|
Chinese to be telling the truth about it--if it's true? That's not the issue for the Chinese. They likely figure that Iran having nuclear weapons will create "detente" in the Middle East--much like both sides having nuclear weapons created "detente" in the Cold War--to stabilize the situation, and insure their steady supply of oil from Iran. And, actually, I would tend to agree with them. It would create "detente." Not a good situation, but a better one than is presently the case.
As for Iran, their desire for nuclear weapons is understandable, considering the threat that they are under, with the entire U.S. military on their border, and constant saber-rattling by Bush/Cheney, including the nuclear option being "on the table." (What in God's name do they mean? They would nuke a country because it wants to defend itself?) They have Iraq for a stunning example of what happens to a country that gets attacked by the U.S. That, too--the disaster of Iraq--is right on their border. They have the history of the U.S. toppling of their democracy in 1954, and installing the horrible Shah. They would be nuts not to want a deterrent. And that's even without factoring in Israel and its nukes.
So I think China and Russia may be playing a game here--yes. But I think the game is "balance of power." From their point of view--and the point of view of just about everyone else in the world--the U.S. has become not just a superpower, but a lawless, unpredictable superpower with insane leaders. They are afraid of the Bush Junta. Why shouldn't they be? The "message" of the Iraq invasion is that they will attack ANYONE, without cause, who is not able to defend themselves--in the interest of U.S.-based global corporate predators and our leaders' insane ambitions to dominate the world and all of its resources. There are no rules by which anyone can play that will protect them from sudden, unprovoked attack. The world once TRUSTED the U.S. never to use nuclear weapons except in defense against a nuclear attack. That trust is gone! And this means that we will see proliferation of nuclear weapons, with all the attendant risks. We brought this upon ourselves, or, rather, the Bush Junta brought it upon us.
The world WILL become--has become--more dangerous because of Bushite policy. And the rest of the world WILL take--and is taking--measures to defend itself. Military, political and economic. I think we are seeing some of them already--in the falling dollar, in OPEC discussions of switching from the dollar to a "basket of currencies" (euros, Swiss Franks, etc.), in the disaffection of the many new leftist democracies in South America (which the Bushites have greatly alienated), in discussions/activities in South America about a South American "Common Market" and common currency (to get off the U.S. dollar), and recent discussions of forming a new OAS without the U.S. as a member, in withdrawal by Spain, Italy, and others from the Bushite war "coalition" and the election of leftist governments, in revulsion against U.S. policy, and in China and Russia withdrawing from this "sanction" bullshit about Iran, and backing away from a belligerent U.S. stance on Iran nukes (whether for energy or weapons).
The Bushites have inspired extraordinary dislike and fear of the U.S. I don't think we, the people, are responsible. I don't think we voted for them, either time. But we will bear the brunt of it, possibly in a second Great Depression, but certainly in massive debt for many decades, and in worldwide disrepute and hostility. And, considering what the U.S. has done in the Middle East, we should probably be glad that other countries are seeking a policy of detente and balance. It could easily have been Russian soldiers that we were/are fighting in Iraq, with a world war already upon us. If Russia hadn't been occupied with Chechnya, and still reeling from the breakup of the Soviet Union, that could have happened. Remember, the U.S. shot up the Russian diplomats' convoy out of Iraq, as the U.S. invaded. The Russians were aiding the Iraqis militarily. I was fearful then, that the Russians would be drawn in, and that the war would quickly spread. One of the reasons it hasn't is restraint on the part of IRAN. They have been sorely provoked, and made fearful. That they want something more to their defense--nuclear weapons--may be a good sign. They have shown no territorial ambitions. They have invaded no one. And, frankly, you have to ask, what would WE be doing, if, say, China had done to Mexico what we have done to Iraq? Would we not have invaded Mexico by now, to throw the Chinese out? Be glad that Iran hasn't done so, and seems to want merely to secure its borders and protect itself.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
