Tapsearch Com EditorIran needs nuclear weapons
October 24th 2006 04:39
Many disturbing words are written about Ahmadinejad, Iran’s leader. That he believes the next Imam is coming. That a child who was thrown down a well will rise again. That he denies the holocaust. That he supports the cause of the working class in Iran. That he wants his country to have nuclear power. But let's not be hasty about his beliefs. America has a leader who believes that a man who was nailed to a tree two thousand years ago will save him from Hell. The UK has a leader who believes the American leader. And lets not beat around the bush.
Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons. It does not need nuclear power. It has enough oil for itself and its young 70million odd population. It needs nuclear weapons because it needs to defend itself. It needs the threat that North Korea has - to be "un-attack-able". The first rule of American military politics now is that the state you attack has to be undefendable. Iraq had nothing, nothing! And American and UK planners knew this. This is why they did not say that al-Qaeda was in North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons. This is why they did not say that al-Qaeda was in Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons (and they are compliant). They said that al-Qaeda was in Iraq. Al-Qaeda, in all its shapes and forms, has not really been into a champagne-guzzling regime like Saddam Hussein's. Iraq was defenceless. It had nothing. And the Amerikans knew it.
Iran knows too well that its democratically elected government can be overthrown by the CIA, American and Western interests. Indeed witness the Shah. Iran's defence policy, for any rational person who understands Amerikan Real Politik, and who understands what causes that great monster to move, and who knows the history of Iran will know that Ahmadinejad NEEDS nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. The Americans are already at his border. They have already occupied his neighbour. Its client state Israel has nuclear weapons, and (despite their failure with Hizbollah) a highly effective army. Virtually everyone in the state has military training. Iran only has the most precious commodity on earth, oil. You can't set fire to all that oil on the soil of Amerika. You need a bloody big bomb to deter the narrow fascist state that is America. What would your policy be if you had armies on your borders who have little problem in invading a country on any pretext? You would want that invasion to be unwinnable. The same politics that informed America and USSR mutually assured destruction in the cold war applies here.
Ahmadinejad, for all his failings, knows this. He may be a nutcase. If we read and believed all the Western reporting then we would assume so. We would also assume the same about George Bush Jr. But the aspiration to nuclear weaponry (let's not pretend its for energy), is a sensible policy in a world where America can support its clients with lethal weaponry for no regard to life nor limb, nor age nor infirmity, nor right nor wrong (wrong place wrong time = "soft target"). It can only respect annihilation as the appropriate deterrent. Hence, Iran needs a big gun.
Ahmadinejad stands for his own country and people. And says it loud. And he understands that even if Iran had done nothing, and was the purest of the pure states, they would still be liable to invasion if they upset American corporate interests
Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons. It does not need nuclear power. It has enough oil for itself and its young 70million odd population. It needs nuclear weapons because it needs to defend itself. It needs the threat that North Korea has - to be "un-attack-able". The first rule of American military politics now is that the state you attack has to be undefendable. Iraq had nothing, nothing! And American and UK planners knew this. This is why they did not say that al-Qaeda was in North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons. This is why they did not say that al-Qaeda was in Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons (and they are compliant). They said that al-Qaeda was in Iraq. Al-Qaeda, in all its shapes and forms, has not really been into a champagne-guzzling regime like Saddam Hussein's. Iraq was defenceless. It had nothing. And the Amerikans knew it.
Iran knows too well that its democratically elected government can be overthrown by the CIA, American and Western interests. Indeed witness the Shah. Iran's defence policy, for any rational person who understands Amerikan Real Politik, and who understands what causes that great monster to move, and who knows the history of Iran will know that Ahmadinejad NEEDS nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. The Americans are already at his border. They have already occupied his neighbour. Its client state Israel has nuclear weapons, and (despite their failure with Hizbollah) a highly effective army. Virtually everyone in the state has military training. Iran only has the most precious commodity on earth, oil. You can't set fire to all that oil on the soil of Amerika. You need a bloody big bomb to deter the narrow fascist state that is America. What would your policy be if you had armies on your borders who have little problem in invading a country on any pretext? You would want that invasion to be unwinnable. The same politics that informed America and USSR mutually assured destruction in the cold war applies here.
Ahmadinejad, for all his failings, knows this. He may be a nutcase. If we read and believed all the Western reporting then we would assume so. We would also assume the same about George Bush Jr. But the aspiration to nuclear weaponry (let's not pretend its for energy), is a sensible policy in a world where America can support its clients with lethal weaponry for no regard to life nor limb, nor age nor infirmity, nor right nor wrong (wrong place wrong time = "soft target"). It can only respect annihilation as the appropriate deterrent. Hence, Iran needs a big gun.
