by Starman » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:43 pm
God-DAMN Goddamn GoddAMN !!!<br><br>The hypocrisy here is just over-the-top insane. It's like a never-ending treadmill of idiocy, double-standards, contemptuous arrogance, stupidity, reckless posturing, and aggressive irresponsibility.<br><br>The US has consistently sabotaged Iranian arms-limitation proposals, as well as confounding all efforts towards European negotiation and compromise -- while falsely claiming it is 'committed' to diplomacy.<br><br>The point is -- all those self-absorbed brain-dead Republican apologists who support Bush's corrupt, duplicious and inherantly traitorous administration, stubbornly fixated on warmongering, are essentially complicit in sacrificing American security and placing the world's people at risk of global conflict. Global Justice and Peace MUST begin in one's own country -- That the US cannot, will not acknowledge the undeniable fact of its having illegally --and unwisely-- interfered for most of the last fifty years in the domestic political and economic affairs of most of the Middle East's sovereign nations causing untold suffering and death, and directly provoking reactionary regimes in response, is an unambigious sign of America's failed leadership.<br><br>I would suggest that before the US condemn Iran for having unacceptable nuclear ambitions, that the US must first make a thorough and complete accounting for uts role in fomenting civil conflict, organizing coups, illegally arming and supporting brutal, danagerous regimes, endorsing and encouraging the murder of many tens of thousands of political 'undesireables', ie., suspected Communists, provoking regional and covert tensions and mounting secret false-flag terrorist ops to keep Arab nations from organizing a cohesive alliance of shared interests, and supporting brutal autocrats. Head of the list must be the war-criminal Brezinski (sp?), followed by Kissinger and most if not all the US's presidents since Eisenhower, and including many of the nation's top officials in the Dept. of State, Pentagon, Attorney General, and Presidential Cabinets. But of course, that's not likely to happen. Instead, US sword-rattling and duplicious posturing distracts attention from failed leadership and lack of courage and imagination.<br><br>The Us COULD withold the many billions of dollars in cash and loans and grants and military equipment it (we) gives Israel every year until Israel either disarms its nuclear arsenal OR agrees to be bound by Nuclear oversight regs, thus showing committment to a policy of peace and diplomacy instead of conflict in the region.<br><br>But inexplicitly, American policymakers seem committed to pursuing a very dangerous and troubling course that threatens further escalation of tension and conflict.<br>Nutz.<br>Starman<br>***<br><br>From:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0224-24.htm">www.commondreams.org/views05/0224-24.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Iran Nuclear Program Creates a Furor Likely to Be Futile <br>by Stephen Zunes <br>Feb. 24, 2005<br>--excerpt--<br>Indeed, whatever the extent of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whatever the outcome of the ongoing talks, the United States is in a poor position to take much leadership in the cause of nonproliferation. <br><br>Throughout the 1970s, the U.S. government encouraged American companies to sell nuclear reactors to the Iranian government, then under the dictatorial rule of the shah. Even more so than the mullahs now in power, the shah’s megalomania led many to fear his ambitions to divert the technology for military purposes. <br><br>Despite the subsequent rise of an anti-American regime in that country, the United States is still obligated under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow signatory states in good standing to have access to peaceful nuclear technology. <br><br>At the same time, given Iran’s enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, valid questions can be raised as to why it would need a nuclear energy program, particularly given the enormous expense and serious environmental risks of such technology. <br><br>Even if we are to assume that Iran desires nuclear weapons, however, it would be a mistake to assume that the Islamic Republic would use them for aggressive designs. Indeed, the Iranians may have good reasons to desire a nuclear deterrent: In early 2002, Iran was among three countries -- the others being Iraq and North Korea -- labeled by President George W. Bush as part of “the axis of evil.” Iraq, which had given up its nuclear program over a decade earlier and later allowed IAEA inspectors back in, was invaded and occupied by the United States. By contrast, North Korea, which reneged on its agreement and has apparently resumed production of nuclear weapons, has not been invaded. The Iranians may see a lesson in that. <br><br>In addition, soon after coming to office, the Bush administration decided to unfreeze its nuclear weapons production and launch a program to develop smaller tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use. It is important to remember that the only country to actually use nuclear weapons in combat is the United States, in the 1945 bombings of two Japanese cities, a decision that most American political leaders defend to this day. <br><br>Furthermore, the U.S. government is allied with Pakistan, which borders Iran on the east, and possesses nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems. The United States is also a strong ally of Israel, located just 600 miles to the west, which has the capability of launching a nuclear strike against Iran with its long-range missiles in a matter of minutes. <br><br>This is not to say that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a matter of concern. Over two decades ago, America’s Catholic bishops recognized that possessing nuclear weapons, even for the sake of deterrence, was immoral. Many Islamic scholars have reached similar conclusions. <br><br>It is important to note, however, that Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone for the entire Middle East, where all nations of the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and weapons programs and open up to strict international inspections. They have been joined in that effort by Syria as well as by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt. <br><br>The Bush administration has rejected such a call, however, insisting that the United States has the right to decide which countries get to have such weapons and which ones do not, effectively demanding a kind of nuclear apartheid. <br><br>Not only are such double standards unethical, they are ineffective: Any effort to impose a regime of haves and have-nots from the outside will simply make the have-nots try even harder. <br><br>The only realistic means of curbing the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is to establish a region-wide program for disarmament in which all countries -- regardless of their relations with the United States -- must be a part. <br><br>And, ultimately, the only way to make the world completely safe from the threat of nuclear weapons is the establishment of a nuclear-free planet, for which the United States, as the largest nuclear power, must take the lead. <br><br>Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
