Comment Archive
Thoughts, Humor & Observations
Back To Comment Archives

Comment Dated Jun 27, 2009


The majority of humans are not naturally inclined to mass murdering their neighbors or the destruction of other people's nations. Therefore they have to be propagandized onto going to war through lies and the incitement of fear and hatred. Even after the "justifications" for the Iraq invasion have been exposed as a concoction of falsehoods and deceptions, we hear the same theme being repeated once more to demonize Iran in order to prepare the public mind for further aggression. This time the claim is being circulated that the recent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming popular vote was rigged. For those who buy this story, a piece by Professor James Petras entitled "Iranian Elections: The 'Stolen Elections' Hoax"might prove informative and illuminating.

"There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an ‘electoral success’ in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote."

Full article online here

The stated justification for all the hostility, of course, is fear being promoted of Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. If any sovereign nation on this planet needs the ability to defend itself, I'd say Iran--beseiged by hostile bases around its borders and warships off its coast, and subjected to regular overt threats of attack and invasion--tops the list. Its neighbors were stripped of all defense capablilty, and look what happened to them. Iran hasn't attacked anybody for over a hundred years, but has undergone repeated invasion, occupation, and interference in the course of both world wars and the postwar era. The suggestion that it could be a meaningful threat to the United States--even if it had any motive in such a direction, given that it be left alone to run its own affairs in its own way--is ludicrous.

The Colt 45 used to be known as the "Great Equalizer" of the old West. It meant that the little guys had gained equal rights, and rule could no longer be imposed by gangs of the biggest bullies through sheer muscle and brawn. Maybe the nuclear-tipped missile offers an excellent candidate as a similar equalizer on an international scale. For nations that can't afford to produce their own, the UN could supply a dozen or so free as a donation toward the cause of world peace. It worked well enough for 50 years in the standoff between the US and the Soviets, after all. Then, maybe, we would see an improvement in the relations between nations comparable to that by which citizens were able to form stable societies, in which mutual respect and minding one's own business became the order of the day.

Note added. After posting the above, I received an input from a reader pointing to an article in the American Conservative by Michael Desch entitled Apocalypse Not, which makes a good case for arguing that a nuclear Iran would not only help stabilize the Middle East in general, but prove in the longer term to be in the better interests not only of the U.S. but even Israel.