Is No Nukes Good Nukes in Iran?
Nick Gillespie | October 29, 2007, 7:24am
Is Iran actually putting together nukes? All sides agree they'd like to, but beyond that it's unclear, reports the AP via the Detroit News:
Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.
[Atomic Energy Agency International head Mohamed] ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it....
'My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.
More here.
An Arab | October 29, 2007, 11:44am | #
So you only had a problem when a country with the same ethnic and religious makeup as you was invaded? How utterly tribal of you.
Not really Mr Episiarch, my heart hurts because USA is attacking and killing my countrymen, people of my religion, on false and Imperial grounds.
If USA attacked Luxemborg on same grounds, how would I feel? Yes, it would be bad, and I would feel sorry for them, but I would be more detached no? This is human nature.
Anyway, there is no ethnicity in Arab world, we have so many actually, who are all Arabs. But its cultural aspirations of our people, and we may have a common religion among most Arabs, but what unites as it cultural, not ethnic.
USA also fighting a war on Islam itself as it seems. Not a month goes by without me being asked why I dont 'condemn terrorism' from otherwise normal individuals. If this is the citizenry, then what about their government?
So USA attacking Islam. USA attacking Arabs. Doing Israel's dirty work. If we were strong as back in the Empire days, this wouldnt have happened, and Israel would have never existed. We would have had great relations with USA as global partners. Islam is very against communism, imagine what an ally you could have had in the cold-war.
The fact of the matter is that talking has failed, and I cant trust the US intentions of equality and justice for all anymore, (outside its borders). So there is one solution: To stack up weapons, make your country and Empire strong, and be prepared to defend yourself from aggressors.
Your country is an Empire too now. You just dont see it because you are on the inside.
An Arab | October 29, 2007, 12:21pm | #
And if we were like those Empires in their halcyon days we'd have levelled any country we set our sights on and killed as many people as necessary to ensure compliance. Then we would have taken your oil for our own. And we would have done it without breaking a sweat.
Why break a sweat when your Arab puppets can do it for you?
If someone as much as even looks at the Saudi puppet-prince funny, the wrath of USA is upon him. Why? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, you protected them. Why? Then you decimated God knows how many Iraqi troops and civilians. Why? Because someone dared to stand up to the Arab puppets and their masters floating on boats in the Arabian sea.
Empires were brutal before. Today, they are the same, but much smarter. For example, it is much more cost-effective when you have lackeys and puttets across the Arab world to do your bidding. And anyway overall, it causes much less headaches for you. We are supposed to face Mecca when we pray but your puppets prostate towards Washington DC instead.
But I'm very glad we're not like those old empires, and didn't do that.
So, I apologise to correct you on this, but the USA Empire is in fact in the business of decimating and killing those who oppose you, the only difference now is in being indirect.
If you are further curious, read about the rhetoric coming out of your government during your 1973 oil crisis. Your Arab slaves and puppets temporarily saw the light and dared to betray you, and what did Washington do? Put together an invasion plan for the occupation of all oil-producing Arab states, and their oil fields. Imagine. How un-imperial and un-brutal of you.
Longing for long-vanished Arab empire greatness is both stupid and pathetic.
I will gladly accept you calling me names. I accept this in stride. What I am saying is not new, nor did I invent the impulse for self-defence. If you want to call me names for wanting to defend my people, my culture, and my religion, then go right for it. You prove that I am right in my suspicions, and I accept this abuse from you.
VM | October 29, 2007, 12:49pm | #
You don't understand why?
Wow. Talk about someone guilty of not being able to see cuz you're on the inside.
It's martyr mode because you got called on wanting to have a mythical past magically come to life - which is a silly thought - and you start whining that you got personally insulted.
Hier's a suggestion:
1) Western Europe policies, behaviors, and history in colonial lands has been terrible. We see latent racism from those days even today.
