حزب مردم بلوچستان Balochistan People’s Party بلوچستانءِ اُستمانءِ گــَل
Bomb Iran
WE MUST bomb Iran.
LA TIMES 11/19/2006
By Joshua Muravchik
JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was
brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.
First, we agreed to our allies' requests that we offer Tehran a string of
concessions, which it spurned. Then, Britain, France and Germany wanted to
impose a batch of extremely weak sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to
be involved in nuclear activities would have been barred from foreign travel
— except for humanitarian or religious reasons — and outside countries would
have been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian nuclear
projects.
But even this was too much for the U.N. Security Council. Russia promptly
announced that these sanctions were much too strong. "We cannot support
measures … aimed at isolating Iran," declared Foreign Minister Sergei V.
Lavrov.
It is now clear that neither Moscow nor Beijing will ever agree to tough
sanctions. What's more, even if they were to do so, it would not stop Iran,
which is a country on a mission. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put it:
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen….
The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes and tyranny and injustice has
reached its end…. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the
entire world." There is simply no possibility that Iran's clerical rulers
will trade this ecstatic vision for a mess of Western pottage in the form of
economic bribes or penalties.
So if sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current
Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners firmly in
the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today than it
did a decade ago, when students were demonstrating and reformers were
ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion of Iran's bomb grows nearer every day.
Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a
nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC newsman
Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is bound and
determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely, he says, on the
threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its bomb. Similarly, Newsweek
International Editor Fareed Zakaria points out that we have succeeded in
deterring other hostile nuclear states, such as the Soviet Union and China.
And in these pages, William Langewiesche summed up the what-me-worry
attitude when he wrote that "the spread of nuclear weapons is, and always
has been, inevitable," and that the important thing is "learning how to live
with it after it occurs."
But that's whistling past the graveyard. The reality is that we cannot live
safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has
long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas
and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily
Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man,
Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could
we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?
Koppel says that we could prevent this by issuing a blanket warning that if
a nuclear device is detonated anywhere in the United States, we will assume
Iran is responsible. But would any U.S. president really order a retaliatory
nuclear strike based on an assumption?
Another reason is that an Iranian bomb would constitute a dire threat to
Israel's 6 million-plus citizens. Sure, Israel could strike back, but
Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who was Ahmadinejad's "moderate"
electoral opponent, once pointed out smugly that "the use of an atomic bomb
against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the
Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not
inconceivable." If that is the voice of pragmatism in Iran, would you trust
deterrence against the messianic Ahmadinejad?
Even if Iran did not drop a bomb on Israel or hand one to terrorists, its
mere possession of such a device would have devastating consequences. Coming
on top of North Korea's nuclear test, it would spell finis to the entire
nonproliferation system.
And then there is a consequence that seems to have been thought about much
less but could be the most harmful of all: Tehran could achieve its goal of
regional supremacy. Jordan's King Abdullah II, for instance, has warned of
an emerging Shiite "crescent." But Abdullah's comment understates the
danger. If Iran's reach were limited to Shiites, it would be constrained by
their minority status in the Muslim world as well as by the divisions
between Persians and Arabs.
But such ethnic-based analysis fails to take into account Iran's charisma as
the archenemy of the United States and Israel and the leverage it achieves
as the patron of radicals and rejectionists. Given that, the old assumptions
about Shiites and Sunnis may not hold any longer. Iran's closest ally today
is Syria, which is mostly Sunni. The link between Tehran and Damascus is
ideological, not theological. Similarly, Iran supports the Palestinian
groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which are overwhelmingly Sunni (and as a
result, Iran has grown popular in the eyes of Palestinians).
During the Lebanon war this summer, we saw how readily Muslims closed ranks
across the Sunni-Shiite divide against a common foe (even as the two groups
continued killing each other in Iraq). In Sunni Egypt, newborns were named
"Hezbollah" after the Lebanese Shiite organization and "Nasrallah" after its
leader. As Muslim scholar Vali Nasr put it: "A flurry of anti-Hezbollah
[i.e., anti-Shiite] fatwas by radical Sunni clerics have not diverted the
admiring gaze of Arabs everywhere toward Hezbollah."
In short, Tehran can build influence on a mix of ethnicity and ideology,
underwritten by the region's largest economy. Nuclear weapons would bring
regional hegemony within its reach by intimidating neighbors and rivals and
stirring the admiration of many other Muslims.
