The use of Reason and reasonable argumentation, the reclaiming of the idea of Progress and the struggle against dogma. In this post-modern world, reinventing Enlightenment is of the utmost importance.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Iran: the path to war

It is finally a certainty. Iran is going ahead with its nuclear program either we like it or not. And it is going to prove impossible to stop them. I thank Bush and Blair for that. Those idiots have spread their forces in Iraq so much that now they cannot effectively ponder military options in Iran.

Iran will have nuclear power. Their resolve, their commitment in this issue is total. If not why would Iran’s government be doing this?


Blogger Ana A. said...

Estaremos a passos largos para uma 3ª Guerra Mundial?

11:18 AM

Blogger Ana A. said...

Desculpa as minhas ideias tão negativas hoje.
Argghhh...estou péssima para consumo!

11:19 AM

Blogger A. Cabral said...

This is reasonable under the UN's current threat. To transfer assets abroad is to make sure there is some wealth that will not be inprisioned by UN sanctions. Whether it will be used for nuclear proliferation is far from obvious. Recall the last case of UN sanctions on Iraq, stuff that was being outlawed included basic medical drugs!!!

11:53 AM

Blogger daviduskas said...

Sorry Cabral, but, to me, what this signals is that they will go ahead with the nuclear program and they are just covering their backs, by moving their money. They know that there will be sanctions. Why? Because they will not stop in their nuclear drive.

You see, in the case of Iran what I think is: They should never get their hands on nuclear power. It is too dangerous. Don't you agree?

12:00 PM

Blogger A. Cabral said...

Not that sure. I think we tend to be chronically suspicious about these nations, what someone once called Orientalism. Iran never invaded anyone, never committed attrocities on its population, never shown any intent on aggression. It is true that their human rights record is far from pretty but they are nothing compared to some of their neighhours - saudi arabia or paquistan. It is far more serious that Pakistan was allowed to have the bomb, in fact they are the main exporters of the technology and they, at any minute can initiate war with India.

There is a moral issue that we in the west may not be registering. The peoples of the middle eas have been repetedly humiliated in the last decades, now they are being villified by the whole word as the craddle of terrorists and extremists. Iran is drawing a line in the sand, they will fight for their right to have nuclear power, they will not be bullied out of it. How many countries in the world have nuclear power? Why are they all allowed and not Iran? This is what they ask.

12:18 PM

Blogger daviduskas said...

Sure. But, what about Hammas? What about wipping Israel out of the map? What about religious fundamentalism?

Yes, I agree with you that so many countries, namely Israel, have the bomb and nothing is said about that. The fact remains that Iran foreign policy today resembles that of Adolf Hitler in the days leading to Munich. Now, come on, Iran is the world's forth producer of oil and natural gas. They do not need nuclear. Do you really believe they just want to produce electricity? No. They want nuclear weapons. Will they use them? Probably not, but nevertheless that will give them power, and I think they already have to much.

I do not think that I'm western centered on this. Look, I would be fine if Japan had the bomb. But that's because they are a democracy, they share our values. They believe in good will, in religious tolerance, in peaceful solution to problems and so on.

Of course, in principle I completely oppose any drive towards nuclear.

12:33 PM

Blogger Ana A. said...

It would be great if the entire world had no weapons at all...

12:39 PM

Blogger A. Cabral said...

But who shares our values? Does the US? Does Israel and its apartheid? It is not the values that we share, it is interests.

I see no reason to condemn a country, and I would do the same for an individual, that has not incurred in foulplay. We are being taken in to accept this new geopolitical logic that it is alright to condemn, even attack, a nation and a people in preemptive caution. This is absurd and grotesque. They have done nothing, except through some rhetoric that is not uncommon in the middle east. The same rhetoric exists in Israel and there is actually leads to action, to walls, to political killings, etc; yet we accept it.

As for the historical comparision, anti-semitism and eugenic belief was the rule not the exception in early tweentieth century Europe, yet despite that rhetoric only Germany committed that appaling genocide, the others went their separate ways. The anti-semitic rethoric of Iran will only become dangerous if you villify and antagonise the country into action, if you bring it in to the international community those dangerous elements will be neutralized.

1:12 PM

Blogger daviduskas said...

I would like so much to believe in you Cabral. The thing is you say: "The anti-semitic rethoric of Iran will only become dangerous if you villify and antagonise the country into action." Chamberlain and all the others thought the same thing about Hitler.

As to you Ana, regretably what you say is not possible. Probably because too many men are in charge. And the few women that do reach power have to "prove" they are even worse than men, like Tatcher. They must be twice as mean as men, something that I think is really stupid.
I strongly believe that women are more generous, more given than men, but men continue to lay down the rules. And even more so in Iran.

1:24 PM

Blogger A. Cabral said...

Chamberlain was to afraid of war, and sought reassurance in a piece of paper. Hitler by then was already invading and was already stockpiling for war. No such thing is happening in Iran.

1:28 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home