2) we see new racism sprouting every day. We see ignorance and deliberate fear mongering every day
3) we see how a militaristic society is a terrible idea
4) we get support of the idea that open dialogue, free trade, and peaceful cultural interaction promote peace more than a knife does
5) the US policies in the Near East have been affected by cold war considerations in the past and are affected by some pretty twisted fucks today
6) Antisemitic stances, beliefs, positions are wrong. For all of your "your country is an empire", let's talk about antisemitism, too.
7) Renouncing blowing up pizza parlors in Haifa is a good start. Getting the Likud types to mellow and reconcile is also a good step. But this Pan Arab dream you have is necessarily taking responsibility for those terror acts in Israel. Or do feel that all Israelis are guilty? Even those who supported Oslo? Again, pot kettle by those who feel that way.
8) there is NO!!!! number 8
9) the three paragraphs worth of defending a mythical, magical, only-imagined past only strengthened the claim that such wishes are silly at best (think: those who wax nostalgic for the roaring 20s - talk about a really fucking awful time if you weren't upper middle class protestant (white) male). Pining for some glorious time from back then is ridiculous.
As for the us as an empire - why do you think people are so afraid of PATRIOT, wars of aggression, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, further existence of NATO, torture, etc.
Most hier don't like those developments, and they tend to call those feelings to task. Your fantasy about the Pan Arab empire falls under that category. He was attacking the ideas, not the utterer. And you took it personally. And went into martyr mode.
Instead of realizing that he is also against empires.
That's why.
An Arab | October 29, 2007, 1:50pm | #
VM,
You initially said 'the act of longing for something is what's pathetic.' This is a general statement. You didnt say 'The act of longing for _Arab_Empire_ is pathetic'. So, I took it that you meant this as a general statement, that, in general, any longing for any past is always pathetic. This is why I asked why.
For example, a wife my long for the days when her husband didnt become a drunkard. Whats wrong with that?
You make it sound (goes for you too iih), like longing for something is mutually exclusive to working towards a betterment. They are not.
I have come across many economists, who longed for a return to the 'most capitalistic period in US history', of the late 1800s. (As in, no tort laws, etc). Now I am not an expert in economics, and I dont know about this particular period, but there you have people longing for the good-old days of (alleged) economic freedom. But the point here is that there is a longing for something in the past.
Your list of 8: Let me ask you something: Why are you associating past European crimes against humanity with a future vision I have of a united Arab federation or Empire or what-have-you? There is a knee-jerk reaction of negativity when you hear 'Arab' followed by 'Unity' or 'Empire'. Why is that? I can almost predict the response, but I would like to see what you say first.
I hadnt even begun to start talking about what I think this Empire should stand for, before it automatically got associated with blown up cafes in Haifa. Whats the real issue here?
In case you are still in doubt: I said it before. I dont want an Empire for conquest. I want an Empire for our defence. Like the old one. I dont want an Empire for subjugation of religions (yes, I am sure it probably happened in the old one), but I want an Empire for personal Jihad and self-betterment, like the old one. I want an Empire for the conquest of science and technology, like the old one. I want an Empire where our unique and great culture can flourish, like the old one, where, people will talk about it 1000 years from now, just like we are today. Where we can contribute to mankind and his explorations. This is my vision. But all this - none of this - is every going to be possible, by the continued onslaught of the Imperial USA, thanks to the colonial Israel. Its funny you mentioned in Point#1 that colonialism was bad and evil, but then complain when they get blown up. Make up your mind please.
But this is my vision. Like I said before, we are currently declawed. Like a healthy person will not get sick, but when his immune virus is down, opportunistic viruses will invade. France did in Algeria. England did. Israel came. USA came. But if we were healthy, united and strong, this would not occur.
iih,
I dont buy this balogny about 'Arabs being too diverse ergo there can be no unity'. Go and read some of the Federalist papers of USA to see how even the founders talked about 'The diversity of opinion' in his countrymen, but for the need for a Union to safegaurd against 'Invaders from Europe' and against 'stupid infighting and bickering'.
Its natural.
