Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Noam Chomsky: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear
Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application of Non-Proliferation Treaty
Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. "No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons." But to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than international condemnation. Chomsky's reputation as a prolific author of books on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international relations. His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.
Noam Chomsky speaks in Harvard's Memorial Church (Photo/Haris Sair) Speaking at Harvard's Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama '91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. "If they're not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy." The problem, said Chomsky, is the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its noncompliance with United Nations mandates. "Hostile actions of the United States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran's decisions of whether or not to develop a nuclear deterrent."
In Chomsky's eyes, Security Council Resolution 1887, which was strongly endorsed by President Obama, calls upon all nations to peacefully participate in the international regimes for nonproliferation. The resolution encourages nations to develop civilian nuclear technology, while stressing the need for conformity to the IAEA's inspection system, and Chomsky said that the inclusion of language about peaceful action was primarily directed at the United States and its veiled threats that, "We must keep all options open." Indeed, with its nuclear missile submarines positioned within striking distance of Iran, Chomsky estimates that there is effectively no chance that Iran would ever use a future nuclear weapon for offensive purposes. But he warned, "The threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent."
The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States is entirely absurd to Chomsky in light of the widespread acceptance of the rights of Iranians to develop civilian nuclear technology. He sees the cult of American Empire in the government's condemnations of Iran for refusing to follow the demands of the international community, because the definition of "international community" used in such rhetoric amounts to little more than the opinion in Washington, D.C. and among its allies. He cited to the hypocrisy of the U.S. position in its historical relationships with the three nations that did not ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan. These three nations, said Chomsky, have all received nuclear technology from the United States in violation of security council resolutions, but most Americans would not realize this, given the pro-government bias of the media.
Essentially, Chomsky believes that President Obama's foreign policy has embodied a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush's second term in office. But he believes we are fortunate to be living in a time when the anti-war movement is much stronger than it was during the 1960's. He recalled a demonstration he was involved in during 1965, when state police violently dispersed a crowd from Boston Common. The next day, the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, denounced the protesters. Just three years later, following the Tet Offensive, public sentiment had moved enough that protests became common, but he ascribed this to a growing sentiment on Wall Street that the country had paid too high a price in Vietnam. Looking back at the lessons of that war, Chomsky said that the United States had essentially achieved its goal of "innoculating" the region from the domino-theory chain reaction by 1970 by installing dictators in neighboring countries and helping Suharto come to power in Indonesia.
Prize-winning journalist Amy Goodman noted in her introduction of Chomsky that he had played a crucial role in bringing the attention of the world to the oppression of the people of East Timor by Indonesia. She recounted the beatings and massacres she witnessed while traveling there as a journalist, as well as the elation when the nation achieved independence. "This nation of survivors had prevailed. They had resisted, and they had won." Chomsky, when speaking about activism and civil disobedience, stressed the need for determined persistence. "You're not going to win tomorrow. You are going to have a lot of defeats, but you have to keep at it."
103 Comments so far
Show AllAgreed. Do we have the time for any more defeats against this devouring machine? How many more must die or continue to live under American/Corporate Capitalist oppression?
On what evidentiary basis does Chomsky base his claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons? I can agree with his conjecture that, given the constant threats to Iran by Israel and the US, they might want to pursue them. If I were in their position, I might want to as well. But the fact remains that NO EVIDENCE has been shown to support this claim, nor does he bother to present any. All the MSM hype and hysteria has been only that, hype and hysteria. As well as spin and fact-twisting. Chomsky does us no favor by making such statements as these. He effectively corroborates the lies of the corporate media, and adds grist to the warmongers' mill.
The article is a liar, for Chomsky has always argued convincingly that Iran has no desire or present ability to build nuclear weapons.
Chomsky said, "If they're not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy."
Chomsky meant: Great courage has Iran, defying the all-powerful Empire USA without a nuclear missile to prevent first-strike disaster.
uhhhh --- Clovis, I am on your side, but going back at least to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been convincing evidence that the Iranians were involved in attempting to procure highly enriched uranium-----
Care to provide a link or bibliographical reference to some of this evidence? Why are informed people like Ray McGovern, Mohammad El Baradei, and Scott Ritter unaware of this "evidence?"
