Tuesday, March 7, 2006

The Farce Continues

I started writing this as the response to a comment by one “Dagger” in my last post, but decided about two-thirds of the way through that it should stand alone as a post. For the original post and the comments occasioning it, go here.

Mr. Dagger:
You talk glibly about the “hypocrisy” of the US position that “we can have nukes and bio weapon programs but the 'bad guys' can't.” Liberals really have a fixation about hypocrisy, as such matters were some kind of college debate problem, or a morality contest. I have no objection whatever to hypocrisy when it is useful.

That aside, do you really think that the so-called Islamic Republic, which supports groups like Hezbollah and the leaders of which talk casually about wiping states off the map, is to be trusted with “nukes and bio weapons programs ?” My problem with the Islamic Republic is that it is not a status quo power, but a state that supports underground terrorist organizations in other states; a state opposed to the present capitalist international system; a state which is an avowed enemy of the United States and of bourgeois republics generally.

If this were a different Iranian government, say a plain republic or a restored monarchy, that accepted the present international system, I would not have concerns with Iranian weapons programs. Even an Islamic Republic that remained quiet and kept its poisons within its frontiers would not be a legitimate cause for concern. As it stands, the Iranians can have their fascist Islamic Republic or their WMD programs, but not both.

As for preemptive war: if the choice is war now, or war later under less favorable terms, I am unquestionably for war now. I think that an Islamic Republic with WMD’s is simply too dangerous to be allowed to exist. I’d rather be wrong my way than yours.

Blame the UN ? I don’t blame the UN for anything. I blame Franklin Roosevelt and the other idiots who created it, a good deal. The UN is a club that allows dictators to give one another mutual aid and support, and to posture in front of the world media, and influence opinion in the United States and Europe. The UN is an exclusive club for allowing savages to punch out of their weight, and a prostitute used to being used by everyone. It is quite enough that we pay for the UN. God forbid that we should ever listen to it.

Hey Maru, I think that I generally agree with you. I’m sure, as in Iraq, we will have all kinds of covert coat-holders who don’t want to be on the record. Certainly we will have more help than we can use once it is clear we are bearing all the risk, and that we will be successful.

Maybe we will all be lucky. Maybe the Mullahs will give up their dream of a bomb. Maybe Mahmoud “Mad Jad” Ahmadinejad will slip on a banana peel. Maybe the Iranian generals will decide the Islamic Republic is too dangerous, and do away with it. Maybe the students can start a real revolution. Hope so. But things look pretty bleak from the point of view of peace.

3 comments:

Candidly Caroline said...

"Harm and pain" are, I believe, what they most recently are saying will fall upon us.

El Jefe Maximo said...

I do tend to get bent out of shape don't I ? Wife says it's bad for the blood pressure.

Scary, scary folks, to be taken seriously when they start promising harm and pain.

I sure hope a miracle happens and we discover this bomb talk is all a giant joke; or there is a providential coup d'etat. Conflict with Iran, nukes or no nukes, is the mother of all bear traps. Iran is a much, much, much more fearsome customer than Iraq, probably one of the toughest armies in the developing world. But we are not driving this bus.

The problem is not so much an Iranian bomb, as it is this particular regime with an Iranian bomb. Iran throws its weight around quite a bit already now (Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, even in Europe). Just wait till a bomb buys the Mullahs immunity from reprisal...

louielouie said...

speaking of FDR.........
any time a blue makes a comment like, "iraq would not have been a threat to the US for at least another ten years", after i clean up the vomit, i ask them if FDR had invaded germany in 1936, what significance would dec. 7, 1941 have today. what significance would words like utah or omaha have other than being states/cities in the US?
for starters FDR would probably have been impeached, but would there have been a pacific theater of operations (read war in the pacific) if japan had perceived the US were not as isolationist as thought.
maybe mr. dagger feels he can/could negotiate a better deal with uday/qusay(sp) ten years hence.