Epis,
Your criticism seems to mostly be racial and tribal in that you're pissed that a non-Arab non-Muslim country has significant influence and involvement in Arab countries.
Did you read my reply to you? Show where I am being 'racial'. And iih, why do you agree with him when there is no proof of this?
An Arab | October 29, 2007, 3:13pm | #
iih,
I have not agreed or disagreed with him on that. But looking at it, there seems to be undertones of that in what you write. I could be wrong.
The phrase 'ditto', means 'I second that'. You dittoed his remarks. Thus, you agreed with him. How can you say you neither agree nor disagree? Am I wrong in this?
And please, quit judging me based on ambigous 'undertones'. Americans do this to Muslims and here I am having it done to me by another Muslim. Amazing.
If you have a question, ask it. Ill be more than happy to engage in conversation. This is why I spend time writing here. Dont judge someone without proof though. And you call yourself Libertarian.
J sub D,
They are Persians and generally regard arabs as inferior. If you don't believe me, call an Iranian citizen an arab to his face. An Arab, how do you feel about a new Persian Empire? Inquiring minds want to know!
To answer your question, culture-wise, Iranians have a penchant for being pretentious. But that being said, the Lebaneese are widely regarded in the Arab world as being the most pretentious Arabs too. Every nation has its quirks. Call a Bahraini a Saudi and fists will fly too. So that in and of itself means nothing.
Regarding their nuclear issue, if you had asked me 4 years ago, I would have said Iran should not have nukes. But today, if Iran wants to get nukes, I say God bless them. Israel has them afterall dont they? And what right does one country have in telling another not to have them? Iran would never attack the USA, so the US only does this because of Israel. Otherwise, why would they care?
The day I switch on CNN and see Anderson Cooper in Tel-Aviv telling us about how the UN is about to launch air-raids into Israel for having nuclear weapons and failing inspections, is the day that I will tell you Iran must not have nukes.
Until then, I will not support the hypocrisy, and the divide-and-conquer paradigm.
An Arab | October 29, 2007, 4:02pm | #
J sub D,
First off, you exagurate the animosity between Arabs and Persians. My point about the Saudi-Bahraini example was that you will get the same ferocious outcome in my example, as you would in yours. Hence, being Arab or not is irrelevant.
Regarding Arab support for Iraq in the war with Iran, most of Arab support came from Gulf Countries. Gulf countries used to belong to Persia in the 1700s, but got retaken by Arabs later than century. There is in fact a territorial dispute between Iran and some islands of the UAE. Same for Saudi. They supported it based on political gains for themselves.
By the same token, they were unsupportive of Iraq when he turned on Kuwait, not because they care if he is Arab or not, but because he threatened THEM. In fact, a great condemnation came from UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi, because Iraq laid claims to them. Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syria supported Iraq. So there wasnt uniform Arab support.
Regarding the rise of Iran, (if you will let them), they are our brothers in culture and religion. They want to rise, good for them. You come from 10,000 km away to try to dictate who should support what and why. Go back to where you came from. Yes we have problems, but we dont want your help. We will in time, figure it out for ourselves.
If you are going to come back and tell me 'Yes but they are evil', then my answer is simply 'Better the devil that I know than the one I dont.'
Anyway, the Islamic revolutionin Iran would have never been possible without US policies with the Shah. You shoot yourselves in the foot.
VM | October 29, 2007, 4:29pm | #
JSub - absolutely - I have wondered how the Persians would figure in here.
Alice - and gentrifying the middle east like that would be horrifying! But the Brits and French couldn't do it, we can't either (fortunately!!!) - and we shouldn't try! The cultural diversity in our western cradle of civilization is far too important and beautiful, and its very presence really can enrich the world in tremendous ways!!
back to you
An Arab
And please, quit judging me based on ambigous 'undertones'. Americans do this to Muslims and here I am having it done to me by another Muslim. Amazing.
You've switched from "Arab" to "Muslim" now.