Of course, as we have come to expect, Chomsky is right on the button. American Empire is breeding nuclear proliferation just as it is terrorism. Nations see themselves, rightly, as threatened by an out of control country desperate to hold on to its position as the super-power.
Too many are the causes for this situation to list here, though (as WORLDPEACE sagely points out) the feudal corporate state and capitalism itself are surely much to blame.
Gary
"Liberty cannot be caged into a charter or handed on ready-made to the next generation. Each generation must recreate liberty for its own times. Whether or not we establish freedom rests with ourselves."
-- Florence Ellinwood Allen
Post by GD_GoodMan:
"Liberty cannot be caged into a charter or
handed on ready-made to the next generation.
Each generation must recreate liberty for its own times.
Whether or not we establish freedom rests with ourselves."
-- Florence Ellinwood Allen”
Very true, but why must it be so? Why when a majority go for liberty, lay down a great many their life and finally win liberty, why must the next generation be again enslaved and the insanity that follows be nothing more then a repeat of bad history?
Why is it that the majority cannot see that this day of life is more then they deserve? Why is it they feel cheated by never quite having what they deserve, and with a clear conscience strive to take all they can take? Why is it such a self-absorbed maddening crowd actually feels guilty if ever they miss an opportunity to take all they can take?
By intelligent design to prove the harm in it, I would say,
the eye witness knowledge of facts that will forever keep
us out of harm’s way.
For discovering functional avenues of behavior it's best to focus on the How's rather then the Why's. For every person in every instance there is a different Why; it's still tricky but with the how we can at least focus on the variables that are common across humanity and thus spot the points of departure toward the building and using of nuclear weapons, and other catastrophic forms of war.
By focusing and ground oneself in the How, fantastical thinking can be minimized toward a functional pool of imagined options. With a predominance of Why you come up with "intelligent design to prove the harm in it". If one if organically attuned to the How, the experience of Madame Curie, the Japanese, the Iraqi's, the Afghans, those living within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor, Chernobyl, Reichian scientists measuring the vitality of Earth atmosphere all "prove the harm in it" -- and become part of the argument for forming new behavior; it would be great if Chomsky fused his argument with Coldacott's.
With a focus on the How one also gains a leg up on actualizing a viable solution, as the same human components of the How of one behavior will be used to carry out the How of a new behavior.
Harvard Law Record
“Chomsky... His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons”
Quite the reverse, for quite many are the Chomsky’s videos and articles which argue convincingly that Iran most probably has no desire or present ability to build nuclear weapons.
But whether Iran is into nuclear weapons or not, just as the courage of Venezuela has stopped Empire USA dead in its tracks, so has the courage of Iran kept our colony Israel shaking in its boots. For unless I miss my guess, Israel is a paper tiger, with nuclear weapons only on paper.
Your point is well taken, here and above. One could infer, then, that the "Harvard Law Record," for whatever reason, decided to impute to Chomsky a point he never made. One would also need to see the text of Chomsky's talk to see whether this is true or not. As co-author of "Manufacturing Consent," in any case, one would think Chomsky could see through the lies and distortions of those who have been beating the war drums for an attack on Iran. Do you or does anyone else posting here have any way to find out what Chomasky actually said?
The article does, however, attribute directly to Chomsky the statement that: ""No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons."
This sentence, which may well be taken out of context, could nevertheless be seen as justifying all the threats and sabre-rattling, even if Chomsky hadn't intended it so.
And since the possession of a nuke by Iran would preclude any and all of the current belligerence on the part of the US-Israel-EU axis, I have difficulty seeing any validity in such a statement, even though I do not believe, on the basis of evidence, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No one in their right mind? Iran hasn't aggressed anyone for over a century! Surely nukes in the hands of loose-cannon states like Israel and Pakistan are far more worrying? Perhaps the old professor is losing his edge a bit?