This would thrust us into a new global struggle akin to the one we waged so
painfully with the Soviet Union for 40-odd years. It would be the "clash of
civilizations" that has been so much talked about but so little defined.
Iran might seem little match for the United States, but that is not how
Ahmadinejad sees it. He and his fellow jihadists believe that the Muslim
world has already defeated one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union) and
will in time defeat the other.
Russia was poor and weak in 1917 when Lenin took power, as was Germany in
1933 when Hitler came in. Neither, in the end, was able to defeat the United
States, but each of them unleashed unimaginable suffering before they
succumbed. And despite its weakness, Iran commands an asset that neither of
them had: a natural advantage in appealing to the world's billion-plus
Muslims.
If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might
move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs
would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples. In the end, we
would no doubt win, but how long this contest might last and what toll it
might take are anyone's guess.
The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of
force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against
Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these
facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a
large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days
to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end
Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.
What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that
would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet
would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own
presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it
again.
Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the
congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so unpopular?
Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the war against
terror is more important than the polls. If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a
nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow. We will
be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office.
Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global
anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes,
probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.
After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's
Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to
crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of
soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.
The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest
man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million
lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II.
Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop
him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurds could stabilize all Iraq
First published: Sunday, November 19,
2006
http://timesunion.com/
With Baghdad in the grip of chaos, the best Gen. John Abizaid, America's
commanding general in the Middle East, can recommend for a long-term
solution permitting a withdrawal of U.S. forces is building up the Iraqi
army.
Trouble is that this approach has not worked for all the years it has been
the bedrock of U.S. strategy. Recall President Bush's incantation that
Americans would step down only as Iraqis stepped up.
The incessant and cruel bloodshed in Baghdad demands to be controlled and
the Iraqi government has shown its incapacity to do so. Substantial U.S.
reinforcements for the 141,000 troops in country are not a realistic
prospect. The U.S. armed forces are stretched to their limit. In any event,
many more Americans would not be welcomed by Iraqis.
Training of Iraqi army and police by the Americans has been extensive. The
result has been to undermine its very purpose, unintentionally helping to
strengthen sectarian Shiite militias, whose members have largely infiltrated
the forces. Sunnis view both the police and army as mostly if not entirely
doing the bidding of various Shiite factions. This contributes to the
continuing rising slaughter of civilians and the steadily increasing
American casualties from more frequent attacks.
In this crisis, which could in the worst case result in Iraq becoming a
failed state, the U.S. should turn to the Kurds, who in their virtually
autonomous enclave in northern Iraq have amassed a reputable and disciplined
force of 60,000 to 100,000 men known as the Peshmerga.
Numbers of them have been trained over a dozen years or so by American
instructors. During the American invasion they played a key role, taking
control of the major northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
In the past nearly four years of turmoil they have protected Iraqi Kurdistan
as a haven safe enough to attract Iraqi Sunnis fleeing for their lives. Yet
Kurdish troops have been largely limited in their operations by the U.S. to
their three home provinces -- because of unease among Iraq's neighbors.
The Peshmerga could have greater credibility with both Shiite and Sunnis
than either would have with forces mainly made up of members of the other's
religious sect. Although the Kurds are Sunnis, they are not Arabs and have
their own quarrel with Iraqi Sunnis. Under Saddam Hussein, Arab Sunnis were
shipped wholesale to Kurdish areas to dilute Kurdish dominance in the
oil-rich territory in the northern part of the country.
As to their relationship with the dominant Shiites, the Kurds share with
them the distinction of having been the targets of Saddam's oppression. Up
to 150,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam's minions.
Unlike the Sunnis and Shiites, the Kurds are strong supporters of the
Americans, who sheltered them from Saddam's attacks since 1991 with a no-fly
zone. That permitted the Kurds to establish self-rule and develop their
cultural identity.
The Kurds are not the perfect solution, but they would be an immediately
available stopgap to restore Baghdad, the epicenter of the various
insurgencies, to a tolerable level of life. Their expanded role might serve
to compel the necessary compromises to stabilize the country that the
ineffectual al-Malaki government has been unable to undertake.
Employment of the Peshmerga, nominally a part of the national Iraqi army,
outside of its home grounds would come with a cost. In Iraq itself, it
likely would engender fears of the Kurds winding up in any eventual
settlement with a greater share of the national pie -- meaning oil -- than
their 4 million portion of the national population would warrant. Shiites
are the most numerous, Sunnis the second most.
