‹ Things I Want To Write (More) About When I Get Off The Plane  •  Catching Up … Social Software And The Enterprise ›

Lost & Found Over At Wealth Bondage

August 31, 2006 in Main Page | 12 comments

Today (fig.) the USA is threatening Iran, calling it one axis of evil and ginning up an imaginary threat, whilst Iran consistently maintains they have no intentions of making nuclear bombs and are interested in the peaceful evolution of the planet.

Here, below, is some contextual history, thanks to RoseMarie in the comments section of Wealth Bondage.

Why is it that the American populace, generally, believe whatever they are told by a Dear Leader, especially when Republican ?

Why can’t Americans see and understand that they are one of (if not the most) the most violent culture and country on the planet .. and the most menacing ?

Mr. Vonnegut, your attention is needed over in Aisle 5.

Reparations for Iran

On August 19, 1953 the government of the United States executed a coup d’etat in Iran. This operation was named Operation Ajax. What was it that angered U.S. policy makers? Why was the CIA sent in to overthrow the Democratic government of Iran? The answer—Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the duly elected prime minister, had the intention of nationalizing the oil fields so that the people of Iran would benefit. That single fact was enough to bring about the CIA invasion. Even back then, the official U.S. policy was that the oil under Iran’s sands was the property of U.S. corporations. The U.S. coup in Iran was so successful that soon after it, in 1954, the CIA was sent on a similar mission to Guatemala. No, Guatemala did not have oil but it had something else that a U.S. corporation was coveting. The United Fruit company wanted the soil upon which bananas were growing. How dare the people in Guatemala think that they owned the land in their country. The CIA accomplished its mission in Guatemala, and another Democracy was obliterated.

For the past 50 + years, the U.S. has had a foreign policy which supports the covert invasion of sovereign nations and the exploitation of their resources. The people of the United States have never successfully challenged this policy. Maybe if the citizens of the U.S. were informed about U.S. foreign policy, they would resist the government when it interferes with other nations.

That the CIA orchestrated a coup in Iran is old news, but it is still relevant for two reasons. For the people of Iran, August 19, 1953 is a day of great national historic importance; beyond that, USA interference in the sovereign affairs of Iran continues today. Also, the Iranian people remember that on July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. Two hundred-ninety ordinary people lost their lives. The USA never apologized.

I pose this question. What moral or legal right allows the U.S. to dictate limits on the weapons of any sovereign nation? Only a twisted sense of logic would allow a nation that has used nuclear weapons to go unchallenged, while debating the nuclear rights of other less aggressive nations.

How many civilians have been killed by Iran with nuclear bombs? If Iran has never killed anyone with a nuclear weapon, maybe weapons in Iranian hands would be less dangerous than nuclear weapons under the control of a nation that has a history of using them to kill civilians. Maybe Iran would use a stockpile of nuclear weapons only as a deterrent. The rest of the world has learned an important lesson with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq as compared to the non-invasion of North Korea. The USA does not openly invade nations that have a nuclear capability.

In a perfect world there would be no weapons, nuclear or otherwise. The mere existence of any weapon system is evidence of man’s inability to use reason and critical thinking to solve disputes. The use of any weapon, to harm any civilian, anywhere is a mind numbing moral failure… not only the use, but also the financing, design, manufacture, stock piling, or transport of any weapon. The engineer at Raytheon in Massachusetts is as complicit as the triggerman on the ground in Iraq. The taxpayer who finances the war machine is also complicit, as is every voter who ever voted for a candidate who supports the funding of the military.

This is not a perfect world. In the real world past behavior is often predictive of future behavior. Based on that principle, one can conclude that the world will not be safe until the United States gives up all of its nuclear weapons. Any nation that has ever used nuclear weapons should be banned from ever having them. Unfortunately, the United States is still enamored with the mushroom cloud. On April 15, 2006, Washington Post Staff writer, Walter Pincus reported, "…By the end of the year, the government plans to select the design of a new generation of nuclear warheads that would be more dependable…". The Pentagon has big plans for the planet. The Pentagon is part of the government. We are the government. You and I are responsible for the actions of the government. The moral responsibility is ours.

