Threat of Iran War More Real: End the World for What? By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 12, 2008

2008-03-11 According to an article in Time Magazine online, the threat of war with Iran is becoming more real. It is true that the threat of World War III from U.S. President Bush was a level higher than the rhetoric so far, but Vice President Dick Cheney’s threat of “severe consequences” if Iran stays on its present course, and “we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon” is just a repetition of what they were saying well over a year ago, that they will stop at nothing to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and no option can be taken off the table.

The Time article got me thinking on something that I hadn’t before, I agreed that the hard-line fanatical regime shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, but upon further thought, Iran isn’t at the top of my list of dangerous countries.

We (Britain) gave Israel nuclear weapons, and plenty of them, and we (the West) are dead set against Iran getting them, to the point that the U.S. and Israel consider launching the first ever full blown nuclear attack to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, but let’s compare the two countries.

Neither the current, nor the previous Iranian Regime attacked another country, their only military action was in self-defence of Iraq’s attack. Israel has broken international law multiple times, in fact almost constantly under the current regime, whereas the only violation Iran can be accused of (UN resolutions against the nuclear program) is not actually a violation, they should be entitled to nuclear power as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory.

So why is Iran not entitled to a civilian nuclear program? I would rather see Iran with nuclear weapons than a nuclear attack launched to stop them from getting weapons — especially with the real possibility that China and Russia are waiting to pounce on an overstretched U.S. For me the chance of China and Russia supporting Iran is far greater than the chance of Iran using nuclear weapons, and potentially far more catastrophic for the human race.

Another reason thrown about by the U.S. administration is Iran’s openly defiant support of “terrorist organisations” talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The U.S. has a long history of supporting some of the most brutal terrorist organisations known to man, under their constantly number one policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. U.S. support of terror groups and groups opposing the government of the U.S. enemy of the day, have caused thousands of deaths when the brutal terror groups succeed in their U.S. shared aim of overthrowing the government and start murdering hordes of government supporters.

Among the most notable incidences of U.S. terror support is their support of the Contras rebels, which caused a massive scandal when it came to light that the U.S. was selling arms to its so-called enemy Iran and using the money to fund the Contras rebels in their battle against communism in Nicaragua. In that same battle against communism, and under the same President: Ronald Reagan, came the U.S.’ most notable support of terrorist groups. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the next generation of which is now battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan and are called terrorists, but then, because they were aiming their terror at the U.S.’ common enemy; the Soviets, they were hailed as freedom fighters by Reagan, who drowned them in money, hi tech weaponry and had the SAS in for scones and improvised explosive training for the rebels.

U.S. money was also used to build seminaries on the Afghan/Pakistan border, which the U.S. hoped would maintain a constant supply of brainwashed Muslims to bog the Soviets down and eventually beat them. Only problem is their aim worked a little to well, the seminaries are still churning out revved up Jihadi’s but now their heart is set on attacking the U.S. and everyone allied with them; in short the western world.

So, the U.S. is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world, and with the biggest nuclear arsenal, but because Iran supports two groups that are fighting against a U.S. ally, and so are automatically terrorists, then we must launch a nuclear war to stop Iran’s nuclear program on the off-chance they are intending to enrich uranium for weapons purposes.

I learned another interesting fact today, that Iran has one of the most democratic governments in the Islamic world, the people have far more say than those in U.S. allied Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Iraq have the promise of democracy, but factional rivalries cripple the government’s authority. Iranians have a major say in who runs their country, with the one problem being the vetting of candidates by non-elected clerics.

In closing, if you look at Iran’s record they are not the worst country or government in the world. Even if they do seek nuclear weapons, they know that their using them would result in total obliteration of Iran, I mean wiped off the map, and no chance of any kind of support from Russia and China. For me, the chances of Iran using any nuclear weapon they have are too slim to risk all out nuclear war between the world’s major powers; too slim to risk the end of the human race.
see

The Ant Man Exits: War Crime Accomplice Canned for Insufficient Groveling by Chris Floyd

New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely

‘Fox’ Fallon Fired – And we’re f*cked… By Justin Raimondo

Why Fallon’s Resignation is Frightening (video)

Fears of strike on Iran rise as Admiral Fallon quits by Chris Stephen

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran by Terry Atlas

Defense Sec Gates Announces Resignation of Admiral Fallon + More on Fallon’s Resignation

Crushing the Ants: The Admiral and the Empire by Chris Floyd

.

