The Djinni's Advocate
Some people are celebrating the Bush administration's saying it will negotiate with Iran, if they will stop all production of all nuclear fuel. Hogwash. That is just saying "I'll talk to you if you do exactly what I demand first." What is there left to talk about, then? This is a phony hand held out, just for the benefit of war-supporters in Congress and the media (and other allied governments), so that Bush can claim, "Well, we tried to talk to them first" when he drops the bombs. It will be a lie, but watch the sycophants suck it up. (Sadly, they will probably include a number of Democrats, and not just Joe Lieberman.)
The people who live in Iran have the same rights that we do, including the right to self-defense. As long as their government is peaceful, not even the United States has the right -- even if it does have the physical power -- to demand that they disarm, or never arm to begin with, thus leaving them at the mercy of any enemy, or even of a loving, benevolent, kind, compassionate, caring saint like George Bush.
If they attack someone else, that's different. The truth is the only war they've fought in recent times was in defense against the U.S. catspaw in Iraq, whom we egged on and sold chemical weapons to fight Iran. They have already been attacked by us, if indirectly, so they have no reason to trust us to treat them fairly if they don't get nukes. And just having an army is not enough, as our invasion of Iraq showed when we later turned on them.
On the other hand, we are not trying to invade North Korea. The difference? North Korea has nuclear bombs, close enough to kill lots of our troops or even hit us at home. The lesson is obvious. If the Iranians want to protect themselves, they should get nuclear weapons. Of course they are lying about not trying to get them. So what? That is just what we would do if the situation were reversed. That is just what the Israelis did and still do. Tel Aviv did not leave themselves defenseless any more than Washington did a half century ago.
The Bush administration and the other admitted nuclear powers are just being monopolists, trying to guarantee themselves exclusive rights to nukes. No one else has any obligation to knuckle under to their demands. When one of them, like Bush, shows a stated willingness to invade other countries that have not attacked him, then it is time to arm and prepare for defense -- especially if your country is constantly denounced as evil by him, and his government has previously backed others invading you.
The balance of terror with the Soviets kept either us or them from trying to conquer the other. (Of course, each side would have claimed they were only "liberating" the other, just as Bush claims he is "democratizing" Iraq.) It wasn't pretty, but it worked. No one should ever be defenseless in the presence of a bully on the warpath. That only encourages him to act like a looting thug.
If I lived in Iran -- well, I'd probably want to flee to a freer place, but if I couldn't, or just loved my home and wanted to stay despite the tyranny and the danger from outside -- I would hope my government did get some nukes just to keep us from being invaded. As an American, angry at the prospect of Bush launching another unjustified, unprovoked, preemptive aggressive war, I recognize that the best way to prevent that would be for Iran to get some nukes of its own. Very quickly, since the U.S. vessels are nearly in position for a first strike.
Note to Abu Gonzales: I wouldn't help Iran get those Weapons of Moron Deterrence even if I knew how, but if saying they have a basic human right to defend themselves by doing so constitutes treason in your eyes, then make the most of it. Pulling an Ashcroft and carrying me off to Guantanamo as a scapegoat won't help you if your gang leader does bomb Tehran. I suspect the streets and the web will then be full of a lot of noisy people who are far more troublesome than this lone critic. Unless they are distracted by something else on TV.... oh, look, the reality show's been interrupted for a bulletin about a missing blonde woman!
The people who live in Iran have the same rights that we do, including the right to self-defense. As long as their government is peaceful, not even the United States has the right -- even if it does have the physical power -- to demand that they disarm, or never arm to begin with, thus leaving them at the mercy of any enemy, or even of a loving, benevolent, kind, compassionate, caring saint like George Bush.
If they attack someone else, that's different. The truth is the only war they've fought in recent times was in defense against the U.S. catspaw in Iraq, whom we egged on and sold chemical weapons to fight Iran. They have already been attacked by us, if indirectly, so they have no reason to trust us to treat them fairly if they don't get nukes. And just having an army is not enough, as our invasion of Iraq showed when we later turned on them.
On the other hand, we are not trying to invade North Korea. The difference? North Korea has nuclear bombs, close enough to kill lots of our troops or even hit us at home. The lesson is obvious. If the Iranians want to protect themselves, they should get nuclear weapons. Of course they are lying about not trying to get them. So what? That is just what we would do if the situation were reversed. That is just what the Israelis did and still do. Tel Aviv did not leave themselves defenseless any more than Washington did a half century ago.
The Bush administration and the other admitted nuclear powers are just being monopolists, trying to guarantee themselves exclusive rights to nukes. No one else has any obligation to knuckle under to their demands. When one of them, like Bush, shows a stated willingness to invade other countries that have not attacked him, then it is time to arm and prepare for defense -- especially if your country is constantly denounced as evil by him, and his government has previously backed others invading you.
The balance of terror with the Soviets kept either us or them from trying to conquer the other. (Of course, each side would have claimed they were only "liberating" the other, just as Bush claims he is "democratizing" Iraq.) It wasn't pretty, but it worked. No one should ever be defenseless in the presence of a bully on the warpath. That only encourages him to act like a looting thug.
If I lived in Iran -- well, I'd probably want to flee to a freer place, but if I couldn't, or just loved my home and wanted to stay despite the tyranny and the danger from outside -- I would hope my government did get some nukes just to keep us from being invaded. As an American, angry at the prospect of Bush launching another unjustified, unprovoked, preemptive aggressive war, I recognize that the best way to prevent that would be for Iran to get some nukes of its own. Very quickly, since the U.S. vessels are nearly in position for a first strike.
Note to Abu Gonzales: I wouldn't help Iran get those Weapons of Moron Deterrence even if I knew how, but if saying they have a basic human right to defend themselves by doing so constitutes treason in your eyes, then make the most of it. Pulling an Ashcroft and carrying me off to Guantanamo as a scapegoat won't help you if your gang leader does bomb Tehran. I suspect the streets and the web will then be full of a lot of noisy people who are far more troublesome than this lone critic. Unless they are distracted by something else on TV.... oh, look, the reality show's been interrupted for a bulletin about a missing blonde woman!
posted by Bride Of Acheron at 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home