Truth-light, i'm not sure what you mean about nuclear weapons only on paper, israel-wise. Unless you are saying they won't use them.
Mordechai Vanunu, the whistle blower who worked in the plant that made the weapons is rather famous world wide as is his story.
One of the many things I love about Chomsky is that he is very much the pragmatist. Some of the comments here seem a little silly to me. Of course no one wants to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. There are far to many nations with far too many nukes already. But, it's equally true that they're crazy not to consider gaining there own nuclear deterrent.
I'll read the article presently; but, what an apalling stage, adorned with jingo-arrogance, for the anti-imperialist Chomsky to be made to speak from!
If the old Soviet Union or the present China didn't have nuclear weapons, both would've been invaded by the US a long time ago, we don't need a rocket scientist to conclude Iran needs the weapons, Mr. Chomsky.
Iran is correct to pursue them, who the hell is the US to tell the rest of the world what to do, when their partners in crimes against humanity, Israel, right next door to Iran, possesses more nuclear weapons and violates more UN resolutions than the rest of ME combined?
And the title of the article is: "Noam Chomsky: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear"
Chomsky within the article: "If they're not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy."
The interpretive title contradicts the quote in the article. An example of poor journalism.
What seems clear, at least to me, is that Iranians, quite sensibly, would not be unhappy to have a robust nuclear energy architecture that has the added benefit of allowing them to develop bombs in short order (months, not years), if the need arises. Japan, I believe, is in such a position.
To get to such a position, they need do nothing outside the npt. Demanding that Iran not have nuclear energy, that could in future be turned to weapons, is akin to demanding that Spain not have auto plants, for fear that they might be turned towards making tanks.
I don't see them taking the step to nuclear weapons in the future, unless they continue to be threatened themselves with attack (they aren't going to leave themselves exposed forever to nuclear blackmail) and the hundreds of millions of dollars Obama is spending on "regime change" in Iran will only hasten their resolve. Iranians would be foolish to actually use nuclear bombs, unless of course it is for in kind retaliation.
(something tells me that pictures of mushroom clouds over Iran will somewhat shift world opinion, especially Arab/Muslim opinion...I wonder what will happen to friendly US dictatorships?)
I can see why Biden and the Israelis had a "pow-wow". Once you have taken peace with your neigbours off the table, that doesn't leave you with good options, does it?
Even if one grants that Iran is a nation of thugs, can you blame them for wanting a deterrent; especially since they are sitting on billions and billions of $ in oil? That resource is coveted by Israel and the West, so put yourself in their shoes. Iran, being a Muslim Nation that is not subject to U.S. hegemony has been an anathema ever since they threw the evil,corrupt, quisling Shah out. Surreptitious bribery and CIA subterfuge to overthrow the Iranian Government has not worked so now the next step is phony sanctions, just like happened in Iraq and it is not the nuclear offensive threat ( which is a red herring) so much as the nuclear defensive threat that worries Israel and the West. The Iranians see what happened to their next door neighbor Iraq, when it was demonized as the bad guys and they know they are on that same radar screen now.
I agree except for the fact this nation is full of thugs also.
Boy do you have that right, Fennec!
Paul and Fennec - you described it well.
Joe
We have been pretending to reduce our stockpiles for years. It has to be one way or this way. Either no one has nuclear weapons or everyone one does. Some of you will be thinking oh but we can't trust those Iranians. Just remember we are the only one that has used them.
Very cogent reminder!
You are completely wrong about this. If you look at the anti-war movement before the Iraq war and compare it to the anti-war movement up until say... 1968 for Vietnam (which is ten years after we started getting involved!) I think you will find that Chomsky is correct in that the anti-war movement is greater today than it was in 1958-1968. Iraq is a horrid, horrid crime on many levels. But, compared to what we did in Vietnam it is nothing. No chemical warfare, no operation rolling thunder, no bombing every adjacent country!!! By being as active as we were before the war we prevented even worse atrocities. I can assure you the wet dream of the military for the middle east is to simply neutron bomb the population so that "our" resources then belong to "us", despite being under "their" lands. It could have been worse. That is all Chomsky is saying.