Ahmadinejad stands for his own country and people. And says it loud. And he understands that even if Iran had done nothing, and was the purest of the pure states, they would still be liable to invasion if they upset American corporate interests
| 168 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by ChrisM
Comment by Eric
Mal Gadget
Comment by ChrisM
Comment by Eric
Mal Gadget
With all due respect, what you "think" is different from what is reality. You're assuming that what he says doesn't mean what he says it means.
If I run into a thief on the street and he says "I want to kill you", logic would say that he/she really does want to kill me.
Now I could twist that up and say that he/she didn't really want to kill me, that wasn't what he/she meant, but the fact remains that the thief still wants to kill me.
You support the madmen of this world and insult those of us who are forced to clean up everyone elses messes. That's the hard part about being American... you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
When a tsunami comes it's the US that has to help. If we don't the world will scream that we aren't doing enough. If we do help the world wants to know why we're meddling in other peoples business. We just can't win.
We try to defend ourselves or at least help defend other people from tyrants like Saddam, which by the way you probably would have left in power regardless of how many innocent people he slaughtered, but the world says "bad USA" when we do.
I have a sister and a brother in the military, both fought in Iraq. I'm getting really sick and tired of hearing how evil my family is and how wrong the war they are fighting is. It's insulting, and it does nothing more than further divide the world.
You have madmen threatening every free country in the world, and you sit there in support of these men, all the while insulting those of us who would be there to fight for YOUR rights, no matter what country you're from.
Shameful really...
Comment by ChrisM
http://www.mideastweb.org/ahmadinejad_letter_to_bush.htm
secondly, although he isnt the smartest leader in world politics, he isnt stupid. he knows that if were to ever drop a nuclear bomb on israel. tehran and all the other major cities of iran would be reduced to rubble. countries like iran and north korea will never be able to win a nuclear war against the us (or a country closely allied to them), and both kim jong ill and ahmadinejad know this.
i have never, nor will ever, support leaders like ahmadinejad, saddam, kim jong ill etc. disapproving of certain western foreign policy or governments does not make me an avid supporter of all tyrants that oppose them. i despise dictatorship, no matter the country, the leader, or the nation that funds and props them up.
question for you, irrespective of how tyrannical saddam was or how the west supported him in the past...do you think the us government sanctioned the war in iraq for benevolent reasons? that people like cheney, rumsfeld and bush genuinely cared about the liberation of iraqi's and a real mesopotamian democracy? that they were there to clean up the mess?
and when did the world cry out about the us sending economic and food aid to the people of south east asia after the tsunami? i dont think the world has a problem when the us genuinely assists with other countries who are in need. the problem is, countries like america, england, australia etc....have a bad track record of interfering soley for personal gain.
and no, i wouldnt have left him in power. you asked me this on my blog and i responded to it.
not once have i asserted or insinuated that soldiers in the us military are evil. i have the utmost respect for the courage, integrity and devotion most soldiers display. i dont however, appreciate the decisions of the cowards who send our brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers etc out to fight imperalist wars being waged for economic, political or symbolic gain.
fighting for my rights? how is fighting an illegal war i didnt want, against an enemy they quite often created, supporting numerous other despots because it suits them, all the while slowly stripping away my right to free speech, to free assembly, to open and diverse media fighting for my rights?
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
We have to have a treaty of Westphalia (1648) type of approach to the Middle East region. Stop the cycle of violence, stop the killing. If nuclear weapons are used against Iran they may be used against the ones who throw them. Iran, Israel, etc do have the right to technology. Nuclear energy for electricity, for the desalination of sea water will be necessary soon, if not already.
If we think like the British Empire, like Thomas Hobbes, we will believe in the war of each against all. We have to look at the common aims of mankind. Iran does not want to see its children incinerated in nuclear war. The cycle of war must end. Iran had a conciliatory President for 8 years, till I guess 2004, Khatami. He didn't achieve the dialogue he wanted. Now they have a somewhat radical, deliberately inciting President. Of course that was calculated by their elites. That doesn't change the fact that the US, Israel, Britain and France could incinerate them.
Maybe this is a tricky way by certain Anglo-Americans to get the US to fight Russia soon. Maybe we will all be nuked if this doesn't stop.