Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amnesiac42
it's tricky. nations should be able to arm themselves, but no one can promise they won't use their defensive weapons for offensive actions. all of this said, i'm really pretty ignorant about Iran and what their deal is.
|
It was never complex. What you call tricky is simply instability created by militaristic political (extremist) agendas that foolishly advocate preemption.
So much of what made the world stable - ie the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - was predicated on principles that the world's leading nations would operate in the interest of and using well founded international principles that create peaceful solutions. Included in that list of principles was containment (instead of pre-emption) and a smoking gun requirement to justify war.
Lets see. Since the Cold War has ended: China has followed those principles. France has conformed to those principles. Russia has maintained those principles. Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Netherlands ... Let's see ... even Algeria, Chile, Argentina, Benin, Mexico, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Guinea, Romania, Tanzania, Bulgaria, and Cameroon - nations on or recently members of the Security Council have endorsed and practiced such principles. So where is instability created? Which Security Council member has violated those principles that create world peace?
The US has even condoned - by inaction - the proliferation of nuclear arms by an ally (Pakistan). The US even proposes to reward India for violating the NPT. So you tell me which nation(s) has created instability? Which nation has made it necessary for Iran to build weaspons of mass destruction - especially nuclear arms? Which nation has only in the last five years done things to create world instability - to violate the principles on which world peace and stability were maintained? Which nation has all but declared it will invade Iran without justificiation and probably without even a declaration of war?
Once upon a time, the US was a benchmark for the principles of world stability. Now even the US Vice President wants parts of the US government exempt from restrictions on torture. Name a member of the UN Security Council who imprisions and tortures prisoners for years without even due process? Name a nation who creates a new category of human just so that fundamental human rights can be intentionally violated? Name a nation who does this openly and with contempt for the world?
Careful where you throw stones these days. That evil empire that one throws stones at may simply be the mirror image of US. Only the naive would think American unpopularity in Argentina is an isolated case. The United States people - which would be a majority of those in the Cellar - have even advocated the use of torture. When was the last time you heard Americans demand that Gen Miller submit to court martial?
After three years, only some are finally admitting a lesson from 30 years ago in Vietnam - "we have met the enemy and he is US". Most Americans still will not demand prosecution of top administration officials who advocated and condoned torture - often of people who we now know were not guilty. My god. The president even lies about the levees in New Orleans. Hundreds die as a result. Americans don't even demand impeachment? Americans can die. Yet that is not as evil as putting a penis in the wrong mouth? Please let me know when American principles become perverted?
What was Dr Zimbarto's famous psychology experiment in Stanford U suppose to demonstrate? Did we not learn? Apparently not. Americans have endorsed even torture as acceptable. The American president has declared an intent to 'fix' Iran. Why then should Americans expect to the world to act according to American decrees? An Iran that was not building nuclear weaspons would only be an enemy of Iran.
What is happening in Iran is quite simple as demonstrated by millenia of human history. It only gets tricky when one uses extreme right wing political perspectives which means ignore lessons of history to promote "god's" agenda. Eliminate the extremist perspective and suddenly the whole thing becomes simple. This is why Kennedy kept asking his advisors, "But what is he thinking? What does he see? What is he being told?" You exist only because Kennedy insisted on seeing another's perspectives - what right wing extremists such as Gen Curtis LeMay refused to do. Do as Kennedy did to appreciate why it is not tricky. It's all quite predictable because of an agenda originally defined by the Project for a New American Century.