I think (and hope) you are wrong about the military wanting to use the neutron bomb in the Mid East. I have 'chatted' with several scum of the Earth types who would like nothing better. I trust this view is not common.
No chemical warfare, no operation rolling thunder, no bombing every adjacent country!!!
As far as the chemical warfare part, certainly you heard of the siege and massacre of Fallujah, right?
ardent 1, i agree. I had the same thought when chomsky said the peace movement is stronger now. It is the opposite. The 60's had spontaneity and vitality and energy. It may have been 'new', but so what? It was real.
For the past ten years at least, i have felt that every demonstration and vigil and march was choreographed and became part of the landscape. Same old same old. Staying inside the designated routes and barricades.
It simply is a different era. Maybe the protestors were criticized in the 60's, but at least they got covered. It was relevant. During the past decade they weren't even mentioned. Only those of us who were involved even knew they were happening. And if it was mentioned nationally, it was as a joke on jon stewart's show, where the large puppets were the main attraction.
What has passed for a 'movement' was a large percentage of people who just didn't happen to like bush and cheney. They were democrats, who, once obama was elected, were silent again.
same thoughts too
The spread of nuclear weapons can't be stopped, only slowed down. The aim of non-proliferation should be to buy time while humanity works together to achieve the abolition of war as its primary means of doing business.
The common premise that non-proliferation can totally stop the spread of nuclear weapons is utterly idiotic. Every human invention has, over time, proliferated.
Is the abolition of war too idealistic a goal? Is the abolition of war totally impractical? If the answer is yes, then humans will become extinct, and soon. Too damn bad.
Those who argue against world peace as being impractical are, in effect, arguing in favor of the practicality of human self-extinction. They may have a point.
Iran (and many others) will obtain nuclear weapons in the long run. Israel and its bitch, the USA, are busily inflaming hatreds and animosities world-wide in preparation for the day that its newly-created enemies go nuclear (or bio-weapon). This garbage is what passes for a foreign policy among the super-geniuses at the State Department and the Pentagram.
I would expect one or more small nuclear wars this century, not human extinction.
Well, I can't fault you for being an optimist. Some people do tend to see the bright side of things! :)
The work of Joseph Campbell details forms of war behavior that are not genocidal and suicidal. A remarkable parallel is that of some North East American tribes that came up with "poetry slams" similar to those that were spawned in the American Ghetto once some of that population(s) realized that their form of gang war was suicidal and genocidal to their personal ethnic base.
Those who argue against world peace...have a schizoid crack that habituates them to fantastical excitement rather then natural pleasure cycles. Where animal species will fight until a certain point is made clear or formed, with some blood being spilled, they don't fight obsessive compulsively with no resolutions of the initiating frustration/irritation/conflict; and usually both warring parties, which doesn't include the whole "civilian" sector, as humans have now developed, both go on their peaceful way licking their wounds, and functioning in a new social order.
Resolutions are the natural ebb to the peace state which is now void from the human flow form. Before the human becomes fully domesticated there are fights on the play ground that go like this: opponent one hits opponent two...they look at each other, no matter how briefly, a measurement is made as to a resolution...no complete resolution and two hits one...measurement...resolution?...one hits two...this usually doesn't do on much farther then 3 or 4 rounds before a longer lasting peace state is resolved to along with a new social order, with many times one and two becoming life long friends.
While the rape victims on Okinawa might argue this point, in the collective the US and Japan are similarly friends like the playground fighters. Gratefully the Emperor in Japan overcame the fantastical excitement of organizing around the Sun God imagery, unfortunately the US, in the collective, is organizing around the fantastical excitement of American Exceptionalism rather then the depth experience of recognizing themselves and their opponents as more fully human.
