Iran Nuclear? Updated
What was the justification for starting war in Iraq?
WMD? - We can still recall Colin Powell in the UN Security Council showing pictures of the Iraqi installations for WMD. Today we know it was not the truth. Then what happened:
- Justification for the war changed. We were explained that luckily we got rid of the dictator Saddam Husein.
Today the explanation is changing once more. Now we're told that luckily we have the coalition in Iraq because otherwise there would be a civil war. - Maybe there is a civil war.
The media manipulation is turning around in a vicious circle, grinding the "official explanation" into our fool heads.
And now it is being repeated all over - this time about the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
What is it actually that Iran wants? They say they want to use nuclear power as a source of energy. Why not take the explanation at face value? Nobody asked questions about the Israeli accession to the nuclear paradise. And in a sense Israel had a "right" to do so, because the country is not a signatory to the Nonproliferation treaty. - So why be so secretive about it that it had to take a Vanunu to get the story out in the open.
The Israeli WMD never seemed to worry the Americans. - Not so with the Iranian - what? - WMD - do they have that?
No, they don't. So what's the point of asking so much about it - and doubting the country's own account of it? Of course, Ahmahdinejad's statements on Jews and Holocaust, which he has claimed never to have taken place, do not bode well. They reflect a semi-fascist presidential populism. But, still the country may have a right to a peaceful use of nuclear power. But see how this is twisted in the American media.
This string of questions seem to suggest what it is the Americans are up to.
What about the allies, do they go along in the fairground ride towards another Mid East war? They seem to - even with a lot more gusto than in the Iraq war. So the West seems to be fairly united this time. But the effect of alienation of the Mid East and a number of countries does not seem to be smaller this time - on the contrary it seems to be bigger. So we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg of cultural estrangement that we saw evidenced in the cartoons crises and which will probably repeat itself in new crises of cultural estrangement.
posted by Cosmic Duck at 3:51 AM
5 Comments:
Steven.
Why don't you say here what you mean instead of sending me looking for lots of links. This post is here to comment on.
Steven.
I have read the article in your last link. I agree with you that it has a lot of good argumentative points against Mearsheimer and Walt. I still think the latter two are the most convincing, however.
Any reasonable human being would wonder why the USA sticks to supporting Israel the way they do.
It is not in the fundamental interests of the USA; and it is probably one of the explanations why international politics in the Mid East area is getting messud up the way it is. How do you explain it?
One possibility is the strength of the Jewish lobby. Another is the fact that you may unconsciously like the people best that are like yourself. Israel is a kind of outpost of Western civilization. Then you get close to something like latent racism.
Still, America is jeapordising its own interests by not cooperating on more equal terms with the whole Middle East.
Aid $$: Actually, as far as I have understood, the Danish government has tried to pressure Egypt into more democratic governance. They have also made an Arab dialogue institute in Cairo. But perhaps that is playing too much morally superior.
Alan Dershowitz is going to challenge this article through debate.
Myths and Facts have also written an excelent response.
"The authors, however, are not interested at all in Palestinian obligations. Up until it became clear that neither Yasser Arafat nor his successor Mahmoud Abbas had the will and ability to negotiate peace, the United States consistently pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians".
Myths and facts make many undocumnted allegations, for instance the one above. It is an estimate, not a valid fact that the persons mentioned did not have the will and capacity to negotiate peace. It is seen from one point of view.
As for Harvard's denunciation of the article: this is deplorable and does not recommend it as an academic institution.
Post a Comment
<< Home