and then, on 09 January 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:
If I understand Aquatus1 the point is not whether the behavior is just or unjust but rather that it is the nature of those with power to influence, coerce even control those without as much power. In short it's just human nature. And to your point - YES Americans would be upset if they were being controlled by foreign powers but today that isn't the reality. Tomorrow, who knows. Sanctions are the least destructive means left to attempt to curb behavior that is NOT conducive to peaceful coexistence in the region. Iran's rhetoric lead to this outcome. If A'jad had not repeatedly denied the holocaust, demonized Israel and made reference to cleansing the region of this stain(paraphrasing) then the international community would never have imposed sanctions - it's just bad for business. This process has been ongoing for years and still Iran insists on it's rights while hiding and sheltering it's means of enriching fuel. If bombing their facilities will delay them testing a nuke for a couple of years then it's worth it IMO. The aftermath will probably be a nightmare but NOT to act would be worse.
It's remarkable how one can think that sharing a region with nuclear rogues and being surrounded by foreign military powers who also have nuclear weapons is only conducive to peaceful coexistence so long as one doesn't have the bomb! I'd love to read that thesis:
How nuclear deterrence isn't nuclear deterrence. With that kind of logic, we should give away all of our nukes to Brazil, Columbia and Cuba and be at peace, but with the foreign bungling Iran has been putting up with for the past 60 years they're little likely to give up anything. Threats of war and acts of war aren't going to change that but to reinforce it.
Everyone's an upstart before they're not. While it's the people who always rule in the end, seeing that governments not grant special treatment to big business (too big to fail) and other countries by virtue of their nuclear status is the least we should do in the meantime. We've shown the world that there's a way to tolerate and negotiate with nuclear powers and a way to bully and refuse to negotiate with non-nuclear powers. It's probably too late to save face with Iran; they've caught that drift. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and other powers will aspire to and eventually achieve nuclear bombs no matter how big our self-destructive temper tantrums get over it. By destroying Iran's nuclear energy facilities we'd probably delay their acquisition of the bomb no matter what their intent, and preempting suppositional threats seems to be good enough for the war mongers to make their cases politically over the past 10 years. I say probably because suppose they get angry we attacked them and buy a few nukes from Pakistan? Shouldn't someone get some bandaids to cover for that supposition too? Ushering in a, as you call it, "probable nightmare" that's worth no longer being scared of another pack of lies.
Let's explore one of the lies here, specifically the nonsense that Ahmadinejad repeatedly denies the Holocaust.
The Holocaust didn't happen...in the Middle East. The media never finishes the sentence. Ahmadinejad has provided explanations numerous times but the punditry is more interested in propagating lies for the masses to believe than informing the public and telling the truth. If rhetoric is the reason for sanctions then there is no reason. Ahmadinejad never repeatedly denied the Holocaust. The media repeatedly claims that he did.
The Holocaust didn't happen...to Jews only. Hitler exterminated between 10 and 11 million civilians of which about half were Jewish. Why should we only remember half? Nazis were abhorrent bigoted fascists but why should their bigotry against Jews monopolize our understanding of the Holocaust? Is it because dead Jews are the scapegoats who attend to a certain nationalistic movement that we must be goaded into supporting? Or is the better reason to remember the horrors of the Holocaust to assure that we don't tolerate cases where a state violently imposes power over innocent peoples' lives that it considers less worthy than other groups it prefers? When Gypsies get evicted from their homes in the 21st century, when Gays aren't allowed to marry, why don't we evoke the Holocaust to voice our opposition over that? Mind you, I'm not pushing for any homeland here, I'm merely asking for equal treatment under the law. What in the blazes would happen if Jews couldn't get married somewhere?
We don't have to agree with Ahmadinejad's statements or even appreciate that he likes to ask about the details such as where the Holocaust happened or who the Holocaust happened to. It's so much easier to spread BS that he denies it than to listen to his questions, much less ask our own. And what of Holocaust memorials that aren't held in Iran? Is it alright to ask politically incorrect questions at those? Are they "denying it" just for talking about it too?
2
