War, Peace, Obama – UN Duplicity Toward Iran

8 November, 2009 at 01:06 Leave a comment

In his most recent piece for In These Times titled, “War, Peace, and Obama Nobel”, Noam Chomsky mentions the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887, passed last month, which hand-twists countries to open up nuclear facilities to IAEA and therefore, legitimize their nuclear capabilities and intentions. Resolution 1887 calls for the end of threats of force and for all countries to join the NPT, as Iran did long ago. Non-signers are India, Israel and Pakistan, all of which developed nuclear weapons with U.S. help, in violation of the NPT. It is an white elephant in the room and can could mean different things to mice and men, blind or otherwise.
Passed unianimously, the international media hailed it as a victory for Obama because it strangles Iran. Stupid Indian gits welcomed it saying that it would somehow allow them to build nuclear weapons. What did NOT make the news rounds is that Israel was asked, rather nicely to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection which USA and Europe tried to block assuring Israel that they would support Israel’s rejection of the resolution – reaffirming a secret understanding that has allowed Israel to maintain a nuclear arsenal closed to international inspections, according to officials familiar with the arrangements. This is perhaps the clearest evidence for the world to see the duplicity apparent in the treatment of countries and power of propaganda. Because the mainstream media are silent, here is me doing my bit. Now you are in the know. Go pollinate.

    Right. With my job to make some noise about the 1887 resolution and exposing the blatant hypocrisy done, let us get back to the other topic that is the joke called Nobel Peace Prize 2009 to Barack Hussein Obama in the words of a rambling Chomsky. Some quotes, worth mentioning in my honest opinion (hey, ’tis my blog) are…

    The hopes and prospects for peace aren’t well aligned – not even close. The task is to bring them nearer. Presumably that was the intent of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in choosing President Barack Obama. The prize “seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership,” Erlanger and Stolberg wrote in NYT. The nature of Bush-Obama transition bears directly on the likelihood that the prayers and encouragement might lead to progress. The Nobel committee’s concerns were valid to an extent. They singled out Obama’s rhetoric on reducing nuclear weapons. Silence is often more eloquent than loud clamor, so let us attend to what is unspoken.

    The day before he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his inspiring commitment to peace, the Pentagon announced it was accelerating delivery of the most lethal non-nuclear weapons in the arsenal: 13-ton bombs for B-2 and B-52 stealth bombers, designed to destroy deeply hidden bunkers shielded by 10,000 pounds of reinforced concrete. It’s no secret the bunker busters could be deployed against Iran. Planning for these “massive ordnance penetrators” began in the Bush years but languished until Obama called for developing them rapidly when he came into office. The Nobel Peace Prize, of course, is not concerned solely with reducing the threat of terminal nuclear war, but rather with war generally, and the preparation for war. In this regard, the selection of Obama raised eyebrows all over the world, not least in Iran, surrounded by U.S. occupying armies.

    Not for the first time, what is veiled in silence would receive front-page headlines in societies that valued their freedom and were concerned with the fate of the world. On Iran’s borders in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, Obama has escalated Bush’s war and is likely to proceed on that course, perhaps sharply. Obama has made clear that the United States intends to retain a long-term major presence in the region. That much is signaled by the huge city-within-a city called “Baghdad Embassy,” unlike any embassy in the world. Obama has announced the construction of mega-embassies in Islamabad and Kabul, and huge consulates in Peshawar and elsewhere. He is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II. And that’s not counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with more war spending slated for future.

    The Nobel Peace Prize committee might well have made truly worthy choices, prominent among them the remarkable Afghan activist Malalai Joya. This brave woman survived the Russians, and then the radical Islamists whose brutality was so extreme that the population welcomed the Taliban. Joya has withstood the Taliban and now the return of the warlords under the Karzai government. Throughout, Joya worked effectively for human rights, particularly for women; she was elected to parliament and then expelled when she continued to denounce warlord atrocities. She now lives underground under heavy protection, but she continues the struggle, in word and deed. By such actions, from unknown people, repeated everywhere as best we can, the prospects for peace edge closer to hopes.

    That is all one has to say about Obama, Nobel Peace Prize and everything that followed. As for Iran, well, they have a fundamental right to explore all energy options for the benefit of their country. Maybe it has to do with crusades or maybe, a remnant of history earlier than that but there is a foreboding ill-will and fear of Iran, erstwhile Persia. Iran hasn’t invaded another country for hundreds of years – unlike the United States and Israel. In naval maneuvers in July, Israel sent its Dolphin class subs, capable of carrying nuclear missiles, through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea, sometimes accompanied by warships, to a position from which they could attack Iran – as they have a “sovereign right” to do, according to USA Vice President Joe Biden. No humane person wants Iran – or anyone else – to have nuclear weapons. But a little honesty would not hurt in addressing these problems. All the same, it is about free-will and choice. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, let them have it. No hypocrisy please. The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized. Sure the President and Mullahs are a wonky lot but they are not THAT crazy to see this eventuality. They definitely cannot hold a candle to the screw loose Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee in cocooned wintry dark cosy Oslo.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


    Entry filed under: Citizen-Journalism, Economy, Energy, India, News-Media, Politics, Security, WebXP.

    Tainted Elections Club – Karzai – Economist Cartoon Saina Nehwal #6 in Badminton – Stop Celebrating

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s

    Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


    November 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct   Dec »


    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

    %d bloggers like this: