There is a "Bush" in the middle

"Bush" wallpapers on your cellphone (click on the images)



Mobile Software - G.W. Bush Razz - click here



-----------------------------------

Oh Boy!

It was quite a long time we didn't see the fireworks in Manhattan. It was exactly like the 4th of July when you can see the same fireworks well synchronized in three different areas looking at the east side from Hoboken in New Jersey. One behind the Empire State Building, one further down the east river in Queens and the third one far away in Brooklyn.

Their speeches at the General Assembly inside the Glass Tower of the United Nations were .... a blast!

The only difference I see respect to the 4th of July is that it wan't fun at all.

Let's have a look at their speeches:

• Bush said that Iran creates terrorism, hides terrorism and sponsor terrorism and he wants to strike them and Iran. He also ask the Iranian people not to listen to their boss (it's difficult they heard him with the censored TV there).
• Ahmadinejad said that Americans and British are protected by the Security Council of the United Nations as far as concern their abuse of power. He also said that these countries are allowed to build their weapons of mass distruction and nobody says anything while he wants to use the nuclear power for peacefull reasons.
• Chavez said Bush is the "devil and he talked as if he were the owner of the world". He also said the United Nations in its current system "doesn't work" and is "antidemocratic."
  Chavez called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month.
  

So, there is a "Bush" in the middle of the field between two bulls who are trying to eat it.

Are we safer after this speeches? Not at all.

Did they tell truth? "A version of the truth" but we know the truth has no version.

The point is that they all said something right but the problem is that they behave wrong. Why?

BUSH PROS ---

• He talked about Darfur and the importance of sending U.N troops their.

BUSH CONS ---

• I really hope this time the United States send thir troops to Darfur removing them from Iraq and not like in Lebanon where Condoleza Rice pushed for a U.N resolution to send troops there but there are no US soldiers among the UN troops.
• He lost internal and international credibility regarding Iraq and his pre-empive war program.
• Gitmo, Abu Grahib and the CIA prisons in Europe had a very negative impact for the image of the United States in the world.

AHMADINEJAD PROS ---

• He was not a rich man like most of the American politicians and he could represent 100% of the population of a country.
• He talks in name of all the Arabs and sometimes also in name of the third world.
• He's right about the fact that there are countries that don't want to give up to their nuclear programs and that they are under the protection of the United Nations for that. (Egypt declared they want to start Nuclear tests and The U.S. government will support it).

AHMADINEJAD CONS---

• He represents the radical Islam, those who apply the laws of the Quram in a very strict way. His speech regarding the holocaust didn't help his image outside the Arab world, especially it's continuous mixing up the Israeli policies with the Jews.
• Iran could be under investigation by Amnesty International and other civil and human rights bodies.
• Nobody believes Iran is enriching uranium just for internal energy. Nuclear power is called power for a specific reason ... not the good one.
• He has to quickly demonstrate he can improve the economy in Iran before the next elections and this is not good under the threat of an embargo.

CHAVEZ PROS ---

• He's becoming the voice of the third world and it's hard to demonstrate he's abusing of his opponents in Venezuela. Many people see him as the successor of Fidel Castro in the minds of the Latino American leftists.
• His request to reform the United Nations is not wrong because too many countries in the world have not the same right to express their influence and being visible in the world. It seems much more today that who pays more has more rights than the others and this is one of the major reason the U.S. ambassador is aways against Kofi Annan when the U.N. doesn't follow the American policies.

CHAVEZ CONS ---

• The world doesn't need another Fidel Castro because Cuba is neither the monster someone say they are nor an example of democracy to export in the 21st century world.
• He is not a diplomatic man. You cannot public insult the president of another contry on personal issues like "ex-alcholic" or "he is a sick man" in his country. There are more serious battles he should deal with instead.

Finally, I'm not pleased about the power of these three men today because none of them represents today's world expectations. We need a better quality of leaders and better examples.

I'm quite annoyed that the world has to focus its attention mostly on what these three people say or do even if what they do has a strong impact on the world stability.

Finally a couple of articles from CNN today and yesterday which are related to this post.

Chavez calls Bush 'devil' in U.N. :

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un.ap/index.html

Iranian president takes on U.S., Israel at U.N.: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.un/index.html

Bush to U.N.: Choose between freedom or extremism: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/19/bush.un/index.html