They haven't even passed 20% enrichment yet and he's worried about them hurting us. It would be a pinprick for and they'd surely be leveled. It makes no sense.
Some honesty from Noam Chomsky. (America has about 5 well known public intellectual who are capable of intellectual honesty.)
Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the "threat of Iran". Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order - though not among populations. In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace. In the MENA countries, that status is shared with the US, to the extent that, in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80 per cent felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. The same polls found that only ten per cent regard Iran as a threat - unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns.
In the United States, before the massive propaganda campaigns of the past few years, a majority of the population agreed with most of the world that, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to carry out uranium enrichment. And even today, a large majority favours peaceful means for dealing with Iran. There is even strong opposition to military engagement if Iran and Israel are at war. Only a quarter regard Iran as an important concern for the US altogether. But it is not unusual for there to be a gap, often a chasm, dividing public opinion and policy.
Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer - though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low, even by the standards of the region - minuscule, of course, in comparison with the US.
Iran has little capacity to deploy force. Its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set it. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability, they report, that would be part of its deterrence strategy. No serious analyst believes that the ruling clerics are eager to see their country and possessions vaporised, the immediate consequence of their coming even close to initiating a nuclear war. And it is hardly necessary to spell out the reasons why any Iranian leadership would be concerned with deterrence, under existing circumstances.
The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population - and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score. But the primary threat to the US and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well. Those "illegitimate" acts are called "destabilising" (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of US influence halfway around the world contributes to "stability" and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.
It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty - Israel, India and Pakistan - all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the US, and are still being assisted by them. It is not impossible to approach that goal by peaceful diplomatic means. One approach, which enjoys overwhelming international support, is to undertake meaningful steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel (and applying as well to US forces deployed there), better still extending to South Asia.
Support for such efforts is so strong that the Obama administration has been compelled to formally agree, but with reservations: crucially, that Israel's nuclear program must not be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Association, and that no state (meaning the US) should be required to release information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel". Obama also accepts Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US and Israel can continue to delay indefinitely.
This survey comes nowhere near being exhaustive, needless to say. Among major topics not addressed is the shift of US military policy towards the Asia-Pacific region, with new additions to the huge military base system underway right now, in Jeju Island off South Korea and Northwest Australia, all elements of the policy of "containment of China". Closely related is the issue of US bases in Okinawa, bitterly opposed by the population for many years, and a continual crisis in US-Tokyo-Okinawa relations.
Revealing how little fundamental assumptions have changed, US strategic analysts describe the result of China's military programs as a "classic 'security dilemma', whereby military programs and national strategies deemed defensive by their planners are viewed as threatening by the other side", writes Paul Godwin of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. The security dilemma arises over control of the seas off China's coasts. The US regards its policies of controlling these waters as "defensive", while China regards them as threatening; correspondingly, China regards its actions in nearby areas as "defensive" while the US regards them as threatening. No such debate is even imaginable concerning US coastal waters. This "classic security dilemma" makes sense, again, on the assumption that the US has a right to control most of the world, and that US security requires something approaching absolute global control.
While the principles of imperial domination have undergone little change, the capacity to implement them has markedly declined as power has become more broadly distributed in a diversifying world. Consequences are many. It is, however, very important to bear in mind that - unfortunately - none lifts the two dark clouds that hover over all consideration of global order: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, both literally threatening the decent survival of the species.
Quite the contrary. Both threats are ominous, and increasing.
Last edited by Guido; 02-26-2012 at 10:19 AM.
Quando vem a madrugada, meu pensamento vagueia
Corro os dedos na viola, contemplando a lua cheia
Apesar de tudo existe, uma fonte de água pura
Quem beber daquela água, não terá mais amargura
Danço eu dança você
Na dança da solidão
For thirty years, no one threatened them until they decided to build a nuke.
Cowpunk, isn't this a great window of opportunity for the zionist terror state to turn over its nukes to the UN as a sign of goodwill? Or do you support those satanically racist psychos having unfair advantages over the natives?
I'm not Cowpunk
CR did you ever for once consider that anything we do do them will only make things worse for us and that even if we could we're already strung out thin and majorly dented up from a military perspective. Even the pentagram wants nothing to do with this. Your Israel can't do it alone so if we're not willing to help then it ends up being more of a colossal goat fuck in the desert for the entire planet. Don't get pissed at us because it's your beloved president who is the one dragging his feet. What about that shit?
Yes, I considered it. In my opinion, we simply have no viable alternative.
And they've been fucking with us for the last 33 years.This just happened to illustrate a point that the US Government has been fucking with Iran for 50 years.
Not to mention what they do to their own people who don't tow their theocratic line, but you obviously don't give a shit about them,just like your fellow isolationists in the 1930's didn't give a shit about the Jews in Nazi Germany.
No one has advocated that ,except as only a last resort.It becomes our problem if the US preemptively attacks Iran because they arent stupid enough to attack us first.
"Peace in our time"-Neville Chamberlain.We leave them alone, and leave them to rule their land and go about their lives as they see fit
It is difficult for any decent person to sit back and not comment on the anti-Semitism,racism ,sexism ,and all-around ignorance espoused on the majority of DA's posts,it's fucking sad when one gets a warning for simply being a decent person.
I still find it amazing that you 3 haven't come out and ridiculed your president. He's the 1 holding up your nuclear holocaust.
The words "honesty" and "Noam Chomsky" cannot even be put in the same sentence, I mean, his nose got bigger and bigger over the last 30 years, like Pinocchio's, from bullshiting so much, ever since he defended communist China and Pol Pot. The sad part is that he's actually intelligent enough to know better;Some honesty from Noam Chomsky.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)