.

33 thoughts on “Threat of Iran War More Real: End the World for What? By Liam Bailey

  1. Pingback: NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law (video) « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: The Coming Uncertain War against Iran by Ramzy Baroud « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Beware an Attack on Iran by Prof. Marjorie Cohn « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Iran’s Conservatives Take Lead in Election, End Nuclear Negotiations By Liam Bailey « Dandelion Salad

  5. Paul,

    When I commented that Britain gave Israel nukes, I did so from memory, I read it somewhere ages ago. And when I replied to you I was only affirming what I held in my memmory.

    But if you have read books on the issue then it would be follish of me to argue with you as it has not been a subject I have had to deeply research for any of my articles, which are always on current affairs.

    Dodger Billy, apology expected and yeah I think we can agree to disagree. About the US not attacking Iran because of lack of resources, here is a good article I wrote that was published in Global Research http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BAI20061029&articleId=3623 when I shared your opinion.

    Now I believe it is exactly that lack of resources that will force the US to launch a nulcear attack, if they cared about international opinion they wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The conservatives winning the election and calling of the nuclear talks takes us one step closer to war, and General Fallon stepping down is also a worrying sign that war may be inevitable.

  6. Pingback: The resignation of Admiral Fallon will provoke renewed fighting in Iraq « Dandelion Salad

  7. Liam,

    1. Didn’t realize that wasn’t your reply and, knowing that, I was wrong to come at you like that. I hope you accept my apology.

    2. I have a ton of respect for you with as much as you have going on in your life to be so engaged. Good for you and keep it up!

    3. I’ll keep my comments a lot shorter (blog newby)

    About your reply: I want to clear up what I said about “making deals with some unsavory characters “. I wasnt saying you were advocating for supporting them, but was continuing on my idea that sometimes these things are the lesser of two evils and the right thing to do.

    Nukes in Iran: My point with all that is really that I don’t forsee the U.S. taking military action for lack of resources and because using nukes, even for tactical uses like bombing Iran’s nukes, would have too high a political cost in the eyes of the world to go through with.

    U.S. terrorism: No doubt the U.S. has allied itself with some unsavory characters and we may not see eye-to-eye on this one (no big deal). I think it’s interesting that you mentioned that according to my own logic about attacks on a quieter level and the like the U.S. is more dangerous. I asked myself the honest question: dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the world? Only those who oppose us? Third world? And then I asked: if the U.S. stopped working with such groups, would it at the end of the day be risking its own security and, with the U.S.’s hegemonic power, be risking the partial or complete collapse of the system we know today? I dunno…

    My last disagreement is a small one about Iran having another revolution if the U.S. didnt get in the way. I dont think so because I think the silent strength the clerics and higher-ups in the government circles wields is strong enough to repress another revolution. I think these dudes are good enough at survival (a lot of these guys had to endure the Shah) to let control slip away.

    I’ll finish by agreeing with you on a couple of things because I’ve disagreed almost exclusively with you up to now and i’d be remise to not acknowledge where we see eye to eye. 1) It’s real tough to discern where the U.S. is doing dasterdly deeds in the world with the U.S. and aligned people owning the flow of information. Tough to get the REAL truth, if there is such a thing. 2) It looks like the U.S. startegy against Iran may be backfiring by being so hard line against them. Iran is a place of immense national pride and very complex and the U.S. seems to think bullying it and calling them names will get it done.

    I’ll answer you question about the war a little later.

  8. “The official line is that France provided Israel with nuclear weapons, but it is widely believed that Britain did it secretly a long time before.” Where is it widely beleived? Show us.

    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Isrhist.html

    http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

    I would recommend Seymour Hersh’s “The Samson Option” and Avner Cohen’s “Israel and the Bomb” as starter reading if you want to learn more about this subject Liam, as you obviously don’t know alot about it at the moment! 😉

  9. Thought I wasnt going to be able to find the blog! I’ve been anxious to see your reply. I’m at a friends house so I’ll post a comment in a little while. I’m sincerely glad to see your reply! good stuff and a lot of fun

  10. The official line is that France provided Israel with nuclear weapons, but it is widely believed that Britain did it secretly a long time before. Let’s not forget Israel has barely admitted that it oficially has them, so it is hardly likely to have told the official truth about how it got them now is it.

  11. Britain did not give Israel nuclear weapons, they sold them 20 tons of heavy water to Norway, who eventually sold it on to Israel. If you beleive Shimon Peres, it was France who were the most helpful in creating an Israeli bomb in exchange for help with Suez.

