that America, through Citgo Gas Company, big time helps to consume. Chavez claimed in his speech that the third world is “awakening” against America’s imperialism. The complexities of economic politics, such as using the power of oil supply to try to control and constrain America, a nation ever hungry for oil, did not turn out to be a successful venture for him, though he acts like he is. Thus, the Hugo Chavez nature surfaces, characteristically, as an underclass leader, manifesting in his use of base language. A pricey suit piece he donned on the speech did not elevate his respectability in the eyes of the G8 nations, who’d rather talk to the trees than waste attention with him. And to his co-status nations, he was an entertaining buffoon, bombastic, but lacking the power punch to dislodge or floor his opponent like a southpaw.
What is the root of furor? “American policies” they claim. In general, policies are formulated positions a country takes in regards to attaining and satisfying its own agenda, both internally and internationally. America, or for that matter, every nation on earth, operates just about on the same basic agenda, that is, putting the welfare of the country foremost. And not one country, let alone, the superpower America, can claim a flawless policy.
A case in point, in the Philippines, we’ve seen America’s policies volatility during the war when it engaged the Filipinos services into the military to fight against the Japanese with a promise of reparations, only to be rescinded when fervor for independence raged among the anxious-for-power leaders like Quezon. Highfalutin cries of patriotism, but short on pragmatism. And Quezon got what he had wanted, a brand of Filipino leadership smack crashing the country into a political quagmire breeding corrupt, unprincipled leaders yoking the country continually. The un-tactical political move of the past Filipino leaders has compromised the future of countless Filipino Veterans still fighting for the right to receive decent pensions and other related benefits. Another American policy that might have thwarted the correct economic and social pathways of the Philippines was its unequivocal support to the autocratic Philippine President Marcos. Thence, the autocrat’s overstaying in power, and efficient looting of the Philippine coffers had created a model of efficient corruption that has been implanted, like a gene, into the Filipino character, tainting and tarnishing our image, worldwide, to no end.
In the case of Iran, American policy has sowed the seed of discontent among the Iranians, with its unwavering support of the Shah of Iran. Turned a tyrant to his own people, and employing torture to quash their protests to his westernized lifestyle, the potentate, was unsuccessful. It spelled his doom as a leader. Reportedly, it was America that had encouraged Iran to enter into the nuclear power build up, as a right of a nation to use for energy. Nonsensically, it was condoned while Iran is literally sitting on fields of oil.
As a country, America, much as it wanted to be unequivocal, is unable, as it has to try to balance and foresee the positive and negative impacts of a policy in accordance to its own standards and needs, first, and always. On this, America is also criticized as a double standard-dealing leader of the free world. America has been known to buy allies, bully allies, and tolerate their abuses, so long as they serve toward gaining its own purposes.
We are a product of an imperfect creation, replete and enveloped in fundamental defects wallowing in human frailties, foibles and fallibility. Scientifically, it is an impossible feat to create perfection from an imperfect mold. We are humans, and we remain a very flawed model, if not with consciousness.
Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recalcitrant and defensive, as ever, of his nuclear weapons buildup called America an “Evil Empire” lashed tangential attacks at President Bush, who called him back leader of Axis of Evil. A buddy in revolutionary principles against America, and one staunch member of the nonaligned nations, Hugo Chavez, the articulate and fiery Jalapeno pepper talker, also blasted at Bush whom he called a “Diablo” or Devil, as he made a theatrical antic with a sign of the cross. Proceeded on his criticisms of Bush as a leader, he described Bush’s administration as a nightmare, and would need to be examined by a psychologist, and that he foresees the crumbling of American imperialism in the world.
What do these two leaders have in common? They are the leading spokesperson of anti-American discourses, propaganda leaders whose agenda is to unseat Bush and destroy America, at all cost, regardless of its consequences to the entire civilization. They are the rhetorical painters of a surreal scenario of a world, which could be a reality under their domination as tyrants, braggadocio, machismo and complex extremist leaders.