With the engrained war and warrior archetype being so thorough in the predominance of western culture, I've found it fruitless to argue war vs. peace as an either or final solution. What I've found to be functional, including aesthetically so, is arguing with in the ebb and flow of war and peace frame work; as this pressures the conversation toward recognizing, on a fuller human level, the who's, the why's, and how's of the hitting and retaliatory hitting, as opposed to the current American Exceptionalism where the fantastical excitement of US good, them Evil prevails. While this accepts, in a way, the horrors of current war behavior, it also places, not anti-war, but peace as an accepted variable in the conversation; something that is sorely missing from so much of human interaciton.
Puck-Twain...are you illiterate or on drugs with a thesaurus handy?
Unfortunately, this is a result of what happens to me when I haven't deadened my energy flow with drugs: com-pulsed to the world peace vision and argument; that being the case, I could probable do much better for myself and others if I indeed did keep a thesaurus handy. Thanks for the idea.
Disarm the USA. We have been terrorizing third world countries for over a century; setting up puppet regimes; setting up corporate-controlled dictatorships; stealing oil and other natural reaources. Read your history books about US imperialism; it started in 1898 with the invasion and occupation of The Philippines.
RECENT development:
China has openly declared a new "support for" North Korea...
obviously this is part of countering the US "containment" policy towards china that the chinese never forget...and in response to the USA"s selling arms to Taiwan which china considers a province, similarly really to what was Hongkong under the british but is now back in china's fold when teh british finally honored the agreements since the 1950's to eventually return the british colony to its rightful owner.
same will happen with Taiwan ..and what exactly is the USA going to do about it? rattle swords against china?.
this is also the reason why a Chinese official in the 1970's privately told a US state official:
"finally.....we have arrived at the point where we can harm you as much as you can harm us....but you will not ever again threaten us as you did when we were much weaker in the 1950's...you will NOT do so because you will care more about your Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle -- more than we will care about Taipei".
which country STARTED and continued to Provoke the growth of the global Arms Race?
every american ought to know THAT one. and THAT will be the answer to American Empire - and its LISTS of "enemies" ....
"WE ARE A NATION of WAR and MONEY RACKETEERS and GANGSTERS for CAPITALISM...it has nothing to do with democracy, or freedom or justice....what we DO , is EVIL".
General Smedley Butler, US Marines, 1933.
incidentally China has long had big stocks of --- Neutron Bombs.
Too bad millions of innocent Koreans will starve to death since China feels a need to contain American influence. Then again China has a habit of killing millions of innocent people, AND IMPRISONING ANYONE WHO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT IT.
Before you Howard Zinn followers ride China's nuts, keep in mind there is no CD in China. Period, free speech is the one right that must exist to enforce any other right. Here you can rant about how the government is tainting drinking water with afrodisiacs to promote population growth. Or how Anarchist communism is the superb way to go. I personally know people who have been baned from the PRC for simply suggesting some small democratic reform. Not to mention the One Child Policy of that nation has caused a gendercide in which baby girls are intentionally strangled by mid-wifes during birth.
Taiwan wants to retain its independence, since it rather not see most of its citizens sent to re-education though labor camps. Now is that all that unreasonable, to not be apart of a nation that shits on basic rights on a daily bases. Think about Taiwan for a little bit, its a small, relatively insignificant island. Chinese nationalism is the only thing being hurt here. China's not going to do anything but be all pissed, fact is were already starting to outsource manufacturing to Viet Nam , Thailand, Cambodia , Hati and a host of other nations.
Whats going to happen when China's crappy export dependent economy starts to collapse. They need us more then we need them, period.
Or you can debate with me and argue freespeech is NOT essential to having any basic rights
The United WAR States never attack a Nation who has Nukes.
uh,,,Pakistan?
Good point.
But this may be the famous "exception that proves the rule" that I have heard of for so long and never seem to find. You see that the manner of attack is different and carefully measured.
On the face of things, at least, the US deals with and supports the nominal government of Pakistan while it murders a few individuals of an ethnically distinct group that sees itself as fairly independent from the centralized government.
The principle holds rather well, though someone should qualify the statement.
The US is really the only nation that should have nuclear weapons. We are the wise ones when it comes to the use of such devices.