    “In Sevres, when it was all over, I told Ben-Gurion, ‘There’s one piece of unfinished business: the nuclear issue. Before you agree, let me finish that.’ Of the four countries which at that time had a nuclear capacity – the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France – only France was willing to help us.” – Shimon Peres

    Try doing some elementary research before spouting ill informed junk like this in future!

  12. Pingback: Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Cycle Starts Again By Liam Bailey « Dandelion Salad

  13. Okay Billy:

    The first thing I want to say, is your second comment was completely and totally unfair. You were actually responding to Lo, the publisher of this blog, who directed you to a link on another subject. This is my first response to your massive comment, and if you want to debate any of my points in the following comment, please do so one at a time. I work full time and run two websites around my 16 month old baby, so my time on the computer is at a premium. Okay, let’s go — BTW your comment is indented and in Italics with my responses below:

    Reading this blog reminds me of being in college and feeling somewhat ambivalent towards the ideas I heard day in and day out in my PoliSci classes. I am a registered Democrat, socially liberal, and was against the PATRIOT Act and invading Iraq. BUT, as when I was in college, I grew tired of the “anti-US foreign policy because they are a bunch of hypocritical bullies who are the real causes of all problems and the real masters of evil” argument. I honestly find it boorish and very simple-minded. This frame of mind seeks to find the simple explanation for the world’s problems and overlooks (here comes the realist approach) its inherent instability where the only real rights and wrongs are supporting your interests to the best of your ability. This includes making deals with some unsavory characters to protect the bigger picture (insert the Northern Alliance, Mujaheddin, Syngman Rhee, and any one of a number of names) and quite often having blowback in the future. Enough himming and hawwing; to your argument…

    Okay, your first paragraph is complete gibberish, first you call yourself a liberal, then you say, of what I assume you are simplifying my argument as:

    This frame of mind seeks to find the simple explanation for the world’s problems and overlooks (here comes the realist approach) its inherent instablility where the only real rights and wrongs are supporting your interests to the best of your ability

    But then you say:

    This includes making deals with some unsavory characters to protect the bigger picture (insert the Nothern Alliance, Mujaheddin, Syngman Rhee, and any one of a number of names) and quite often having blowback in the future.

    So you are saying that I (and liberals who share my viewpoints) advocate supporting the above groups. That simply is the furthest thing from the truth anyone has ever said of me. Not only that, I have frequently said that all the U.S. cares about is servings its own interests at any cost.

    A major staple of your argument is that the West WILL use nuclear weapons to stop Iran from developing their own. While I agree with you in that it is better for Iran to have nukes than having nukes dropped on them, I think you take the West’s use of nukes too far, almost making it appear to be a forgone conclusion. You could have said it was possible that nukes will be used, but that was clearly not what you were getting at. The only evidence you appear to use is Dick Cheney’s remarks about doing anything to stop Iran from getting nukes and not taking any option off the table. For such a important part of your argument, an ambiguous claim by a soon-to-be ex-President doesn’t do it for me.

    What about Bush saying he would start World War III over it? But over and above that most analysts, and people who know a lot about this subject (which you clearly don’t) are pretty sure any US attack on Iran would involve nuclear bunker busting bombs because of iran’s nuclear facilities being deep underground. And if it happens alongside the Iraq war, there will definitely be nuclear weapons because their wont be enough ground troops, and with so much at stake from iranian retaliation, by so much at stake I mean oil and money, the only two things the US govt. Cares about, because Iran could block the vital strait of Hormuz and also attack the U.S.’ oil rich allies in the region, not to mention the upsurge on attacks on US troops, so the US will want to make sure their opening attack cripples Iran’s capabilities to retaliate.

    Appearing to be in defense of Iran, you make the claim that Iran has not attacked another country, only defended themselves against Iraq. Therefore since they haven’t attacked another country, they are not as dangerous as say Israel who have violated international law on multiple occassions. Israel’s actions aside, by saying Iran isn’t so dangerous because they haven’t attacked another country is very shortsighted because you forgetting the fact that “DEATH TO AMERICA” is a favorite slogan of their government and they have been implicated in supporting terrorists on many occassions. Another way of putting my argument is just because one country has never attacked another country doesn’t mean they are not dangerous. The fact that one country has never attacked another can also mean their attacks are done on a much quieter level or indirectly enable attacks on their foes, which are just as dangerous as the direct attacks themselves.


