Iran and the Bomb II
P. Schultz
March 1, 2012
My friend George sent
me a link to an article in the NY Times on the apparently upcoming attack on
Iran, ostensibly to take out its nuclear capacities. This was on facebook and
George did not write anything in addition to the post. This is my response to
the article, the link for which is below.
“Interesting article.
But my objections are: (a) It does not raise the question of whether it is just
to attack another nation for building what the attacking nations already
possess. It is, not surprisingly, all about the logistics of attacking, not its
justice. The justice of the action is just assumed and with good reason:
Because its justice is built on arguments that the Iranians, I guess because
they are governed by Muslims, are not entitled to the kind of treatment the
Israelis are entitled to. And this is a hard argument to make openly.
(b) And, of course, it never even hints at the argument that this is about regime change in Iran, not about nukes. To think this passes for analysis does not surprise me - it is what we get from the NY Times all the time [remember those articles in the Times greasing the skids on the way to the war in Iraq?] - but it is worth noting that what passes for analysis ignores, completely as near as I can tell, the political/strategic agenda behind an attack on Iran. Are we really expected to believe that an attack on Iran is not aimed at regime change? And this raises, for me, a question for me that is easily answered: Do we have the right to determine how other nations govern themselves?
So, thanks for the post. But I am unwilling to buy into the same kind of hysterical rhetoric about nukes/WMDs that was used by the Bushies to make a disastrous war in Iraq, a war that cost billions, took 4000+ lives of American soldiers, left thousands of those soldiers maimed for life, killed tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, and accomplished one thing: Increased the power of Iran in the Middle East. And isn't it interesting that this is being done by the Democrats, illustrating once again that all the crap about "two parties" divided by deep ideological differences is really just that, crap.”
(b) And, of course, it never even hints at the argument that this is about regime change in Iran, not about nukes. To think this passes for analysis does not surprise me - it is what we get from the NY Times all the time [remember those articles in the Times greasing the skids on the way to the war in Iraq?] - but it is worth noting that what passes for analysis ignores, completely as near as I can tell, the political/strategic agenda behind an attack on Iran. Are we really expected to believe that an attack on Iran is not aimed at regime change? And this raises, for me, a question for me that is easily answered: Do we have the right to determine how other nations govern themselves?
So, thanks for the post. But I am unwilling to buy into the same kind of hysterical rhetoric about nukes/WMDs that was used by the Bushies to make a disastrous war in Iraq, a war that cost billions, took 4000+ lives of American soldiers, left thousands of those soldiers maimed for life, killed tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, and accomplished one thing: Increased the power of Iran in the Middle East. And isn't it interesting that this is being done by the Democrats, illustrating once again that all the crap about "two parties" divided by deep ideological differences is really just that, crap.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html?_r=1
No comments:
Post a Comment