Bush's (Hillary's) UnAmerican positions on Iran

Demonizing Iran is all the rage these days. Bush needs a daily fix, and Hillary is out there threatening to obliterate the nation. For what? For allegedly pursuing a fraction of the nuclear arsenal America and Israel have? For supporting the liberation of a neighboring country that suffers an illegal occupation and war crimes?

Iran has every right to aspire to an arsenal that is equal to that of their enemies. And since Bush has declared Iran an enemy and evil force, the circumstances surrounding their aspirations, if any (for none have been proven) are justified.

However, besides the tired and discredited claims of "nuclear weapon research program proposal plans", there is an even more outrageous propaganda effort by BushCo. "Iran is supporting terrorism in Iraq". Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but their claim itself is vacuous. Iraq is a country suffering under illegal occupation in which war crimes against the Iraqi people are committed daily.

Go ahead, call me Jeremiah, but the Iraq people have every right to use all available means to expel the invaders. They have a right to armed resistance. They have the right to blow up transports and convoys. They have the right to kill the occupiers. In short, they have the same rights proto-Americans had when we kicked the British asses off our territory and achieved independence..

We have no right to complain that Iran is materially supporting the liberation of Iraq. Iran plays France to Iraq's revolution. Of course I share the desire that all of our troops, also victims of Bush's war crimes, come home safely. But I cannot criticize those who use lethal force to attack illegal occupiers. I can express my preference for non-violence, but can't criticize anyone for fighting for liberation.

Hillary threatens obliteration if Iran gets involved in a conflict that involves Israel. If there is a war in the Mideast, Iran has a right to aid its allies, just as we have a right to help ours. America supplies massive weaponry to Israel. Bush's (Hillary's) attitude is that we can be involved militarily, supplying the cluster bombs and fighter jets used in war crimes, but no one can help the other side without being obliterated.

I certainly don't want to see a major war in the middle east. But if one breaks out, I don't see any moral justification for destroying a country that simply lives up to its treaty commitments. To accept the Bush/Hillary  line is to justify 9/11, for it was our foreign policy that inspired the terrorists to attack us. Not only do they justify 9/11, they invite further attacks on the US using the same reasoning.

We need to face facts: The occupation of Iraq is illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid. The cost in human life disgusting. The occupation of Palestine is similar. To end the killing we need to end the occupations. We need a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. We must discontinue support for the occupation of Palestine while insuring the security of our  ally Israel. We need a future where Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Palestinians and Israelis can all live in peace and security, to the extent ethnic conflicts can be kept non-violent.

I realize this diary will offend pacifists and those who insist that the path of Gandhi, King and the Dalai Lama is the only way. I wish I could agree, but sometimes freedom needs a John Adams, FDR, or Che Guevara. Non-violence is always preferable, but we can't force people to live under oppression to fit our philosophical leanings. Some choose that path, such as in Tibet. In Burma, all attention is on the great non-violent movement, but there is much violence as well, especially involving the Karen and northern Shan people.

We would all love to live in a world without violent conflict. But we must respect the right of oppressed people to seek liberation the same way we did, at the point of a gun.

Iran is doing nothing wrong in supporting liberation from occupation. As to their society, we have much to criticize. But those ills can be solved peacefully. If we want Iran to stop supporting violent liberation movements, we need to end the occupation.

We can start by keeping those with unAmerican views (Bush, Hillary, McCain) out of our own government and electing a government that will pursue our goals through peaceful means.

If we continue down the BushCo path, our chickens will continue to come home to roost, riding the body bags of our brave and innocent troops.

Of course, maybe I'm just full of shit. So the comment lounge is open. Nut please do keep in mind that my view on Israel/Palestine is that only two stable, economically healthy countries can maintain peace, and that despite my philosophical reservations about a race-based state, I want a world where all the people are healthy and happy and managing to get along.

