Thursday, March 10, 2005
Hypocrisy Writ Large: Iran's alleged nukes, and Bush calling for an end to [certain] occupations . . .
Firstly, this whole Iran situation . . .
#1. The IAEA has found little or no evidence that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. It's possible that they are (if you were Iran, what would YOU do?). But, at most, the available evidence warrants more inspections—NOT an invasion, or even a referral to the U.N. Security Council.
#2. More to the point, even if they were, it's irrelevant, unless you're willing to accept a completely hypocritical policy as valid. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states quite unequivocally that the non-nuclear states will agree not to pursue nuclear weapons IF the nuclear states agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons stockpiles. Not only has the U.S. not done this, but we are actively pursuing NEW nuclear weapons production, in blatant and flagrant violation of the treaty to which we are signatory. Besides which, why are we not more concerned about putting pressure on other countries who we KNOW to possess nulear weapons and who therefore have refused to SIGN the bloody treaty—namely, India, Pakistan, and Israel? (The latter being a rather special case that needs no real answer.)
Furthermore, the U.S. could be said to be violating another agreement in the NPT: ". . . and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Why? Because when you single out three nations as members of an "Axis of Evil" and then invade one of them based on fabricated claims; and then, even when it is proven that these claims were fabricated, you fail to apologize and continue to threaten one of the other nations, rather than vowing not to invade it . . . You're pretty much guaranteeing that this nation will seek to develop any weapons it can that will deter an invasion. This is not rocket science, folks.
It's similar to the issue of alleged "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There never was much evidence for these "ties" at all—let alone ties between Iraq and 9/11, despite what Cheney keeps insisting—while there has always been a great deal of evidence suggesting that Bin Laden and Saddam were bitter enemies. But more to the point, even if there HAD been some evidence, it's a moot point. Iraq probably had the LEAST connection with Al Qaeda of any country in the region. Countries with much closer, deeper ties include Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and perhaps Iran and Syria. So from any rational standpoint, it simply made no fucking sense whatsoever to invade Iraq on the basis of "Terrorist Ties."
Now, on Syria and Lebanon . . .
The fact that these absurd speeches Bush is making, calling on Syria to cease its illegal occupation and withdraw its troops, and to abide by U.N. resolutions, . . . that these speeches are not met with disgusted laughter in the U.S. press is a sad comment on our media and on the collective conscience of our country. In the midst of our occupation of Iraq and the continuing occupation of Palestine by Israel, Sonny Bush has the balls to utter this nonsense with a straight face? (No, you're right: rather with the dazed smirking face of a half-wit stroke victim.)
I don't know much about the history of this situation, so I'm not qualified to say whether Syria should withdraw its troops or not. But we ought to at least take note of the fact that half a million people marched in the streets of Lebanon in FAVOR of Syria and in OPPOSITION to foreign interference by the U.S., as compared with maybe 70,000 Lebanese who rallied in favor of Syria's withdrawal in the past weeks. I heard one man—a member of Syra's "Reform Party"—on DemocracyNow! explaining how Hezbollah and the Syrian government had ordered all those people to march, thus we shouldn't take it seriously. Jesus, that's about as conspiratorial as you can get. Explaining away the presence of half a million people marching in the streets by claiming they were "ordered" to do so is about as ridiculous as saying that the Iraqi elections were rigged because someone "ordered" the Iraqi people to vote. But, if the conspiracy theory happens to fit in with the status quo and with the current agenda of the U.S. government, then apparently it's not a nutty conspiracy theory at all, but a sensible argument, a statement of "fact."
As far as the U.S. helping to uphold U.N. Security Council resolutions . . .
Here is a partial list of all the U.N. resolutions that the U.S. (very often alone, or with Israel only) has vetoed in one ten-year period.
I'm not privy to the voting record in more recent years, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that the pattern has persisted.