Between that and the Persians, I'm getting lost in what you want - it's a little fast and loose. I apologize if I'm missing something.
I certainly am confused by what I perceive to be some (subtle) venom in your words to me.
Anyways,
I suspect you're trying to find some sort of phrase I've used to "prove" whatever you want. I'm assuming that you want to "prove" some sort of anti Arab sentiment in what I'm saying.
If that is true: You have a preconceived notion of what you think I'm saying, and you're going out to prove it instead of keeping a dialog open. And it seems to me that you're totally content in inserting "ambiguous undertones" in what I'm saying. yet you don't like when you feel that's being done to you.
A common libertarian view is that through free trade, cultural exchange, dialog, etc. animosity, distrust, and ignorance can be reduced and eliminated. And mutually prosperous exchange can happen. It also means, from the US perspective, understanding the implications of previous policy choices, media portrayals (and hysteria), and future foreign policy considerations.
To be sure, that reflection is necessary on all sides for uninhibited, mutually-prosperous exchange to happen.
That concept applies here. And that, nothing more, nothing less, was the point of my list of nine. No Arab enemies. No worries about a Pan Arab free trade zone and cultural exchange (a la EU - but I'd be worried about the size of the government, of course, grin).
If what I was understanding in your post was correct, you cannot find a cultural enemy here (maybe a political adversary, but not a cultural enemy).
I have no desire to have amazingly interesting cultures languish under dictators or non-Liberal regimes that, in part, get supported or caused (Iran) by US policies (think: Castro is bolstered by US policies towards him, while the Cuban people suffer).
I am a "the more the merrier" type, and I believe that the opportunity to experience different cultures and getting to know individuals is a tremendously rewarding experience, so the current situation is nothing close to what I would want. Nor do I want a war for oil, and I hate seeing the cycle of violence in Israel, Palestine (deliberate inclusion), and Lebanon. Or with the Kurds. etc.
I'm perfectly happy discussing how US policies (including certain administrations favoring Likud policies) have helped keep the Arab Man in the Street down. I'm perfectly happy discussing how Islam gets savagely and wrongly misunderstood.
I'm perfectly happy talking about how wrong it is when people in a US community all of a sudden become irrationally afraid if a Mosque gets established. I cannot believe that behavior.
I'm perfectly happy talking about the US role in contributing to the major problems in the area.
Are you willing to do the same for your side? Surely you must be, especially since you're so entrenched in having a side that's so strongly and emotionally tied to being the Other in this situation.
Your side needs a "defensive empire" - surely you're open to discussing how constituents of your "defensive empire" contribute to the violence and hatred in the region.
Anyway, the Islamic revolution in Iran would have never been possible without US policies with the Shah. You shoot yourselves in the foot.
Totally agree. Same with Afghanistan and the Taliban and OBL. (I have been typing as you were, so we both independently share the view on the Iranian revolution)
(Since I don't feel "sides" in this battle, I'm also perfectly happy discussing what I perceive to be Israel's and the rest of the nations in the middle east's roles in the problems in the region. That notion might be foreign to you, but that's how I roll)
In other parts of our talking:
Your guess at why you think I have a kneejerk negative reaction is wrong. My kneejerk reaction is to the word "empire". Don't care whose empire it is, including mine.
And it's interesting that you're reading an undertone into what I've said to be anti Arab. The only undertones in our discussion have come from you ("Why is that? I can almost predict the response, but I would like to see what you say first.") - for someone who's sensitive to feeling he is being subjected to that treatment, it seems that you're willing to engage in that behavior. (If I'm wrong, sorry - then realize that neither of us is doing that)
I have not insulted you - or I certainly have not gone out to be insulting and haven't intended to be, nor have I wanted to be - I have disputed the notion of dreaming of a glorious past, to be sure*. If that is insulting, how can we read your posts here? Should we be insulted by what you have written?
If that is insulting to you, you're not ready for discussion where there's bound to be disagreement.
