The School Bully: The West and Iran

Getting into politics here. Now I'm sick of all the nonsense that the Western media and politicians are saying about Iran, so I'm gonna be whacking butt once again. Here goes:

It would appear to most readers of the Western media today that Iran is the disobedient boy in today’s turbulent world of politics. We hear a lot of emphasis in particular on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and its refusal to bow down to Western demands that it suspend its nuclear program despite UN sanctions. The recent branding of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization” by the American government especially highlights this case.

Yet we hear no emphasis at all on the ground on which Iran stands staring us right in the face: Where is the evidence that its nuclear program is for developing weapon? And, yet more importantly, observing the right for such nations as the United States, Israel, India and Pakistan to have nuclear, whether it be peaceful or for warfare, what right do these nations have that permit them to do so, while Iran doesn’t? The case gets more outrageous considering the fact that the United States government’s hypothesis on Iran’s intentions stands its ground purely on the very same “intelligence sources” that gave America its excuse to invade Iraq.

It’s fair enough to say that Iran may be going nuclear for the same reasons as North Korea, to be developing warheads for military use. There is indeed a fair chance of it happening, whether we know it or not. But the issue now isn’t weapons or no weapons. It’s national rights equality. Simply because Iran has been an enemy of the United States for the past 28 years doesn’t justify America’s rights to harass Iran’s rights to nuclear.

If America, Israel, India and Pakistan are to bear the rights to nuclear, regardless of purpose, this same right should at the very least be granted to and defended for every other nation on the planet. Iran is no exception. And if, for any reason, the world disapproves of the thought of a nuclear Iran, for the sake of rights equality, our politicians should be ridding their own nations of the substance themselves. Equality applies not merely to human beings, but to entire nations as well,

Yet the entire Western political scene, and United Nations included, bows down to the American stance on this issue. That is what disturbs the half of the world which does not subscribe to this view. The United Nations was established following World War II to maintain and defend human and national rights. Yet even the world’s largest superpower is now sinking under American pressure, and violating its own policies simply for the sake of maintaining the demands of the world’s imperialist superpower.

As the saying goes, excessive power can indeed corrupt an individual as well as an entire nation. America’s position as the most influential nation in the world should not give it the right to deny an enemy nation rights that all other nations possess. The United Nations’ consistent bias towards the ruling West against the rights of a less powerful country violates the defense of rights that it has been committed to for the past half century, and is clearly unacceptable in today’s world of equity.
Less extreme figures in Western politics as well as in the media have pointed out that, instead of using military strikes against Iran, the United Nations should be placing sanctions on Iran to remove any form of economic incentive for the nuclear program. Yet the simple truth is that neither military strikes nor economic sanctions are a morally acceptable method of deterring Iran from its nuclear intentions. No nation should be receiving sanctions for merely standing up for its national rights.

The conclusion is simple. Washington, Geneva and Brussels must all realize that, like all other nations, Iran has a right to nuclear which must be defended along with its sovereignty. A bit of American paranoia and fear of losing ground to a rising enemy cannot justify the remainder of the world taking action against an enemy nation standing up for its own rights. And the White House must begin to calm their imperialist agenda and equate their own rights to nuclear with those of the Iranian nation’s.

Blog to move?

Been pretty busy lately, haven't been on for almost 2 months. Just some news: I might be moving to the Daily Kos soon. If indeed I do then I'll just link this up with my new blog, but this one won't be updated anymore. New article coming now...

Nationalist vs. Patriotic

Here's my first article. Very random, but true to the facts.

There are two words nowadays that we hear pretty much every day: Nationalist and patriotic. We seem to think of them as two different words. “Patriotic” is the word we use to describe people who devote themselves, or even their lives, to their country. “Nationalist” is the word we use for people who supposedly love their country to the point where they believe it’s superior over other countries.

But when you look at both terms together, you’ll surely start to doubt these definitions that we’ve been subjected to for so long. Now I’m no expert on political ideology, but one thing’s for sure: Pick out a few articles from the Western press about foreign (and perhaps domestic) policy, and you’ll find a disturbing pattern.

America is somewhat “patriotic” (or unpatriotic), whilst its enemy states, like Iran, or the dictatorship regimes of Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, or Cuba’s Fidel Castro, are somewhat “nationalist” (or not, whereas the press makes no comment). No doubt, there’s something fishy going on here. Is the American press calling their own country “patriotic” because they are themselves, just to distinguish from their “nationalist” counterparts elsewhere in the world? Let’s get back to definitions here: “Nationalist” is the belief that one’s country is superior over another, a word once used by the Western media to describe Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

Now let’s look at the facts: How is Iran nationalist? True, they stick firmly to their traditions and follow a far-right agenda. But when was the last time in modern history that they invaded another country? Or denied access to foreign immigrants looking for a better life in a foreign land? Or fooling thousands of their own troops onto death row fighting a pointless and impractical war? Or shot down a civil airliner before covering up the story and dismissing it as an accident?

And now for the answers: Never, never, never and never. As for America? Four years ago, right now, four years ago, and nineteen years ago. Who’s being nationalist now? And now comes the nuclear issue. America can have nuclear. So can Israel. So can India. So can Pakistan. But Iran? Sorry, no. North Korea? Unfortunately not. And what do the first three have in common with America? A tribute to our good comrades. And Iran and North Korea? They can bite the dust for not aligning with us. (“Patriotism” doesn’t necessarily involve one’s own nation, but in the case of international relations, it involves other nations as well.)

Here’s the concluding statement: The press is simply misleading us through the misuse of the words “patriotic” and “nationalist”, two words which, despite being similar, simply can’t be exchanged for another just by changing the subject of the statement. We, as the world, are being completely misled by the world’s greatest superpower and its “patriotic” views.

First Post

Hi, this is my first post. I haven't written anything to put here yet but I'm workin on it. Watch this page for some more stuff.