Iran announces that they can now enrich uranium in mass amounts and experts suspect that they could have a nuclear bomb within a year. But, all we see on the news is Don Imus apologizing incessantly and who Anna Nicole Smith's baby's real father is. Hmm, makes sense to me (sarcasm). Does our nation truly care about its survival, or is just the media that has its head stuck in the sand?
6 comments:
Well, I can argue that the media is driven, commerically of course, by public interest. So the question should really be, does the American public have its head in the sand? :-)
In any case, is it not hypocrisy (on behalf of both the US and the EU) to stockpile nuclear weapons and yet to deny others the same?
Good question, does it? At times I would say it does, just because we can go about daily life while we're at war and not have it effect us in a tangible way. Other times I would say it doesn't, since there is such a mass exodus from traditional media to other sources such as talk radio, blogs, etc. I don't know if I know the answer to that, but I do feel the traditional media is not in line with the public interest/opinion.
As far as the EU and the US being Hypocrites: "Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic and of which the critic is in breach to a slightly lesser, similar or greater extent." - Wikipedia. The EU and US have signed agreements (not sure if Iran has) to not add to or research new nuclear technology, the non-proliferation treaty. As a member of the UN I believe Iran is held to that as well. But it goes further in that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism with the stated objective of destroying Israel in a nuclear cloud. Whereas the EU and the US are not. Finally, I don't believe we can compare all Nations as equal. Iran is a totalitarian regime who oppresses their people and seeks to bring war and terror to other nations. It is more than appropriate for the freedom loving nations of the world to try to combat those who would wish to embroil the world in war, enslave entire populations, or commit genocide on the Jews. For example, if nuclear technology was available during WW2, would it not have been in the interests of the entire world to see to it that Nazi Germany didn't aquire the technology? Unfortunately, evil exists, and the dictators of Iran are just that. Finally, different rule apply to nations than they do to individuals. Can you call a nation a hypocrite, just as you can't call a nation a murderer for engaging in war to protect its citizens.
OK, I think using the non-proliferation treaty is not really the case for avoiding an accusation of hypocrisy. If the stated rule is "you can't build a nuclear weapon" then the US and the EU have already broken that rule, past tense, hence the hypocrisy.
I understand your view of Iran, and I agree that it does sponsor terror, but I also consider it the most liberal of the Islamic countries, they have a large number of people our age, intellectuals too. Hence, your last statement about calling a nation a hypocrite, or a murderer also applies to Iran, can you call a nation a sponsor of terror?
You can't violate a rule in the past tense. The US built nuclear weapons before the treaty was signed. The treaty has more to do however with no new nations obtaining the bomb.
I disagree on Iran's liberality, unless liberalism includes the jailing and torture of said students when they speak out against the government. I think a better example of a liberal or more democratic islamic nation would be Jordan.
Nations can be called a state sponsor of terrorism, especially when they fund, equip, train, and ship terrorism abroad. The Hezbollah for instance, a terrorist organization, are sponsored by Iran. There are terrorist cells in Iraq seeking to destabilize the country trained, equipped, and placed by Iran. There is some speculation that Osama bin Laden makes regular visits to Iran, or is even holed up there.
I don' think you understand, I'm Iran a very liberal country precisely of its high population of liberals our age, whether or not the government does jail them.
My point about the nation being a sponsor of terror, if you can call a nation a sponsor of terror, as you are, then you can call a nation a hypocrite.
Which brings up the former point, you are using a law that has been bought into place, but I'm talking about the underlying morals. WMDs are amoral and unethical, especially due to the long term damage they cause. I can argue that countries building WMDs were being unethical, and that is why they bought the non-proliferation treaty into force into the first place. Hence the hypocrisy, because there wasn't a coded 'law' when WMDs were first being built, doesn't mean that people weren't being unethical.
Again, I disagree. WMDs are inanimate objects, and therefore cannot be unethical. I think there is some confusion between motive and action. I think you're arguing that building WMDs is unethical regardless of motive. Whereas, I would say the motive matters. Finally, the US has limited itself to high yield nuclear devices only, not dirty bombs, not sarin gas, not etc etc. The motive is to deter the use of WMDs by our enemies, as the promise is a nuke in reply.
Post a Comment