February 10, 2006
I need more Turmeric...
Scott Burgess notes:
...Meanwhile on the letters page [of The Guardian], a paradox central to the "peace" movement is thrown into sharp relief.
In a letter headed "Our fears over threats to Iran", we read that: <"We Iranian-British academics and anti-war campaigners wish to express our deepest concern about the decision by the UK, France, Germany, US, Russia and China to report Iran to the UN security council."Take a moment to let that sink in. "Anti-war campaigners" are objecting to a broadly multilateral request for UN involvement to help prevent an aggressively belligerent government - one which has threatened to "wipe [another sovereign nation] off the map" - developing nuclear capability.
Signatories include Tony Benn, John Rees (National Secretary of the Respect coalition), various Iranians ... and Kate Hudson, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
That's right - the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is vehemently opposed to UN action to encourage, erm, nuclear disarmament....
I must be losing my memory. I was sure I remembered the same crowd clobbering President Bush in 2002/2003 for not working with France, Germany, Russia, etc. and for not subordinating us to the UN (even as he was enforcing UN Resolution 1441) and for "not consulting with allies," for not being "multilateral."
Mus' be early Alzheimer's.....
Posted by John Weidner at February 10, 2006 02:03 PMI rather agree with you here. It seems to me that the U.N. is attempting to solve the problem by "peaceful means through negotiation". as the last sentence of their letter puts it.
OTOH, the U.S. and Britain in particular haven't given Iran much if any reason to trust our good intentions, so while I don't condone their belligerence, I can certainly understand it. We've made it altogether too easy for a demagogue like Ahmadinejad to gain power.
Posted by: Dave Trowbridge at February 10, 2006 05:20 PMThanks!
But, one question. The Iranian regime (not the people) is the #1 terror-supporting nation. It is an avowed enemy of the US. It has seriously threatened to fry our friends in Israel. It is complicit in murderous attacks on our troops. It is a brutal tyranny that murders and tortures non-Muslims and dissidents.
And yet...you think WE should have "good intentions" toward THEM? WE are at fault? Their belligerence is "understandable?" Sponsoring Hezbollah is "understandable," because we do not wish long life and prosperity for the Mullahs?
I've heard that same Lefty BS about EVERY enemy America has had since I was born. Starting with Stalin, who was really a nice guy who just wanted to be friends, but whose sensitive soul was stung by those harsh bullying brutes America and Britain. I've seen an endless parade of dictators who are really sweet when you get to know them. And "peace feelers" ignored. And "peace processes" that were always just about to produce peace until we shriveled them. And moderates who were almost able to come to power, except for us. And hard-liners who are conjured up by our frowns.
America has spent the last 50 years doing nothing but stomping on peace flowers. Uh huhh. Right...
Posted by: John Weidner at February 10, 2006 06:50 PM"We've made it altogether too easy for a demagogue like Ahmadinejad to gain power."
Wow, you mean we really rule Iran? Then what the heck are we worrying about! Soon Paris Hilton will be over there opening one of her clubs, and they'll start making all the madrassahs in Tehran into condos which they'll show trendy couples snatching up on HGTV's House Hunters, and then Iran will be just like Kansas!
Really, the fact that people still think that every problem in the world ultimately is caused by a country that was founded only 230 years ago just floors me.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 10, 2006 10:03 PM
