Politics on Iran resemble pre-war politics on Irak
Irak did have bombs, right? Before the war they were concealing them and after the war nobody found them. Irak did not have bombs, right?! Jacques Chirac in his generous manner is now warning us that he could use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism. A sponsor of terrorism is warning another sponsor of terrorism. Whoever cries louder will sound more credible?
Reading the press on Iran’s uranium enrichment research and the world’s response to it sound very much like the press before the United States invasion of Irak.
Iran just wants to build up its capacities to be an independent nation powered by atomic energy. No way! This is the response you hear all around. Yahoo news:
Uranium enrichment can make reactor fuel, but the technology is dual-use and would give Iran the strategic option to enrich to levels required for making the core of a weapon.
Has anybody learned from 9/11? It is the most prominent example to show that to be a threat to another nation, you don’t need big bombs. If the world wanted to make sure that Iran is not posing a threat to anybody, they would have to stop all trade with Iran. Any truck passing the borders might contain the stuff to be used to attack another nation. That stuff could be grasshoppers, knifes or sandwiches - something much smarter and inconspicuous than a bomb. Therefore it is ridiculous to focus on just one of Iran’s activities, uranium enrichment. It would be even more ridiculous to stop all trade. But atomic energy seems to be an all-time favorite topic to stirr suspicion and exert pressure. Sure, grasshoppers would seem less a reason to pressure a country to change its atomic energy program. Atomic energy sounds like a serious thing and something you might control by confronting a country with your own military prowess.
People use what they have. A security council wants a problem. Since there is a no grasshopper council, no one is concerned about grasshoppers eventually being abused to attack people. You can’t control everything.
On the other side one has to wonder why Iran does no better job at conveying why its atomic energy activities should not scare the rest of the world.
Where is the difference between the situation today and the situation pre-war Irak, besides that nobody knows nothing and everybody wants everything?
Published: January 22, 2006
Tags
4 Comments
This is alexome.com by the hands of Alexander Schneider. It is dedicated
to his sideburns, and to his alone.
Your Dangerous!!!!
Let me A-Bomb you to Prove it!
-Jacques Chirac
Thanks dude, we would rather prefer you to keep your trinkets in your pants.
The Chirac perspective you are giving is similar to the Bush perspective before the war on Irak.
I have reread my text and amended/extended it.
On which side are you?
If the trinkets are too much for you to bear already, the bigger chunks would make you choke badly.
"You're Dangerous, Let me A-Bomb you to prove it"
is so much like Bush's daily perspective:
"Did you just bump into me? I'm American you know!"
for some ironic reason Jacques Chirac can get away by saying he would use atomic technology in a hostile way, while Iran (and many other developing countries) are being put to trial for having electricity blueprints...
GWB is kind enough to bomb you just to show that bombs are dangerous.. WTF!!!
is this really happening, I must be dreaming... > one more reason why alternative music was created.
Indeed WTF!! Here is a quote from the movie Crash, watched recently, regarding bumping into each other...
"...we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."