Republican Treason on Iran

Whenever most of us questioned de facto GW Bush’s foreign policy abortions, partisan Republicans accused of us “undermining the Commander-in-Chief [of the Armed Forces],” treason, appeasement, “hating America,” blah blah blah.  But now it’s OK for them to do the same with President Obama?*  Excuse me, but someone who lived in the Muslim World some years — as a civilian — and even has Muslim relatives, might have a little more insight into the matter than Red State farmboys on The Hill … or even Blue State politically-correct cosmopolitans for that matter.  (Awful stereotypes, both, of course…)  Even someone driven out of the church of his choice by the GOP!  (So much for “No Religious Test for holding any office under this Constitution”!)  This from the folks who seriously talked about nuking Iran … or having Israel do it?!  So much for the Myth of Republican Foreign Policy Expertise….

(*–Some MSM still feel the need to call him “President Barack Obama,” like he’s some foreign leader we’ve never heard of or something!!)

Advertisements

How to solve Israel’s Iran problem

Israeli leaders – in the midst of a growing domestic scandal, interestingly – threaten to attack Iran, which would be an act of war and perhaps provoke the holocaust – if they will pardon the expression – that they claim to want to avoid.

They’d take alot of wind out of Iranian sails if they just made peace with their neighbors, especially the Palestinians.

This wouldn’t be “appeasement.”  Letting Israel hang on to the Illegally-Occupied Territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights, and attack her neighbors Lebanon and Syria with impunity and out of all scale to the problem that was emanating therefrom, is appeasement.  Letting Israel continue to make innocent Palestinians’ lives hell on earth, and not pay for the excessive devastation in Lebanon, is appeasement.  Letting Israel perch the whole planet on the precipice of World War III / Global Jihad / World Crusade for its own shortsighted, misguided, narrow policies and international noncooperation and dictation, is appeasement.  Bu’ushist threats of a nuclear first-strike against a non-nuclear Iran, besides illegal in themselves, are an appeasement of Israel.  New French “neocon” threats of a similar nature are shockingly disappointing for this formerly-responsible member of the world community, as well as appeasement and “red meat” for their “base” in France and the U.S.  US and French disingenuousness is similarly appeasement.

Iran is most definitely not “a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies,” because we have no treatied allies under Iranian “threat.”  Such a statement is ignorant of the situation at International Law as it currently stands.  Iran is a nation of more than 70 million population, a modern State and economy, and a major world culture.  It cannot be simply ordered around like some tribal sheikdom or Third-World Banana Republic.  Bu’ushists bluster in perfect Middle Eastern fashion, while “the West” claims to be heir to a better-developed international legal and diplomatic tradition.  Bush thus gives the lie to Western claims, makes Mideasterners nervous, and they would reasonably feel the need to prepare to defend themselves against violations of their territorial sovereignty, even if they weren’t making such preparations, as Iran, and US and international intelligence estimates claim they are not.  (Of course, reason is not something the Bu’ushists are known for, as they belittle The Reality-Based Community!)

The real rogue states in this process so far are Israel, the US, and now France also.

Fox Attacks Iran

Fox News Channel beats the drums for war against Iran, just like they did against Iraq a few years back, and with as little justification.  See this short video and sign a MoveOn petition to the real networks not to be bullied by Fox this time around!

(I wonder if the Republican National Committee and McCain campaign report as donations, all the air time they receive from FNC, AM radio, etc etc etc.?  Surely it’d put them way over the top: after all, it’s basically 24/7 free advertising!)

“Muslim leaders want to curb ‘Islamophobia'”

From MSNBC.  Though they could start by working on their own people who give their faith a bad name, like the Saudis and their highly sectarian and provocative Wahabbism (a minority among the world’s Muslims), bin Laden and his ilk, get Ahmadinejad to tone it down a scooch, introduce those radical madrasa schools a little bit into the Reality-Based Community, stuff like that.

Then, just try to understand where “libertarian” Westerners are coming from: today’s Western Christianity and “post-Christianity” are built on the foundation of the Rennaissance of Classical pagan Greek and Roman culture, which was much aided by translations of Classics via the Muslim world at the height of its own culture.  As an Orthodox Christian, I see alot of problems with this too, but it’s there and it’s highly influential around the world now.

If the Islamic Conference just tries to beat countries over the head it doesn’t like with international law, they’re more likely to drive more countries into the U.S. camp, which largely disdains international law.  Then nobody benefits, as the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein have learned, and the Iranians may yet learn, sadly.

Maybe what they should do is work domestically, within countries, based on their own existing legal systems and parliaments.  Form “Anti-Defamation Leagues” in each country, like Jewish folks have in the U.S.

I personally have a growing problem with growing Muslim influence in the West, in particular the retrograde influence of Saudi / Wahabbist and other radical ideologies who take advantage of “liberal” Western immigration, speech, and publishing laws to oppose Western values, societies, and people’s lives and safety, and so-called honor killings (aka revenge vendettas).  But I oppose all false rhetoric, and favor critiques based only on truth.  In a Western country, if you can prove slander or libel in court, you can win some kind of award.  As for non-Muslim cartoonists or their publishers who violate Muslim rules, well, you shouldn’t just expect people who don’t belong to your religion to follow its rules, any more than Jews expect non-Jews to keep kosher; you have to inculcate genuine sensitivity.  We do that with White police; there’s no reason rational Muslim representatives can’t peacefully ask to meet with Western periodical publishers, etc., and help them voluntarily become more sensitive to your religion’s concerns, just like any other growing minority religion here.  But does a problem in Denmark have to provoke violence in Pakistan and the East Indies?  Is that reasonable?  Isn’t that just “Westophobia”?

OTOH, if you come to the West, you implicitly agree to the rough-and-tumble of Western democracy and political “dialogue,” which sometimes is “in your face” and offensive.  I oppose gratuitous, senseless offensiveness, but sometimes legitimate critique and questioning will offend, but in the end is helpful.  Where’s the rationalism and reasonableness of Medieval Islam, the cultural height of your civilization?  There were limits to potentially-scandalous criticism, but there was also literary give-and-take.  Embrace the best of your heritage; we’re supposed to embrace the best of ours as Westerners; challenge us to do so.

There’s productive confrontation, and there’s just unproductive point-scoring.  The latter feels good only for a short time, like self-gratification; the former can bring significant, permanent improvement for everybody concerned.  Ask American Jews and Blacks.

Insofar as “Islamophobia” is a “phobia,” it is an irrational fear, one not based in reality, and so in theory has a psychotherapeutic treatment and cure, even on a societal scale.  Outlawing it through the UN won’t cure it, only make it worse.  Treat the phobia, show it to be irrational and not based in reality.  What Westerners fear is terrorism, war, weapons of mass destruction, violence, unruly mobs, senseless property damage, intolerance, any real loss of rights or freedom or democracy, threats to their elected governments and to what they value in their own historic cultures, etc.  Is this unreasonable, irrational?  Don’t Muslims fear the same things?  Yet Westerners feel these things are being threatened by some people in the name of Islam, rightly or wrongly.  Help us out, please.

Then again, if all you’re going to be about is avenging 800 years of Western victories over Muslims, well then I guess it’ll be World War 3 and the end of everything.  Then the Promised One will come, and we’ll see who was right.  Is that it?  Do you want the same thing as American Fundamentalists, Armageddon?

Why can’t we both choose peace?