Iraq's neighbors, for their part, are what customarily is described as
"restive" whenever Kurds are involved. That's because 41 percent of Kurds
live in Turkey, which has fought a long intense battle to keep them from
autonomy or secession.
That goes to a lesser degree for Syria, with 6 percent of the Kurds, and
Iran, with 31 percent.
U.S. diplomacy would have to reassure the Turks, who are allies, that the
wider employment of Kurdish troops, and perhaps additional training of more
of them, would be strictly limited to containing the destabilization of
Iraq, which also threatens Turkey.
As for the Syrians and Iranians, who are fishing in Iraq's troubled waters,
the Kurds' wider deployment would serve as a warning to them to help
facilitate compromise rather than continuing to encourage disorder in Iraq.
Harry Rosenfeld is editor-at-large of the Times Union. He can be reached at
454-5450 or by e-mail at
hrosenfeld@timesunion.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA interest in Iraq and Middle
East
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
KurdishMedia.com - By Hamma Mirwaisi
I have read numerous articles recently written by analysts and political
advisors regarding the US situation in Iraq. Each seems to have a different
opinion on the correct course of action the US should take, but they are all
lacking a comprehensive understanding of Iraq. I am an Iraqi immigrant who
has been living in America for over 30 years. I have witnessed first hand
the brutalities that Saddam’s regime afflicted on its own people. I am a
naturalized US citizen and wish to thank the American people for their
generosity in allowing me to come and live peacefully among them.
I would also like to express my opinion at this critical point with regard
to our presence in Iraq. We must begin by remembering why we went there in
the first place. Ruthless terrorists attacked us on September 11. Terrorists
who attacked with no discrimination, who simply wanted to kill as many
Americans as possible. At that time we knew that Saddam Hussein’s government
in Iraq was in the process of developing very dangerous weapons and that he
had have very close ties to many terrorist organizations in the area. It was
a matter of common sense for the US to make every effort to stop Saddam and
ensure that he would never be able to supply terrorists with weapons. Saddam
had a proven history of using chemical and biological weapons (on his own
people), he would have had no hesitation to use those same weapons on
American people.
Now that we are in Iraq we need to understand the history of Iraq a little
better. The Islamic army created the territory of Iraq when they invaded the
existing Sasani Empire. With them they brought a large Arab population to
settle in what is today known as Iraq. Baghdad was built by the Arab Abbasi
Kalafat dynasty and has since become one of the battlegrounds between the
Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam, through the Iranian Empire (Persian
dominated Empire-claming Shiite sect of Islam) and Ottoman Empire (Turkish
dominated Empire- claming Sunni sect of Islam) Arabs lost control of the
Arab world including the Iraqi territory during that era. In 1900 the
British Empire came along, the Arabs joined the British and gained back the
Iraqi territory plus part of Kurdish land in Iraq and Syria.
Today that rift still remains. Iran would like to reclaim a portion of Iraq,
which it believes was a part of the old Empire of Iran. Turkey would like to
reclaim a portion of Iraq, which it believes was a part of the old Ottoman
Empire. Both of these countries, plus the surrounding Arab countries are
looking to claim Iraq as their own. If the US were to pull out of Iraq today
the end result would be a large war in the region, which would destabilize
most of the Middle East with the biggest loser being the Iraqi people.
Here is where I would like to express my opinion to the US Government. What
we need to do in Iraq is sit down with the Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and the
Kurdish Leaders and be an honest broker. We must attempt to bring peace to
the people of Iraq by explaining to them very carefully what is at stake for
each of their communities.
1-For Arab Shiites in Iraq they need simply to look at their Arab brothers
in the Khuzestan (Arab area in Iran) province of Iran to see how few rights
they would have if they become incorporated into the new Persian Empire.
Somebody should explain to Mr. Mugtada Sadar that the Shiite community in
Iraq has suffered enough, let them have peace. Saddam once forcibly
relocated many of them to Karkuk; they need not blindly follow the
fanaticisms of the Dawa Party or Sadarism. That will bring more pain to
Shiite community in Iraq. There must be some justice and concessions today
when attempting to resolve the territory problems left by Saddam’s regime.
They should continue to look forward and thank the US government and the
American people a million times for the sacrifices they have made to
liberate them from Saddam and his Bath party.
2- Sunni Arabs in Iraq can look back as well at the mischief caused under
Saddam and his Bath Party against the Shiite Arab and Kurdish populations of
Iraq. They should be apologizing to them for what their community did in
Iraq for the last one hundred years, especially in the Saddam and Bath party
era. Give up the crazy notion to unite the Arab world under Bath Ideology
and Al-Qaida leadership. There is no way that the neighboring Arabs will
want your leadership, instead focus on peace with your immediate countrymen
- Shiite Arabs and Kurds.
3-The Kurds in Iraq are realistic and thankful to their liberators – the US
Government and the people of the USA. They have shown forgiveness to Sunni
Arabs and have been thus far very tolerant of the abuse they receive from
Turkey. Their leadership has been honorable in its dealings such as
protecting Iraqi Christians as well as Arabs who have fled from the violence
in the middle and south of Iraq. The Kurdish people are the only ones in the
region who have shown an honest alliance with the US Government. Hopefully
this will be recognized by the US soon. In the meantime, they must do their
best to fend off the constant threat of Iran and Turkey. Hopefully the
international community and the UN will see these issues and help alleviate
them soon so that the people may have peace.
In conclusion our country has a responsibility and an interest in a stable
Middle East. I believe we should begin a slow withdrawal from the south and
middle of Iraq and station our bases in the Kurdish northern cities of
Karkuk and Mosel. This area is far more stable and safe and we would not be
putting our beloved troops in harms way. We should have a training facility
in the Kurdistan region to help Iraqi military work towards stabilizing the
country before withdraw.
Hamma Mirwaisi is the President of the Alliance Investment Group, L.L.C. (AIG).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Neda Bolourchi
http://www.atimes.com/
Middle East
Nov 22, 2006
Last week, Iran ended its third major military exercise of 2006. The stated
purpose of the Great Prophet II exercises, held November 2-12, was to
enhance the military's unified action capabilities.
The exercises involved air, land and naval maneuvers spread over 14 of the
country's 30 provinces, but Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi said they
simultaneously focused "on the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea". While the
rhetoric surrounding the spring's Great
Prophet I games aimed to boost national prestige and buoy Iran's populace,
the Islamic Republic engaged in the Force of Zolfaqar and Great Prophet II
games primarily to deliver an external deterrence message.
The military drills
Highly publicized in the Islamic Republic, the Great Prophet I maneuvers
merely served as a show of force in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf's
only gateway and vital supply route for 20% of the world's oil supply. As
analysts dismissed Tehran's claims of highly developed technology equal to
or surpassing that in the West, wide consensus arose that the demonstrated
weapons systems were antiquated designs of Chinese, North Korean and Russian
origin that pose no serious threat.
In contrast to the exaggerated claims made in the spring to boost Iranian
morale during a crisis over its nuclear program, the Zolfaqar exercises
underlined the Islamic Republic's defense capabilities. As such, many
exercises focused on Iran's Persian Gulf coastline. However, with the
increased rhetoric from the administration of US President George W Bush
since spring, the Zolfaqar exercises not only used forces from traditional
units, but tested new equipment.
For example, the operational appearance of the Sa'eqeh ("Thunderbolt"), an
aging F-5 Freedom Fighter enhanced with a new dual vertical stabilizer, made
bombing runs. While some of Tehran's claims were undercut, the
demonstrations served to convey an indigenous industrial ability to alter
major control surfaces on a supersonic aircraft. Analysts note that such a
native industry arose in response to imposed sanctions and may result in
unknown capabilities.
In addition, Defense Minister Mostafa Najjar stated that Iran successfully
test-fired a bunker-buster, the Qassem ("Messenger"). Air Force General Amir
Amini followed up by stating that the Qassem is "a flying bomb and can be
used as a guided long-range air-to-surface missile". While reports regarding
the bunker-buster remain unconfirmed, Iran added to its defensive stable by
deploying transporter erector launchers with capabilities to pose a
ready-fueled missile capable of rapid-reaction power.
Although some perceived Iran's growing capabilities as aggressive in nature,
Major-General Ataollah Salehi declared that the Zolfaqar exercises served to
implement a "new defensive doctrine". In emphasizing "Iran's friendly
approach to the neighboring states, [Iranian leaders] believe that such war
games are not considered a threat to the region". Salehi went on to say what
has been repeated for decades: "Any threat facing the region is caused by
extra-regional enemies."
