The Iranian Connection; or Life with a Nuclear Iran
Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 8 months ago to Politics
I wondered why BO's foreign policy seems to be so biased towards Iran; his seeming appeasement of Iran by not having an American presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan--I believe he's afraid of offending Iran, and also how he always appears to back Hamas over Israel. I call him the turncoat ally.
(He has alienated our allies and appeased our enemies to the point where we no longer have allies, only enemies.) At any rate, I've found out that his closest advisor is Valerie Jarrett, who was born and lived in Iran until she was 5.
The two of them appear not to understand that a nuclear Iran is a threat. I guess they believe that Iran just wants to live in peace with the rest of the world. Maybe that's after they eliminate Israel.
(He has alienated our allies and appeased our enemies to the point where we no longer have allies, only enemies.) At any rate, I've found out that his closest advisor is Valerie Jarrett, who was born and lived in Iran until she was 5.
The two of them appear not to understand that a nuclear Iran is a threat. I guess they believe that Iran just wants to live in peace with the rest of the world. Maybe that's after they eliminate Israel.
You can already see how this administration has tried to use Hama and world opinion against Israel. If the world cannot live with a Jewish state, then, I say, woe to the world!
(There's no foreign policy post; maybe we're just not that interested in the rest of the world, and its effect on us, or Atlantis, or the Gulch. We should be, as trade is so important in Objectivism)
My husband and I lived almost four years in Iran in the last days of the Shah, when the U.S. was busily transferring technology--electronic and nuclear--to build up Iran's energy systems even while Iran was still very rich in oil deposits. Nuclear reactors were not intended or designed for weapons-grade use, only energy.
When the Iranians kicked out our puppet, the Shah, in 1979, along with American influence, and held 52 Americans hostage so as to prevent another coup by America to reinstate the Shah, they pissed off the U.S., who then encouraged Iraq's Saddam Hussein to start the 8-year-long Gulf war against Iran. We helped and supplied Saddam in this campaign. We released a genie from a bottle and opened a Pandora's box, and the troubles have only grown.
Naturally, we won't ever admit to having done any wrong in our various attempts to overthrow other countries.
Iran has not aggressed against, attacked nor invaded any countries in centuries. Even their verbal bluster against Israel is not to be taken as intended actions. Iran wants peace and respectful trade. It wants nuclear energy to generate electricity, not to make nuclear bombs. Assassinating their scientists and planting viruses in their computers were acts of pointless paranoia.
As for world opinion about Israel, it is well known that the U.S. supports Israel 100%, no matter the rhetoric, and Israel knows this. I just got back from a 3-week trip around Europe, and I can tell you that the Europeans are quite capable of forming their own opinions, and they are not favorable towards Israel and, by association, Jews in general, because of the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. The dark shadows of the Nazi era are beginning to crawl out of the woodwork. Israel's heavy-handed policies in occupied territories are going to bode ill for the Diaspora. Iran is the least of their worries.
Take a look at a map and see the size of Iran compared to other countries in the region. Do you really think America should start yet another war front and bombing spree there? Aren't Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and Syria enough? Instead of making more enemies, we should pursue diplomacy and peace-making. We have way too much blood on our hands now.
And if our main concern is the protection of Israel, that can be achieved far better by bringing about peace and forming trading partners than by creating ever more enemies and resistance fighters, ever more sanctions, sieges and destruction.
When we attack and invade a country, those who fight back in self-defense and resist us are not terrorists, no matter how often we call them that. They are freedom fighters, as we once were against the British. Where is our conscience?
They call us Satan in Kindergarten but we should just let that slide.
They openly declare their hostility at every turn.
They actively support our enemies and threaten our friends.
They rejoice at our misfortune.
Why, exactly, should THEY get a pass on that? Why should ANYONE? Why shouldn't that count?
If WE behaved in such a manner, would THEY be equally confused about out intentions?
Or would they understand them only too well?
Apologist's like yourself have excused the open threats of every sadistic @sshole in history - even as millions died.
No.
When such a nation claims they have no interest in nuclear weapons - though their nearest Great Enemy has at least a score, and We - the Great Satan, Himself, have many thousands...
When such a nation - almost poor but awash in cheap oil - claims they need dual-purpose nuclear technology for ultra-expensive nuclear power...
I Don't Believe Them.
AND NEITHER DO YOU.
You're not a fool.
You just believe they're ENTITLED to it.
The bomb.
Don't you, PuzzleLady?
----------
And no, though you may be a Producer, your position is not shared by many Objectivists.
Evil must be confronted.
War is not the answer to every conflict - but confrontation is morally required.
I don't claim to be a mouthpiece for OBJ's but I think my view is probably closer to Orthodoxy in this matter.
1. I don't want trouble to follow me to the Gulch
2. I've decided to take the debate-fight-war to the liberals, the distaff side of American politics---literally and figuratively.
If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, you might join me--it is a jungle on OPP!
However, I will think about PuzzleLady's post and see if I can find a convincing counter-argument.
Sometimes, people will find any justification for not wanting to see reality,
If someone's offensive, bar them. If they just disagree all the time - well, that's half of what this is all about isn't it?
Good luck to you.
Although I've prepared an answer for PL, I'm not going to post it. Make what you will of that, but I have my reasons, one being that I'm beginning to think that, at this point, it may be futile to try to convince others of the irrationality of their "received" beliefs, especially when it prevents their fears from surfacing.
But there is this analogy from history (and only an analogy): 1930's Nazi Germany, when, not only, (in David Gerrold's words), did "millions of
Germans listen to a deranged paperhanger", but the rest of the world refused to believe that Hitler meant what he said. Well, Churchill believed him, but Churchill was considered a warmonger by the rest of the world.
Again, thanks.