    Yes, you are right, Iran has been implicated as supporting terrorists on many occasions, but implicated by who??? The U.S. and Israel who could hardly be called impartial, and both of whom have many times supported terrorism when it furthered their agenda, Israel is the reason Hamas is such a force, and the U.S. support of terror groups is well covered in my article. The Mujahideen and Contras rebels aren’t the only terror groups the U.S. supported, they supported many more including the brutal Khmer Rouge. This support is exactly what you say of Iran, attacking on a much quieter level, supporting groups aiming to overthrow enemy governments. The US has supported terrorist groups, and “attacked on a quieter level” many more times than Iran, and so according to your logic are far more dangerous, but the U.S. has never used nuclear weapons, so Iran, which would only ever have a far smaller arsenal definitely wouldn’t.

    You also confuse the argument about the world’s objections to Iran’s nuclear capabilities when you asked the question “So why is Iran not entitled to a civilian nuclear program?” Nobody is against Iran having civilian nuclear capabilities. The worry is Iran’s failure to satisfy those that believe Iran is trying to weaponize nuclear technology. The latest U.N. sanctions were directly due to Iran’s failure to disclose all information that Iran was not pursuing a weaponized nuclear program. By the way, since one of your big worries was China and Russia siding with Iran, I remind you that China and Russia SUPPORTED the latest round of U.N. sanctions on Iran.

    I can’t deny that Iran is not doing itself any favors, but a lot more is being asked of them that would be asked of a US ally who wanted to pursue a civilian nuclear program. The last I heard Iran was inviting the IAEA into its facilities. El Baradei has said that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but a few doubts over certain elements of the program. Where I come from it is innocent until proven guilty, but that no longer applies with the US. As for Russia and China supporting the last round of sanctions, as they have done before, when the resolution has been checked with them before hand and watered down till they will accept it, by that time they might as well not bother. It certainly isn’t having any effect on Iranian rhetoric, or bringing us any closer to a peaceful resolution of this affair. All the while China and Russia is supporting UN resolutions against Iran in one breath, and selling them hi tech weaponry, including missiles to shoot down US cruise missiles, and building them a nuclear reactor in another breath.

    I am extremely hesitant to agree with your labeling of the U.S. as the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world. You give a couple of examples (and I don’t really see them being great examples of U.S. support of terorism, but more like support of insurgencies) and then say, as if you have proven your claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, “So, the U.S. is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world”. Sorry dude, you have to do more than that to prove such a big claim.

    I answered this two paragraphs ago, the US has supported dozens of different terror group’s who’s aims happened to coincide with theirs. Pol Pot, Nicaragua, Afghan Mujahideen, the Northern Alliance aren’t priests, the Congo and El Savador to name but a few.

    It was also funny to me that you didn’t seem to refute the argument “thrown about by the U.S.” that Iran openly supports terrorists. It would seem to me that if your argument somewhat hinges on Iran not being such a huge supporter of terror (as you seem to get at in the “and so are automatically terrorists” bit in the 3rd to last paragraph) as the U.S., you would have given some support to the claim they are not.

    I can’t refute it because, according to the world, which follows the US view on these things, Hamas are terrorists, and Iran supports Hamas, my point is what gives the US the right to tell the world who are terrorists when they have proved so often that a group actually being terrorists has less to do with their classification as such, than who their at aiming their terrorism at.
    What I said was, the fact that Hamas are fighting a US ally makes them terrorists, and so Iran supporting Hamas are supporting terrorists, but if Hamas were fighting a US enemy like Syria, they would have US support in doing so, and definitely wouldn’t be labeled terrorists.

    Lastly, I agree with your assessment that Iran is one of the strongest democracies the Islamic world. One could say THE most. However, you understate how big a deficiency to their election system the vetting of candidates by the Council of Guardians is. Not allowing candidates to run for office is a big barrier to democracy. While Iran is a democracy, one cannot deny the anti-democratic entities in the country that are hell-bent on not allowing the country to move in the direction that the people MAY (and I dont say “do” because I do not know) want.

    Yes I know, reformists and people who don’t support what the clerics want are generally prevented from running. And I can say that most people do want to see reformists come to power, they want change. In fact if the US wasn’t allowing Ahmadinejad to rally on solidarity against their enemies, and turning the nuclear row into a nationalist cause, there would probably have been another revolution in Iran by now. Ironic that the US’ attempts to foment a revolution are failing because of their own policies, typical short-sighted US foreign policy.

