Attack the messenger, not the message....

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

Crooks can be bought- they don't answer to a "higher authority" that would have them senslesly engage in a war they can't win.

Israel - their our front line defense against the middle east. and their NOT bogged down by politics or the stinking media.

All democracies deserve nukes. Even the socialist ones.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

just ask the Japanese

only the usa.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

Naturally, the only 100 per cent fail safe deterrant is universal nuclear disarmament. The correct and just policy therefore is to encourage multilateral nuclear disarmament through diplomatic channels. Dano appears to confuse 'stability' with the perpetuation of the existing US socio-political and economic hegemony in the world. There are not many people outside the US orbit of influence who will be reassured about the 'stable' nature of US foreign policy discourse, particularly if your historical memory and real life experience happens to extend as far back as Hiroshima and Nagassaki. So opining caution upon others from a nation who has been the only nation in history to have ever used nuclear weapons is not reassuring if your socio-political and economic worldview happens to challenge the hegemonic view.

In my view, the US and her allies ought to be leading by example in the area of nuclear retrenchment. But instead what we see is the US and her allies flexing their muscles. Consequently this sends out the message to the rest of the world that it is ok for us, the 'good guys', to continue a policy of proliferation, but you, the 'bad guys', need to back off. These are the double standards that those outside the US orbit rightly find hard to swallow. Dano refers to 'unstable nations' without any sense of irony. An uncomfortable truth that American's are going to have to come to terms with, is that the most unstable nation in terms of its polarization of the world through a foreign discourse of pre-emptive attack, is Uncle Sam.

What is true is that Iran, unlike the US for example, is politically an 'internally' unstable nation. However, leaving aside the fact that constant US meddling in Iran's internal affairs over the years has been a contributory factor in furthering this instability, Iran neverthless remains exclusively an INTERNALLY unstable nation. The reality is that Iran has not, other than in self defence, attacked any other nation for approximately 300 years.

Now consider the context in which she finds herself in today: Iran finds herself being threatened militarily and diplomatically by the US. Rhetorically the US frequently uses the words of war against her and sails menacingly around her territorial waters. Naturally, no nation on earth is able to threaten the US in this way without recourse to either retaliatory threats of violence or actual use of violence. Which then beggars the question of how American's would feel if the boot was on the other foot so to speak - in other words, if Iran happened to be the the world's greatest nuclear power and America was the nation who was being threatened, how would American's feel? One thing is for sure, America would rightly argue under such circumstances, that it must be her right too to be given the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any impending attack upon her.

But as things stand, Iran isn't asking the 'international community' (code for the 5 permanenant members of the UN Security Council) for the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons, rather she has shown amazing restraint. For example, Iran has also been threatened by the only power in the middle-east that ACTUALLY has the capability of wiping her off the map - the US proxy in the region, Israel - which has in its possession approximately 200 nuclear weapons. Add to this the fact that Israel refuses to be a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) but Iran has signed up, and things start to get really surreal.

So let's think this through for one minute: Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT is threatened by the international community (ie the US and her allies) for its alleged intention to develop nuclear weapons (no actual evidence exists to support this), but Israel which actually does possess hundreds of nuclear weapons is rewarded by the international community for doing so. Israel, having then threatened Iran, has the capability to wipe her off the map, but Iran has not threatened Israel and anyway, even if she did, they would be empty words, because she doesn't actually have the CAPABILITY to do so.

Now, most of you are probably spitting bile into your soup reading this. What? But the Iranian president DID say that he wanted 'Israel wiped off the map' didn't he? The answer to that question however is 'NO'. What he actually said, as any farsi speaker will confirm, was this:

"Zionism, as an ideology, like communism and fascism, should in my opinion, be wiped from the pages of history."

This meaning is totally different to claiming that one wants Israel wiped off the map. Nevermind, the Zionist propaganda machine was in full swing following his speech, and the words attritubed to him by the Zionist press and its apologists, never left the Iranian President's lips. How do I know this? Because his lips moved and the words came out. Yes, you see, I am conversant with the farsi language.

Nobody .

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

I agree. First we get everyone else to disarm, then we disarm ourselves.


I do not trust non-democracies to adhere to diplomatic agreements on their own. Diplomacy is therefore insufficient.



The alternatives are worse. Both for us and for them.

But in any event, I do not accept the governments in control of them as their legitimate representatives. There is not a single non-democracy on this planet that is a legitimate representative of its people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the result of an aggressive war waged on the US...not the result of an attempt at US conquest.


...in self defense...


Reassurance is irrelevant....you have just explained exactly why diplomacy will never work. And in doing so, have supported my own solution as the only viable alternative.



Why? Why is it our obligation to make ourselves vulnerable first?


The double standards don't apply to just the US. Which democracy has the US opposed where gaining nuclear weapons is concerned? Can you name even one?



The answer is irrelevant...Non-democracies have no right to exist anyway. That is the real double standard. The Iranian government is not subject to the will of the Iranian masses, and therefore are little more than criminals. We don't sympathize with criminals.


Your personal reassurances that Iran will not engage in a war of conquest or an aggressive war of annihilation are insufficient.


As a democracy, such a statement would have merit coming from America. But non-democracies dont deserve the same rights as democracies. By their very nature they are criminals...oppressing the masses.


We trust Israel not to engage in wars of conquest or annihilation. We do not trust Iran to do the same. Because Iran is not answerable to it's own people, and is capable of anything.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The leadership in most of the Middle East counties is either too unstable or hate filled towards Israel and the U.S.A

<<


Against America? And the leaders!? The leaders are the most pro american in the world!

Name some countries who is against america?

They are against Israel, yes, but america! NO!
And when you say america, do you mean the government ore the people of united states?

I dont think that poeple in the middle east hates the american people!