With the increasing rhetoric against the Islamic Republic and the
polyvocality of such discourse, Tehran moved from Zolfaqar's perimeter
defense and coordination exercises to the Great Prophet II games. This has
been an attempt to solidify such defensive coordination in rapid-response
fashion so as to deliver messages to domestic and international audiences.
Over the course of the games, Tehran claimed it was deploying dozens of live
rockets and missiles. Included was a Shahab-2 that for the first time used a
cluster-munition warhead with up to 1,400 bomblets. In addition, the first
firing of the medium-range (about 1,0001,200 kilometers) Shahab-3 in a live
training exercise was announced. Other ballistic and artillery rockets used
were the Zolfaqar-73, the Scud B, the Fath-110, and the Zelzal.
While noting that the exercises served as a response to US exercises in the
Persian Gulf, the Israelis focused on the threat potential of Iranian
missiles. Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel's anti-ballistic missile program,
noted to journalists that "the intensity of the military exercises was
unprecedented. It was meant to make an impression - and it made an
impression ... [because the Iranians] were able to launch so many missiles."
Two days later, Safavi agreed. With the Shahab-3 capable of reaching Israel,
Rubin pointed out that Israel's Arrow system successfully intercepted a
simulated Shahab-3 missile in a test last December and that such a system
had to be taken into account.
Tehran's motivations
Safavi announced the Great Prophet II exercises on November 1, a day after
the completion of the US Navy-led "Leading Edge" joint exercise that
included personnel from Australia, Bahrain, France, Italy, Qatar and the
United Kingdom. The US 5th Fleet defines Leading Edge as part of the
Proliferation Security Initiative in "response to the growing challenge
posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery
systems and related materials worldwide". The exercise in the Persian Gulf
was the 25th since 2003 and the third in the region.
Despite claims by the US Navy that nations "are working absolutely together
as a team", Iran saw the exercise as an additional tool of "propaganda and
political maneuver without military value". In contrast, and given the
lopsided number of participating versus observer countries in the exercises,
Iran saw Leading Edge as part of the escalating dispute between the Bush
administration and Iran over its nuclear program. In addition to seeking
international sanctions, the US is seen as simultaneously applying pressure
on Iran's trading partners, the populace, and the government.
In turn, Iranian leaders feel compelled to engage in brinkmanship with the
US to avoid the appearance of weakness in domestic and international arenas.
While psychological affirmation requires Tehran to counter US moves with
those of its own, the Islamic Republic did conduct the Great Prophet II
exercises with practical defense measures in mind.
Tehran's preparations
Iranian leaders did not expect n US frontal invasion even before the
Democrats re-gained control of the US Congress and most certainly do not
expect an air campaign after US citizens have demanded a course change for
Iraq. Rather, the Iranians remain convinced that the United States will seek
regime change through incrementally tougher sanctions imposed by the
international community, fomenting ethnic and urban unrest, drawing Tehran
concretely into Iraq, and possibly then conducting limited air strikes
against military and/or nuclear facilities afterwards. The nomination of
former Central Intelligence Agency director Robert Gates as defense
secretary cements Iranian convictions regarding US tactics.
Responding to concerns regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of a
military beset by divisions, the Iranians have moved to emphasize rapid
deployment of various units simultaneously as a way to counter attempts at
regime change.
Two factors have likely contributed to such an assessment: (1) the failure
of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's army to stage a coup during the last days of
prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar's government in 1979 because divisions could
not enter major cities quickly and (2) Samuel P Huntington's political order
theory, which is believed to be the cornerstone of US action and has caused
riots in the minority provinces of Balochistan, Azerbaijan and Khuzestan
over the past two years. In such a strategy, Tehran sees the US government
operating from neighboring countries and either crossing the Iranian border
or having co-opted Iranian dissidents in these peripheral provinces to set
off bombs or cause riots.