In WW II when the US was fire bombing the cities of Japan, there were several that were not targeted. These were being "saved" to be atom bombed so that it would be possible to determine just how much damage atomic bombs cause to cities. Remember these cities would probably fall under the category of collateral populations as news is reported currently.
If you ever go through Albuquerque, N. M., go through the atomic bomb museum at Kirkland Air Force Base. Ask to see weapons effects movies of the atomic bomb tests from years ago. It really shows what it means to be a terminator.
What is ironic is that the nuclear weapons technology enabled medical research to make giant steps in understanding biology.
WORLD RECORD -- DOUBLE INVASION
Iran being now labeled the most anti-US nation in the Middle East, Venezuela just called by goddess war-hawk Hilary, “the most anti-US nation in South America,” flip a coin between the two is our best guess as to which our Empire invades next.
But then, Disaster Capitalism being such a sacred cow, what a grand and awesome thing it would be, a world record surely, a double invasion simultaneously.
NEXT -- you will see the USA adding "china the most anti-us nation" the more china brandishes ITS own swords and flexes its muscles -- and THEN
the USA will have met a "most anti-US nation" that is at least its match...
as a Chinese General said in the late 1980's to a state secretary official :
"finally -- we have reached a point where we can harm you as much as you can do to us...you are NOT going to ever threaten us again as you did in the 1950's...you will not do so because you will care more about your Los Angeles and Seattle and San Francisco than we would care about Taipei".
and THAT was in the late 1970's - 80's ...
so - the USA moves on with its "most anti-us nation" and "greatest threat to humanity" mantra against nations that it thinks still can't fight back......
typical of course.
incidentally -- Russia and INDIA just signed a renewed partnership deal.......
maybe the USA should ADD RUSSIA to the "most anti-usa nation" and "the greatest threat to humanity?"
keep adding to the list USA .....keep it up. and see where that gets you -- you'll soon have dozens of them on the list -- and end up with SOME just TOO BIG for your own throat to swallow.
at the rate the USA is playing this game of "so and so is the most vicious nation, the greatest threat , the most anti-american" --
the WORLD better put on a new FLAG FOR the USA declaring
MOST QUARRELSOME NATION ON EARTH!
Camus mentions a crack fascist special ops battalion in the Spanish Civil War that had as its flag the words, "Long Live Death!
RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRE USA
Gut issue being, if and when our Empire
has planet earth on the brink of World War Three,
either give up aggressive wars of glory or save humanity,
what will the final and last call by such an insane Empire be?
Two or three points.
As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956), I am acquainted at first hand of the horror of nuclear war. There will be no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war. Once an attack is unleashed, those with weapons will tend to use them out of fear (Are we next?) if not from a direct threat. Iran has several mutual assistance treaties with nuclear powers. Unless they are as gutless as Europe was in the 30's, when we allowed Hitler to take over one small country after another until Poland, they will respond to an attack on Iran.
Iran is not "a nation of thugs." I have known many Iranians in my life, and they were gentle, cultured people, who loved peace and justice. They even had a nationally elected man of peace, who was dedicated to bettering things for the Iranian people. Of course, we eliminated him through government sponsored subversion, just like Aristide in Haiti, Allende in Chile, the many attempts on Chavez in Venezuela, and many more. The three listed above were trying to get the wealth of the nation back in the hands of their own people rather than fattening the coffers of the oil, copper and fruit corporations who were raping the countries.
So far, there is no direct indication that Iran is pursuing development of a nuclear weapon. Even the US NIE and several other countries intelligence networks said they could find no evidence. That report was suppressed for a time, but when it came out, it was followed by the usual lies, to the effect that, "Well, they must be doing it, so we should strike first!!!"
Remember, it was "nuclear mushroom clouds" and vast stores of WMD's that convinced the American Sheeple that war was needed to suppress Iraq, ruled by one of our own CIA sponsored appointed dictators. He was "our boy," until he started playing with oil sales. Then, he had to go.