Ahmadinejad was bitter with America’s siding with Iraq during its war with Iran in the 80s. As a Muslim, he was showing to the world that bond of brotherhood, as he cozily switched side with Iraq, criticizing Bush for the invasion of the country, and his seeming facetious concerns about the tolls in life and property. Hitlerian antics, gesticulations, and arguments gained him nothing but denigration. He is reminiscent of Khadafi in his heyday, in the 70s and 80s. Against America, Muslims are one and united, which make Ahmadinejad a formidable, untrustworthy leader, therefore, undeserving and a suspect to possess a nuclear weapon. Iran has to outgrow a behavior of that of a rebellious child, and to act maturely, sensibly responsible and rationale, in order to gain the respect and serious regard within the community of nations.
Chavez, more like Castro, in fact, a disciple of the commie, socialist, leftist leaning friend, wants to lead in the Latino hemisphere, rebel rousing them to protest against America, an ultra-rich neighbor that is padlocking its doors from the Latino countries illegal immigrants. Harboring a vendetta against America, having been an assassination target in a botched attempt, he is a leader that wants to use the strategic power of his country’s oil resources that America, through Citgo Gas Company, big time helps to consume. Chavez claimed in his speech that the third world is “awakening” against America’s imperialism. The complexities of economic politics, such as using the power of oil supply to try to control and constrain America, a nation ever hungry for oil, did not turn out to be a successful venture for him, though he acts like he is. Thus, the Hugo Chavez nature surfaces, characteristically, as an underclass leader, manifesting in his use of base language. A pricey suit piece he donned on the speech did not elevate his respectability in the eyes of the G8 nations, who’d rather talk to the trees than waste attention with him. And to his co-status nations, he was an entertaining buffoon, bombastic, but lacking the power punch to dislodge or floor his opponent like a southpaw.
What is the root of furor? “American policies” they claim. In general, policies are formulated positions a country takes in regards to attaining and satisfying its own agenda, both internally and internationally. America, or for that matter, every nation on earth, operates just about on the same basic agenda, that is, putting the welfare of the country foremost. And not one country, let alone, the superpower America, can claim a flawless policy.
A case in point, in the Philippines, we’ve seen America’s policies volatility during the war when it engaged the Filipinos services into the military to fight against the Japanese with a promise of reparations, only to be rescinded when fervor for independence raged among the anxious-for-power leaders like Quezon. Highfalutin cries of patriotism, but short on pragmatism. And Quezon got what he had wanted, a brand of Filipino leadership smack crashing the country into a political quagmire breeding corrupt, unprincipled leaders yoking the country continually. The un-tactical political move of the past Filipino leaders has compromised the future of countless Filipino Veterans still fighting for the right to receive decent pensions and other related benefits. Another American policy that might have thwarted the correct economic and social pathways of the Philippines was its unequivocal support to the autocratic Philippine President Marcos. Thence, the autocrat’s overstaying in power, and efficient looting of the Philippine coffers had created a model of efficient corruption that has been implanted, like a gene, into the Filipino character, tainting and tarnishing our image, worldwide, to no end.
In the case of Iran, American policy has sowed the seed of discontent among the Iranians, with its unwavering support of the Shah of Iran. Turned a tyrant to his own people, and employing torture to quash their protests to his westernized lifestyle, the potentate, was unsuccessful. It spelled his doom as a leader. Reportedly, it was America that had encouraged Iran to enter into the nuclear power build up, as a right of a nation to use for energy. Nonsensically, it was condoned while Iran is literally sitting on fields of oil.
As a country, America, much as it wanted to be unequivocal, is unable, as it has to try to balance and foresee the positive and negative impacts of a policy in accordance to its own standards and needs, first, and always. On this, America is also criticized as a double standard-dealing leader of the free world. America has been known to buy allies, bully allies, and tolerate their abuses, so long as they serve toward gaining its own purposes.
We are a product of an imperfect creation, replete and enveloped in fundamental defects wallowing in human frailties, foibles and fallibility. Scientifically, it is an impossible feat to create perfection from an imperfect mold. We are humans, and we remain a very flawed model, if not with consciousness.
Print
Email