    These anti-democratic entities are the revolutionaries and fundmental clerics entrenched in the government that are unelected and control a great deal of Iranian people’s everyday behavior (shutting down magazines left and right, controlling women’s dress in public). My point to all that is I wouldn’t be so quick to give huge props to the Iran government for its “uber-democraticness” and that somehow they are really only the victim of the West’s foolish focus with its “who is evil today lense”.

    I agree with you and disagree with you: you are right, the clerics who vet candidates are fundamentalists and responsible for many of Iran’s human rights abuses. But I haven’t said they are uber democratic, not by a long shot. You just agrred with what I said, they are the most democratic state in the Islamic world, and that far from means they are uber democratic. But at the same time, they are severely the victim of the west’s who is evel today lense, and that is because the West follows the US’ lead on these matters. The US says Iran is part of an axis of evil, which not only was before they started the nuclear program, but it is because the US said that of Iran Iraq and North Korea before attacking Iraq, that probably prompted Iran’s nuclear announcement as a deterrent against a US attack. But because the US says Iran is evil, then the west follows their tune. I am interested to know, if you are against the Iraq war, why, and what do you think the real reasons for it were, is it a coincidence that two countries in the axis of evil are two countries with some of the biggest oil reserves, and the only two countries with loads of oil not completely under the U.S’ thumb.

  14. Dodger Billy,

    I read your comment and there are a few bits that I am champing at the bit to respond to ferociously, but I am working at the moment. Expect a full response from me in about 8-9 hours

    Liam Bailey

  15. Liam, I am surprised by your reply (or honestly lack thereof) to what I wrote. I attacked your argument pretty strongly and all you did was take a small slice of the discussion and give me another article that reflects your viewpoint. You did not challenge me about the real topic of your blog, Iran and the West concerning nukes, but instead shifted focus onto something else. I gather you did this for two reasons: 1) You think I am full of it and you don’t feel that you need to dignify such a rebuttal with one of your own, which i consider to be foolishly arrogant OR 2) You really didn’t have a reply to my rebuttal and you would prefer to keep using fodder from the “liberals who think the U.S. is the devil incarnate” playbook and go on about your day and not engage in true discourse. Either way I am frankly disappointed and challenge you to prove me wrong. Who knows I could be the one that is completely wrong here…wouldn’t be the first time.

    About the article you linked…I read about half of the article (it’s pretty long and I think I got the point) and there is a lot of information and particulars that I have never heard about and/or seen presented in that way. It is difficult for me to dispute the specific facts and cases mentioned because I am nowhere near the expert on the CIA that many others, including the author of the article, are. I do not doubt that there is a good bit of truth in the claims made as well. (To be clear, I am not a staunch defender of the Right Wing and conservative policies. In fact, I consider myself a liberal in may ways.) However, I can say that I have doubts about what appears to be a central premise in the article: the CIA, solely in an effort to protect the American bourgeois, is the central cause for million of deaths and without the CIA’s participation in these cases these deaths and attrocities would not have occurred.

    As in your blog about Iran, I just cannot buy that the U.S. owns a monopoly on evil and is the sole course of the world’s problems, as if nobody else around the world has ever done anything horrible to anyone else.

    Many people scoff at CIA dealings in Central America and Asia during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, wonder why we were so engaged and disruptive in that area, and arrogantly use 20:20 hindsight to dismiss the “domino effect” as a plausible reason for such involvement. If one puts themselves in the shoes of the decision-makers in D.C. during this time, when the USSR is a MAJOR threat to the U.S. (which ostensibly meant a MAJOR threat a good deal of the rest of the free world) and you see potential communist satellites springing up in your backyard, how would you react? Would you hesitate to undertake some otherwise unagreeable actions to protect your citizens? Even if you say no I believe almost anyone would have to think about the answer if they truly dropped their biases and looked at the situation objectively.

    Let me ask you a brutal question that I’d really like an answer from you on: Assuming the CIA is reponsible for these 20 million deaths, do you think that had the CIA not done anything in these situations all or at least some of the deaths would have occurred anyways due to regional political devices that have nothing to do with us? I think a good many would have anyways based on my knowledge of history and world politics (look at the BBC news front page on any given day), so I see it as a mistake to say the CIA caused what would have otherwise not have happened.

    What do you think?