We are spreading our influence and our violence across the world like a noxious mold growing across a plate of food. As long as the rest of the world continues to appease us, the mold will continue to spread and contaminate the world.
Should you read the link below "A Nuclear Veteran Remembers," I did not, in that article discuss the fear I felt when I had radiation poisoning, only the horrifying nightmares I had for many years.
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/only-some-of-names-have-changed.html
We are not going to end this by saber rattling and destroying small countries and foreign cultures. We are going to have to learn empathy and compassion. Peace may be found across a bargaining table, but is never achieved at the point of a bayonet.
minitrue -- you are the first american ( i presume ) here and i have come across on somewhat "personal basis" as a fellow poster - and with your own experience of the nuclear experience -
having seen what the country has done to weaker nations for its global dominance and provoking everywhere that have consequences that are horrific and did NOT have to be so...
you are the first that i have see say something generous about the iranians.
I too have had one of my dearest and closest friends - a persian lady -
she is SO beautiful and so intelligent and accomplished (a composer, a classical pianist, a poet, a mathematician and architect) - with a beautiful boy ..and was once married to a member of a high-ranking ayatollah family . and i learned a bit about their culture , their arts, their LOVE ,unbelievably LOVE of poetry and music and anything artistic.
and above all - a very "persian" tendency to try diplomacy and SOFT speaking and discussion in order to solve problems.
anyone that can see films made in iran - whatever their regime controls - can see they are PEOPLE just like anyone. who love, who ache, who care, who nurture and simply are a PROUD people of a very , very old culture that - like self-respecting people anywhere do NOT LIKE to be dictated to by a foreign power.
and YES they have their opposing factions. in fact...opposed or contrasting enough with each other WITHIN THEIR society - that they can be said to have a society of vibrant differences and varieties NO different than that in the USA within ITS context. but that is something americans and the west simply will NOT understand -- that the REST of the world outside of the western concepts - is FULL, FAR, FAR richer than its own concept alone can even imagine or CONTEND with..and that the differences are perhaps TOO SUBTLE for the CRASS generalities that the west , -particularly the USA applies to the rest of the world.
I commend you - being an american -for SEEING that this is so. and that among persians there is a very, very rich and vibrant culture of its own of which THEY are very proud and, whatever THEIR current political reality is - IS THEIRS and THEIRS ALONE and NOT subject to dictates BY the USA or its western 'allies' trying to impose a global view of "order" that is centered and anchored around themselves.
people forget that before the CIA toppled the democratically elected and highly respected Mossadegh in the 1950's - instigated by the nephew of Theodore Roosevelt - Iran was already , in the middle east - the most advanced economy and democracy..which was in fact in keeping WITH its centuries of traditions of discourse, of intellectual and philosophical and artistic achievements.
people forget that in teh United nations Entrance lobby - stands the huge stone "constitution" created in persia by Darius the Great 3 thousand years ago - which was perhaps the very first "democracy" proclamation - predating THAT of the greeks themselves...
in which - after he conquered or subdued warring factions near persia and increased the land -
proclaimed this very constitution in which he declared:
"The people that have been conquered have the RIGHT to become independent nations -- so long as they no longer war upon us...if they wish they can remain within our Kingdom and pursue their own way of self-governance, so long as they also do not war upon the US...".
can you believe that? the right to SECEDE or be PART of the "empire" - so long as they desist from making more war - in which persia was often the "crossroads" of warring factions.
Iranians are among the most WARM , friendly people I have known...so polite, so interested in discussing matters of "LIFE" .
watch some of their films -- of daily lives, of love and betrayal, of marriage, of illness and death, of comedy and humor , of the country life, of the city life, and with a paritcular love for telling stories about CHILDREN -- and people will see -- these people are as human and warm and CIVILIZED as any.
Thank you, Teddy, for the warm response. Yes, the Persians are a lovely, warm and intelligent people. Most of the expats I know here in the States were exiled when the Shah and SAVAK ruled. Later, some were able to return at least to visit their homeland. All shared the dream of someday returning home.