The United States owes reparations to the people of Iran. How much should be paid for the 1953 coup? How much is a democracy worth? Here’s a thought. Suppose the U.S. gave all of its nuclear weapons to Iran. Would that be a win, win, win scenario? The world would be safer because the only nation that had ever used nukes would no longer have any. The people of Iran would be compensated for the 1953 coup. The U.S. taxpayers would be spared a bill for reparations.

Rosemarie Jackowski

Powered by Qumana

12 comments

Comments feed for this article

September 3, 2006 at 2:49 am

Anonymous

“If Iran has never killed anyone with a nuclear weapon, maybe weapons in Iranian hands would be less dangerous than nuclear weapons under the control of a nation that has a history of using them to kill civilians.”

nah, cuz we dont really wanna wipe out all non-muslims. see, that’s why nuke’s are a tad bit less dangerous in our hands.

September 3, 2006 at 11:18 am

Anonymous

Well, i guess if you believe Iran wants to wipe out all non-Muslims you’ve swallowed all the propaganda without question … bait, line and sinker.

I’ll bet you get all or most of your “information” with which you “think” from Fox News or CNN ?

September 3, 2006 at 5:00 pm

Anonymous

well, the president of iran basically comes out and says it (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268) and since he’s the president and all, that concerns me. i don’t like the fact that we’d be the next target, right after isreal. and yeah, i read foxnews and cnn and worldnetdaily. yesterday i was reading the LA times and Washington Post. i read whatever. it’s all the same news.

best regards,

john e. mack

September 4, 2006 at 2:19 am

Anonymous

“it’s all the same news”

hear hear

September 4, 2006 at 8:15 am

Anonymous

Understood.

The Presdident of Iran saying “wipe Israel off the map” factoid is a well-known story .. in fact, an urban myth by now … which has been throughly debunked by several Middle east scholars and linguists who actually translated what he said CORRECTLY.

But the news media in the USA … the newspapers and the television networks … very conveniently seem alwyas (somehow) to forget to mention that, or run out of time just before they get to it .. whatever.

Specifically, a reknowned Middle east scholar at U of Michigan said:

“So, I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” And you can cite me.

If enough people do this often enough, the press will get tired of the propaganda line they are carrying, which is intended to whip up a manufactured war, and drop it. And that would be the most fitting response to Hitchens and his Neocon puppeteers.”

Here’s another whack at it …

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14720.htm

But I guess whatever serves to keep the rubes believing that the President of Irans says .. and therefore all Muslims want … to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Which therefore extrapolates just as a = b that Muslims want to kill all of us.

Do abiy more research … there’s a reason why what you get is “all the same news”, because it all comes from pretty much the same place and has pretty much the same purpose .. to keep you and your colleagues / fellow citizens believing what you are told.

September 4, 2006 at 4:06 pm

Anonymous

“This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Ick, that’s not a whole lot better than the translation we’ve all seen in the US media.

As for the article you referenced — I assume Ahmadinejad can use the media just as easily as anyone else. He’s certainly trying to, at least. I don’t have any good reason to “trust” your informationclearinghouse news anymore than you trust US newspapers. Yes, you can’t trust the news. I get that. How do you think I stumbled upon this website? What you’re basically saying is the news I read is wrong and the news you read is right. Too bad the news doesn’t require references like a journal article or something. Then maybe we’d know who’s right. Until then, all you can prove is that there are people in some media outlets saying different things than people in other media outlets. Imagine if CNN wrote the article you posted and the news source you posted wrote what CNN is saying. Who would you believe then and why? You trust the minority. Perhaps you believe in conspiracy theories. But why?

PS — I’m pretty sure the US media isn’t saying all Muslims want to wipe Israel off the map. Just that Iran’s president does, and he is mentally ill — and yes, I do believe that he is crazy. (for example, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/184cb9fb-887c-4696-8f54-0799df747a4a.html)

September 4, 2006 at 10:02 pm

Anonymous

I do appreciate your points, and understand them .. and thank you for clarifying.

And yes, I agree that Ahmadinejad can and does use the media just as easily as anyone else.

in this particular case, i have been reading many sources and viewpoints over thep ast year or so, and no i don’t trust everything i read that support my ideological leanings.

That said .. I DO indeed trust professor cole’s point of view. I find him to be very careful and thorough, and I have seen his writings where he can be harsh . severe on both “sides”.