In short, the chaos engulfing the periphery would cause the movement of
millions to internal cities that would be infrastructurally unable to meet
their needs. Chaos would ensue. Without order, mass mobilization would occur
and thereby provide a mechanism for regime change. Despite the limited
application and success of the theory, the Great Prophet II exercises convey
that Tehran is not taking its control of the country for granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An answer from Professor Noam Chomsky to Ahmad Reza Taheri
Baloch Academic Association
22-11-2006
انتقاد پروفسور نوام چامسکی، از
احمد رضا طاهری
مقاله ای (انگلیسی) تحت عنوان: "حاکمیت جهانی: چه حکومتی شایسته آن است؟" توسط
احمد رضا طاهری در ژورنال علوم انسانی آکادمیک بلوچ به چاپ رسید. این مقاله تا
حدودی دیدی انتقادی بر کار تحقیقی پروفسور نوام چامسکی بنام: "کشورهای روگ" یا
(کشورهایی که قانون بین الملل را زیر پا میگذارند)، است...
متن پایین پاسخ انتقادی پروفسور نوام چامسکی، استاد دانشگاه هارواد، به احمد
رضا طاهری (طی ایی میلی) برای احمد رضا طاهری ارسال شده است، به این شرح:
This is an answer from
Professor Noam Chomsky to Ahmad Reza Taheri, who has recently written an
article based on “Rogue States,” a work conducted by Professor Noam Chomsky
of Harvard University. The Article written by Ahmad Reza Taheri is:
Global Sovereignty: Who
deserves it?
Thanks for sending me the interesting article. The fundamental premise is
Hobbesian in inspiration: that the world needs "an experienced global
sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow
other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the
mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past."
I don't agree. The fundamental premise is, in my opinion, groundless. There
are far better forms of social and political organization, domestically and
internationally: the forms that were proposed and partially developed in the
early post-war system, for example, torn to shreds primarily by the world's
most powerful state, which, you argue (on premises that I think are
untenable), should be the global sovereign.
On your assumption, if Nazi Germany had won the second world war, then we
should support its claim to rule the world. It was by far the
technologically most advanced power, was the center of the sciences, the
arts, philosophy, the peak of western civilization, and having the won the
war it would be the only choice to be the global sovereign. And the domestic
analogue of your Hobbesian principle is that we should pick the most
powerful and experienced person and make him dictator, so that he can
guarantee order and ensure that his past crimes not be repeated. Perhaps the
leading Mafia don, or a Hitler or a Stalin.
I do not really see much point to discussing the possibility that the
Taliban, or Iraq, or Iran, or in fact any other state in the existing world
or the world as it is likely to evolve as far as we can predict, might
conceivably be a global sovereign. That abstracts much too far from reality,
in my opinion.
Incidentally, you ignore quite a lot that is highly relevant. On the hideous
crimes of Saddam, for example, you overlook the fact that they were quite
consciously abetted by the United States, which precisely did want to murder
people -- on both sides in fact. I also incidentally think your argument on
intention is flawed, for reasons I have discussed in print. If we walk down
the street knowing that we will crush ants, we do not intend to kill them,
but we do not care because we regard them as less than human. The same is
true when we carry out actions that are sure to kill many civilians, but who
cares? Bombing slums in Panama for example (while sending in elite units on
dangerous missions, some being killed, to pick up wanted targets in rich
communities), or destroying half the pharmaceutical supplies in Sudan,
knowing that tens of thousands will probably die (as they did), but who
cares -- merely to take some of the minor footnotes to the crimes of the
"experienced global sovereign." That raises a general moral issue: which
stance is more grotesque, killing people intentionally (as when the US
supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD),
or killing them because we do not even regard them as human (the entire
history of aspiring "global sovereigns," your candidate being the leading
recent example). You regard intentional killing as worse than killing
because we regard the victims as sub-human. That is dubious, to say the
least.
I wish I had time to discuss this further, but I am afraid I do not. I spend
many hours a day responding to questions and queries, and much as I'd like
to, cannot become involved in lengthy discussions.
Noam Chomsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-11-2006
By Walid
http://gedrosia.blogspot.com/
We all have witnessed and or have seen the reports of daily occurrences of
crimes against the minorities in Iran by the government which include
killing of innocent and suspects by firing, hanging and other unlawful
methods. The news of the most of these atrocities have reached world media
one way or the other, but, unfortunately, the western run Persian news
services such have been blind and deaf.
It is understandable why the opposition Persian media do not report on such
matters but international and impartial sources such as BBC Persian, VOA
Persian, Radio Farda Persian and others have also been totally ignorant of
the said incidents.
To draw the attention of BBC over the matter I have written the following
open letter, a copy of which has been sent to the managing director of the
BBC.
Managing Director
BBC World Service
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you draw your attention that BBC Persian Service is
continuously ignoring reports of atrocities committed against linguistic and
religious minorities in Iran by the establishment of the country.