You have no idea what my background is. You have no idea what I feel (specifically) about US policy in the Near East. You have no idea of any of that. You have no idea if or where I've traveled. No idea of any of that.
I've read your most recent post - that sort of nationalism is not something I support, here, there, or anywhere. Since you do support it, you probably do understand why it exists elsewhere - and in that scene, how do you see things progressing?
Probably pretty bleak.
bummer.
* you seem to have had a problem with this point. I object to these types of hyper nationalistic, glorified past due to the violent component of them, the rejection of anything negative done in the past, and the assumed hierarchy of A is better than B which is better than C. I don't share those views of (any) culture. And that belief shouldn't be insulting, since there's no cultural or racial hierarchy in my thinking.
An Arab | October 31, 2007, 12:47pm | #
VM,
You've switched from "Arab" to "Muslim" now.
I havent 'switched'. I am both. Whats your point?
Between that and the Persians, I'm getting lost in what you want - it's a little fast and loose. I apologize if I'm missing something.
As I mentioned earlier, what I want is a great nation/Empire, what-have-you, for us Arabs - to recapture our old glory, our excellence in all fields of endeavour, and most of all, for the preservation of our great culture that is under attack by Imperialists and Zionists today, and god knows who in the future. This is my goal, short and simple. And I already said this before.
To make an biological analogy, I want the Arab world to have an immune system.
I certainly am confused by what I perceive to be some (subtle) venom in your words to me.
I am annoyed at you. More so at how you come off, versus what you are saying. Your tone. I dont like it. The reason? For example, you said before, "Any glorification of the past is pathetic". When I asked a simple "Why", you answer was sarcastic and crass. Was that necessary? I think not. Yet you did it. That is what annoys me.
If that is true: You have a preconceived notion of what you think I'm saying, and you're going out to prove it instead of keeping a dialog open.
I didnt insert anything. I complained about you acting like a dick.
Your side needs a "defensive empire" - surely you're open to discussing how constituents of your "defensive empire" contribute to the violence and hatred in the region.
How can they contribute to violence and hatred of the 'defensive Empire' doesnt exist? This is what I mean about your attitude - why you attach and associate 'defensive empire', or even what I told you about need for Arab Empire, to hatred and violence? Why this automatic attachment?
Your guess at why you think I have a kneejerk negative reaction is wrong. My kneejerk reaction is to the word "empire". Don't care whose empire it is, including mine.
Granted.
And it's interesting that you're reading an undertone into what I've said to be anti Arab. The only undertones in our discussion have come from you ("Why is that? I can almost predict the response, but I would like to see what you say first.") - for someone who's sensitive to feeling he is being subjected to that treatment, it seems that you're willing to engage in that behavior. (If I'm wrong, sorry - then realize that neither of us is doing that)
In this particular point, you are wrong. Look, the issue isnt that convoluted: You spoke. I spoke. You spoke some more. I asked a question, and then mentioned I could almost predict the answer. Whats wrong with that?
I have not insulted you
And I didnt imply that you did.
I have disputed the notion of dreaming of a glorious past, to be sure*. If that is insulting, how can we read your posts here?
Allah save me. My God. How many times do I need to tell you? I asked 'why' to your statement of 'glorification of past is pathetic', and here you are telling me that you disputed this notion, which you only did much much later.
I've read your most recent post - that sort of nationalism is not something I support, here, there, or anywhere. Since you do support it, you probably do understand why it exists elsewhere - and in that scene, how do you see things progressing?
First of all, just what it Gods name is 'Nationalistic' about what I said? Since when does love of ones culture, and wanting to protect it from foreign influence nationalisitic? And even if I grant you that it is, half the world is like that, including USA, England, Germany, etc etc. In those countries, nationalism is rampant with right-wing parties.
And in fact, we currently have one of the most vehemently nationalistic states on the planet right in our front yard named Israel. Do you support Israel's right to exsit, the nationalist country that it is? If so, then I am but no different. If they have this right, then so do we, and I invent nothing new.