My heart nearly breaks when I think of the archeological treasures which were still being uncovered and studied from ancient Babylon, when the American War Machine bulldozed it to construct ammunition bunkers, etc. Those records are no more. We have destroyed one ancient culture and are destroying another in Afghanistan. Now, like barbarians of old, we are prepared to destroy yet another, for loot, and to punish another nation for the (bad) example of standing up to us. US?
Keep in mind that Iran does have a history of waging war on other nations. I believe the last time was only about 500 or 600 years ago.
in my own opinion, you are stating precisely the reasons why the u.s. would want to destroy iran. It goes back to the "Shock Doctrine". The dessimation of civilized societies.
Walmart and Disney and Burger King is the goal. The homogenized planet. High culture is the enemy, in many ways. Sensitivity is the enemy. Insight is the enemy. Subtlty is the enemy. Creativity is the enemy. Aesthetics is the enemy.
It seems to me, that the goal is to deconstruct and demolish, and then to rebuild in the image of american consumerism and corporatocracy. The goal of the "Shock" is regression. Then the psyche is reconstructed by those who administered the shock. Individually or en masse.
That is how i see it, at least.
In my view your how of seeing gives to much credit, and thus empowerment, to those in the republic decisioning making positions of our democratic republic(in-corporated or not); and gives to little credit, and thus disempowerment, to those in the democratic information and election providing postions of the democratic republic.
My argument is Walmart and Disney are not the goal, but the current result of a summation of billions of human behaviors. A BlackwaterXe agent jacked up on steroids and 35 hour pills is not functioning under an organizing principle of Whoppers For All. They have an organizing principle, but it is much more biologically basic, personal and immediate then a mission statement of The Wonderful World Of Disney. Under thorough observation Eric Prince's, or any NeoCon sympathizer's, motivations would also be exposed as being much more basic and personal then the Noble Americana he espouses.
You came up with some key sign posts, as to how people are behaving, with sensitivity, creativity, subtlety, and aesthetics -- as it's the law of biological physics (see Weber-Fechner) to organize with sensitivity, creativity, and subtlety toward an aesthetic experience; with this phenomenon being contained in the ancient adage about the easy way and burden of light. Thus in my operations now these sign posts are not the enemy or friend but guides for realizing how far away someone is from optimal human functioning - regardless of their position in the republic:democratic spectrum.
Thus for the NeoCon Sympathizer's the sign posts are not the enemy but antagonists to their way of behaving. They don't go out to confront sensitivity or the aesthetic, but within a business meeting when subtlety or a certain level of creative flow transpires the NeoCon will become agitated. It is from this agitation that the sadistic outcome arises.
It is also from that scenario of agitation that the masochistic outcome arises. This holds true whether dealing with the mass scene or at the individual's coffee table. So, first it becomes a matter of recognizing the sign posts as you have done, but then the application of what to do with the recognition comes into play. By recognizing when and how those in the position of republic decision making are not following the laws of biological physics, one can react in a more timely fashion (hopefully within the specific press conference) with a more functionally direct argument. It thus goes, and should be with saying over and over, that by recognizing when and how those in the position of democratic information and election providing are not following the laws of biological physics, then in that scenario one too can react more timely and with a more functionally direct argument for keeping the process on track within and toward an aesthetic experience.
Cindy Sheehan and Thick Nhat Hanh fall under democratic providers...in their operations they become agitated, perhaps angry. As a response they hang the sign War Pig around their neck and walk around the White House shouting angrily. Cindy Sheehan fails to apply the laws of biological physics optimally: no, or little, sensitivity, subtlety, creativity...she continues making the same sign and issuing the same shouts...and makes complaints of being tired and alone. Thich Nhat Hanh applies the laws of biological physics with sensitivity, subtlety, creatively...he sees his opponents as human and in varying light while turning his angry shouts into various forms of red, white and black poetry: he issues odes of gratitude and, instead of complaining of being alone, seeks the solitude of pure nature -- choose for yourself where the optimal function and the aesthetic reside.