•  Everyone was so ouraged by Iran's assertion

  that they wanted to wipe Israel off the map. But it's ok for HRC to make the same assertion toward Iran. Why are people so dense that they don't get that people like us are the ones who will be obliterated. People who want the same things in life, family, security, comfort, the ability to make life meaningful. Her comment is outrageous and frightening for future prospects if she's able to wrangle this nomination from Obama and it's looking more and more possible everyday. I'm to the point that I have to leave it in the hands of God because the future of the planet is at stake!

  by New Earth on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

•  what does right and wrong have to do with it

  I fear the diary rests on an assumption that is common only in the US, that foreign policy and national relationships are based on right and wrong and on pseudohuman relationsihps of friendship and enminity. There is no universal right and wrong in interntaltional relations. From an American perspective, Iran has no right to have a bomb as long as the US is hostile to it and has the power to prevent it. Same from the Israeil perspective. From the Russian perspective, Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons. From the Chinese perspective ... and so on. The eventual outcome is determined only by who is the strongest party and whose perspective prevails. So by protesting the designation of Iran as wrong, the author falls into the same mistake, but on the other side, by arguing Iran is right. This question is as inapplicable as asking whether a snake is right or wrong when it eats a mouse.

  Second, I just want to point out that in passionately arguing for withdrawal from Iraq and from support for the occupation of Palestine, the author omits any call for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan, Iran's other neighbor. Is this occupation different from the others under the moral scale, or is it just less significant?  

  by Marcion on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM PDT

  •  Yes, you have some points

    I did just talk about two occupations. There are many others. The world is a mess.

    But I do believe that at least American foreign policy should be based on principles and right and wrong. In places where there is no concept of human rights (China, for example) we can't expect moral behavior.

    by MakeChessNotWar on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:46:23 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm...

    There is no universal right and wrong in international relations.

    Well, there is. But there is no enforcement. The strong dominate the weak, thus does wrong become right. The Japanese bombing of Shanghai and Nanking and Hitler's attacks on London are terrible war crimes whose victims are 95% civilian. America's fire-bombing of Tokyo and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justice even though 95% of the victims are civilian.

    It's OK, as the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, said in her "no moral equivalency" BS for the CIA to assassinate and overthrow governments, but not for the KGB to do the same.

    Our support for terrorists is qualitatively different than their support for terrorists, whoever they are.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:00:26 PM PDT

•  I've always wondered what authority America

  (the only nation to use a nuclear weapon) has to tell other nations they can't develop nuclear weapons.  Of course nukes are dangerous and the less nukes out there the better for everybody but it does strike me as a tad hypocritcal for us to have the highest military budget on earth but still dictate to other countries what weapons they can and cannot develop.

  While I question our right to tell Iran they can't develop nuclear weapons, I think it's very prudent to outline what our response would be if they should ever use one against us or our allies. Hillary's obliterate comment was badly received, but I think it's prudent to let everybody know, in no uncertain terms what America's response would be if they used nuclear attacks on us or our allies, and that response would have to be such that is would serve as an effective deterrent.

  by CalexanderJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:55:30 PM PDT

•  Nuclear standoff kept the peace for 40 years

  A first strike of a nuclear bomb is too horrible to imagine.  We're talking about hundreds of thousands or more dead in an instant.

  I criticize Clinton because 1) it's premature to talk like this before Iran gets nuclear bombs; 2) such talks empowers the idiot fringe that holds sway in Iran - and remember, they do have elections in Iran and Ahmadinejad was elected with about 56% of the vote; and 3) U.S. nuclear umbrellas were bilateral (e.g. Japan) or multilateral treaties, e.g NATO.  We shouldn't be making threats like this without a bilateral agreement with Israel.

  That said, once Iran acquires nuclear bombs, and, assuming Iran is still led by some nut case like Ahmadinejad threatening to drop a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv and kill a million people, the best way to prevent this from happening is by promising all out retaliation in the event of a first use nuclear strike by Iran.  The threat of mutual assured destruction (MAD) kept the peace in the Cold War.  Without it, maybe Berlin would be a contaminated pile of rubble, and the grave of millions, today.

  by Navy Vet Terp on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM PDT

•  HRC or McLame and the corporations win again.

  Why else would the VRWC be working for Hillary all of a sudden?

  by manwithnoname on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:18:50 PM PDT