(Note: I'll keep posting until the turnover, although I am not sure that these posts will appear, due to Blogger's odd behavior of late. I have some important pieces in the works, and I might as well get them out there before toddling off.)
By what right are we moving against Iran?
Let us presume the worst; let us stipulate that the Iranians are working toward the development of a nuclear weapon. Of course, I hope that they do not. I would sacrifice my life if doing so could somehow convince the Iranians not to pursue that goal.
Still: By what right do we deny them such a weapon?
I ask this simple question in light of the news stories indicating that Japan is working on nuclear weaponry -- indeed, that nation may be a mere three years away from possession of the bomb.
Few in the United States would countenance a new war with Japan over this issue. Yet Japan has a history of aggression, as Iran does not. What page of Persian history compares to the rape of Nanking, to the experiments at Harbin, to the Bataan death March, to the attack on Pearl Harbor? As for the alleged danger to Israel: The Japanese have their own (growing) tradition of anti-Semitism and once allied themselves with the greatest enemy ever to assail the Jewish people.
"Japan is democratic," some would argue. But few objective observers could call that nation a true democracy. It is a one-party state, the model for what Republicans hope America to become. Although we can fairly apply the word "theocracy" -- and perhaps even "despotism" -- to Iran, that nation is, in fact, a partial democracy.
By what right would we deny the bomb to Iran and allow it to Japan?
8 comments:
Okay, I figured out the problem. I needed to reduce the number of posts on the front page.
There's a 1 meg limit y'see.
Some would suggest that the axis of evil is the list of those nations that want to use the euro rather than the dollar for oil trades (Iran and Iraq). N. Korea makes the list because it dropped the dollar for use in int'l trade.
Is there no changing your mind? I was hoping you were having a very bad day. Your audience must be much more diverse than you know. I am intelligent and curious 50-year old mother and wife in suburbia. I read your blog usually 2 times per day. I am continually struck by your knowledge of other subjects beside daily events--music, movies, books, personalities, etc. I'll miss you.
sofla said...
Why don't we state the question more accurately?
That is, why are we trying to forbid Iran from even pursuing legitimate and peaceful nuclear energy technologies for their domestic energy needs, when that is explicitly their right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which they are signators and are in full compliance?
Note, they really will need nuclear power energy down the road, and soon, as their production has already hit a peak, and will be dropping significantly even over the next 3 to 5 years.
The answer seems plain enough to me. Japan has given up challenging America for hegemony, and quite a while ago now. Iran has not agreed to America's world hegemonic claims (as described in the PNAC documents), and themselves could act as a regional hegemon, especially now that we've delivered Iraq to their influence.
Joseph.
Don't give up this blog, there are a lot of us out there, who never comment but are reading your posts every single day. To quit because of the negative opinion of few. would be pretty unfair for the rest of us, who enjoy your posts. I hope you will eventually change your mind.
i'm one of those folk who read daily but only irregularly comment. Joseph, I think there's a simpler solution to the "9/11 conspiracy" problem - stop addressing the issue! You noted a while back your traffic drops when you talk about it. Count me as one, I don't even bother reading those posts.
Stop feeding the animals and they'll go elsewhere.
As for the current post, this attitude re Iran and Nukes is really nothing more than neocolonialism. Now, I don't want Iran to have Nukes, but the same goes for the US - indeed even more so. The US has them. The US has withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty. The US has used them before. The US has actively discussed using them again.
Ask the rest of the world (i'm not american) - we consider the US a far greater threater to peace than Iran.
We need to consider that 1) the U.S. routinely (as a matter of policy) refuses to rule out the possibility of nuclear strikes on non-nuclear nations and (at times) seems to actively encourage the supposition that "we" are actively considering such strikes, 2) the use of nuclear "bunker buster" bombs against Iran has been openly discussed in this country, and 3) "we" have conclusively demonstrated to the world that the only defense against an unprovoked invasion by the U.S. is the possession (by the likely victim) of nuclear weapons.
As such, the pursuit by Iran of nuclear weapons is, above all, rational policy, thanks to us, and Iran (unlike Japan) at least has the excuse of deterring U.S. aggression. That said, I don't think many people around the world would rather Iran had the bomb, than Japan.
As for abandoning this blog -- jeez, are you really going to let a handful of CD fanatics put you off the whole venture? There must be some other reason(?)
Post a Comment