And in this specific case he has (from about the same time as the quote which I provided above) a detailed exploratilon and interpretation of the possible meanings of the phrase “must vanish from the page of time”, along with reinforcing observations that the Iranians would be crazy to suggest vaporizing Israel / Israelis just for the hell of it (and yes, I am not nearly as careful with my words as is Cole).

Even jopurnals are tricky, I think .. my guess is these days they reflect (mainly) the views that are desired by the bodies that fund them.

I think Ahmadinejad is somewhat of loose cannon, and only crazy as in “crazy like a fox”. as for what i believe, I believe the analyses that I have read that state the Ayatollah in Iran is the Supreme Leader .. he;s the one who says what goes and what does not go … and from everything I have read he is much more circumspect than is Ahmadinejad (who I take to be a figurehead / puppet).

I think most Iranians would think it nuts to attack the USA and Americans unprovoked .. but some days it seems like the USA is doing its fair share of trying to provoke .. no ?

And how in hell would they attack over here anyway ?

September 5, 2006 at 5:13 pm

Anonymous

i’ll come back to what you said but just take the easy one here while i have a moment:

how would they attack here?

suitcase, bomb, walk across the border. that’d do it, right? disagree with crazy as a fox, if he’s talking about supernatural light him while he speaks. that’s called real live psychiatric disorder. sounds delusional with antisocial personality disorder. great i’ve already typed more than i had time for just now. i’ll be back later.

john e. mack

September 5, 2006 at 5:53 pm

Anonymous

how would they attack here?

suitcase, bomb, walk across the border. that’d do it, right?

Sure .. and that’s why the DHS was created, and why the borders are a real pain, and why they make you take off your shoes and turn in your toothpaste at the airport .. things, for example, the Brits have lived with for 30 years with Northern Ireland.

2, 3, 5, 20 or even 20 terrorists with a few bombs .. even a dirty bomb … is hardly a large-scale invasion of the Muslim hordes.

please don’t get me wrong. I do understand that the world is a more dangerous place today than it was five or ten years ago. Arguable the USA has played a reasonably significant role .. and yes, not the only role .. in creatiing the new, more dangerous, terror-related conditions and environment.

It will be a very very long haul (speaking figuratively) to kill or imprison every angry oppressed person who feels wronged by the imperialist occupiers their perspective. My sense is that this general approach .. clamping down on everyone and creating a big brother fascist total surveillance and security state is exactly what “the terrorists” had hoped the USA would do.

I also sense that we are soon going to be into th dynamic where it will become clear that we will never ever convince each other of anything other than what each of us respectively believes.

My bottom line is that the USA has had an important role over the past 50 years, in various countries and in various ways, in creating the conditions that have spawned the kind(s) of terrorism we are seeing and experiencing. It (the USA) bears some significant responsibility in this worldview, and I believe that killing and occupying (democracy and freedom at the point of a tank barrel or in the sights of a jet fighter) is not the way to “solve” the problem on a worldwide scale.

Your bottom line I don’t know, but I am guessing that it would be along the lines of “get ‘em before they get us”. If so, I’m not sure we have much left to talk about.

September 5, 2006 at 7:44 pm

Anonymous

Justa bit more general information, via Juan Cole’s blog, on Islam:
“Tantawi: Jihad is Purely Defensive
Freedom of Religious Belief Intrinsic to Islam
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, perhaps the foremost Sunni Arab authority, has issued a statement that jihad or “holy war” was legislated in Islam for the defense of the persons and honor of Muslims, and is not to be used as a threat or a form of aggression against the innocent.
Dr. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi called for the correction of false Western ideas concerning Islam, especially the notion of “jihad.”
The remarks came in a closing session of a joint Muslim-Christian Dialogue Committee between al-Azhar and the Anglican Church in the UK.
Grand Sheikh Tantawi denied that there is any clash of civilizations or religions, affirmed that members of the religions cooperate with one another, and mere difference in religion does not prevent that.
He quoted the Quran verse, “There is no compulsion in religion,” saying that it demonstrates that freedom of belief is delegated (to human beings), and any practices that contradict that principle are considered departures from true Islam.
I couldn’t find an English account of all this easily on the Web. If any Anglican readers know of a Website for it, I would appreciate the link.”

September 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm

Anonymous

true dat. best of luck with everything and thank you for the links.

john m.