  16. Pingback: Disagreements by Top Military Brass regarding Bush-Cheney War Plans by Michel Chossudovsky « Dandelion Salad

  17. Reading this blog reminds me of being in college and feeling somewhat ambivalent towards the ideas I heard day in and day out in my PoliSci classes. I am a registered Democrat, socially liberal, and was against the PATRIOT Act and invading Iraq. BUT, as when I was in college, I grew tired of the “anti-US foreign policy because they are a bunch of hypocritical bulies who are the real causes of all problems and the real masters of evil” argument. I honestly find it boorish and very simple-minded. This frame of mind seeks to find the simple explanation for the world’s problems and overlooks (here comes the realist approach) its inherent instablility where the only real rights and wrongs are supporting your interests to the best of your ability. This includes making deals with some unsavory characters to protect the bigger picture (insert the Nothern Alliance, Mujaheddin, Syngman Rhee, and any one of a number of names) and quite often having blowback in the future. Enough himming and hawwing; to your argument…

    A major staple of your argument is that the West WILL use nuclear weapons to stop Iran from developing their own. While I agree with you in that it is better for Iran to have nukes than having nukes dropped on them, I think you take the West’s use of nukes too far, almost making it appear to be a forgone conlusion. You could have said it was possible that nukes will be used, but that was clearly not what you were getting at. The only evidence you appear to use is Dick Cheney’s remarks about doing anything to stop Iran from getting nukes and not taking any option off the table. For such a important part of your argument, an ambiguous claim by a soon-to-be ex-President doesn’t do it for me.

    Appearing to be in defense of Iran, you make the claim that Iran has not attacked another country, only defended themselves against Iraq. Therefore since they haven’t attacked another country, they are not as dangerous as say Israel who have violated international law on multiple occassions. Israel’s actions aside, by saying Iran isn’t so dangerous because they haven’t attacked another country is very shortsighted because you forgetting the fact that “DEATH TO AMERICA” is a favorite slogan of their government and they have been implicated in supporting terrorists on many occassions. Another way of putting my argument is just because one country has never attacked another country doesn’t mean they are not dangerous. The fact that one country has never attacked another can also mean their attacks are done on a much quieter level or indirectly enable attacks on their foes, which are just as dangerous as the direct attacks themselves.

    You also confuse the argument about the world’s objections to Iran’s nuclear capabilities when you asked the question “So why is Iran not entitled to a civilian nuclear program?” Nobody is against Iran having civilian nuclear capabilities. The worry is Iran’s failure to satisfy those that believe Iran is trying to weaponize nuclear technology. The latest U.N. sanctions were directly due to Iran’s failure to disclose all information that Iran was not pursuing a weaponized nuclear program. By the way, since one of your big worries was China and Russia siding with Iran, I remind you that China and Russia SUPPORTED the latest round of U.N. sanctions on Iran.

    I am extremely hesitant to agree with your labeling of the U.S. as the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world. You give a couple of examples (and I don’t really see them being great examples of U.S. support of terorism, but more like support of insurgencies) and then say, as if you have proven your claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, “So, the U.S. is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world”. Sorry dude, you have to do more than that to prove such a big claim.

    It was also funny to me that you didn’t seem to refute the argument “thrown about by the U.S.” that Iran openly supports terrorists. It would seem to me that if your argument somewhat hinges on Iran not being such a huge supporter of terror (as you seem to get at in the “and so are automatically terrorists” bit in the 3rd to last paragraph) as the U.S., you would have given some support to the claim they are not.

    Lastly, I agree with your assesment that Iran is one of the strongest democracies the Islamic world. One could say THE most. However, you understate how big a deficiency to their election system the vetting of candidates by the Council of Gaurdians is. Not allowing candidates to run for office is a big barrier to democracy. While Iran is a democracy, one cannot deny the anti-democratic entities in the country that are hell-bent on not allowing the country to move in the direction that the people MAY (and I dont say “do” because I do not know) want. These anti-democratic entities are the revolutionaries and fundmental clerics entrenched in the government that are unelected and control a great deal of Iranian people’s everyday behavior (shutting down magazines left and right, controlling women’s dress in public). My point to all that is I wouldn’t be so quick to give huge props to the Iran government for its “uber-democraticness” and that somehow they are really only the victim of the West’s foolish focus with its “who is evil today lense”.

    Sorry man, you didn’t convince me the West sucks today. Have fun ripping my argument for its naivety, support for the bad guys, and possible grammar mistakes (not a big proof reader).

Comments are closed.