As a license payer I request to you to remind the relevant employees working
in Persian Service once again of their true responsibilities which should be
reporting on the news developments impartially. Their responsibility should
not be keeping the Persian chauvinism alive instead they should also report
their atrocities against the Baloch, Arabs and Kurds.
As an example I would like to draw your attention towards a recent
demonstration held outside Iranian Embassy in London in which many Iranian
Arabs, Baloch, and Kurds had participated and were voicing against unlawful
hangings of their people, but I witnessed no reporting on the matter at all.
I thank you in advance and hope to see positive changes in Persian Service
of the BBC.
Yours Sincerely
Walid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A glimpse of Balochistan history
By: Hushang Brahovi (Ulus Pahrai)
Translator: Walid Garboni
25-11-2006
Gedrosia
Before
everything else it is necessary to be mentioned that by creating Iran
England and other western countries in 1925 occupied all the Middle Eastern
countries.
Had Iran not been created, the US and European counties did not have
influence in many Middle Eastern countries nor Pakistan was created. The
Middle Eastern counties which were together under Osmania rule for so many
years, as the result of English politics, as from after 1925 they started
disintegrating. When many Arabs comprehended that the policies of England
were resulting the partition of their territories on one hand and on the
other Israel was being strengthened against them; a nationalist movement
took shape from Arab counties such as Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Algeria,
Morocco, Lebanon etc. This was named the “BA’AS” movement.
The fears from this Arab nationalist movement, the USSR and the freedom
struggle of India forced the western powers to create a Pakistan and further
strengthen Iranian regime. Thereafter, Iran emerged as a major buffer-zone
for the US and Europe After creation of this buffer zone they utilized
guarantees for safe passage of oil and other trades to and from the region.
I have written an article in Farsi explaining the creation of Iran which is
available here http://www.tribun.com/1100/1128.htm.
At the same time the US and other western countries with the help of CIA’s
secret activities were actively demonizing Iran by putting all the blames of
their atrocities against Arabs on Iran in order to generate Arab anger
against Iran.
Though there was no hostility between Iran and Iraq before, westerners
encouraged Iraq with the blessing of other Arab countries to staged a bloody
war against Iran that continued for over eight years and hundred of
thousands people were killed. -The apparent quarrel was over Shat-al-Arab
which had this name for over 15 centuries, but around 1966-67 Iran named it
as Arvand River in her geographical maps- During this war westerners earned
billions of dollars by selling weaponries to both Iran and Iraq.
The westerns have always been trying to cause disunity amongst the Middle
Eastern countries in order to sustain their political and economical grip on
them; many potential profit making issues still exist which are waiting
ignition. Examples: The Basra gulf has been known by this name since over
1600 years, however, westerners are naming it controversially; the Persian
Gulf in some of their maps and in the others the Arabic Gulf. Bu-Musa Island
which Iran occupied with western help is another looming profitable issue
that waits westerners’ triggering.
The US presence in Iraq has finally brought to Arabs realization that Iran
carries greater danger for them than Israel, but time does not reverse for
the Arabs to undo their mistakes. What needs observing now is whether
Balochistan, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Turkmenistan and Al-Ahwazians are
encouraged to disintegrate from Iran and gain independence for themselves
and rest of the region?
By adding above I aim to make the point that the unfortunate birth of Iran
has been one of the main fiascos which dispossessed Balochistan from her
independence. And until Iran disintegrated including Balochistan many other
nations are not likely to achieve their independence.
Here I make an effort to forward a
fraction of Balochistan’s history:
Since more than 4000-9000 years Baloch had their governing rule known as
Pishdadiyan destiny. Pishdadi was a Baloch destiny who was responsible to
maintain law and order in those days. They spoke a language more or less
same as today’s Balochi. History indicates Raxshaan, Xaraan and Nimrouz
their area of living. Newly discovered Burnt City which is located in the
same area was also part of their territory. There are indications that
Pishdadian culture was extended up to Sabzwaaran (Jiroft). -Jiroft is a
Baloch area located towards the west from the said areas- Archaeological
findings about Babylon (Iraq) indicate that they also were influenced by the
Pishdadians croft work and culture. The Babylon history is estimated around
7000 years and similar finding that were discovered in Babylon have been
found in Balochistan and they are estimated as 7000-9000 years old.
As we know that Baloch themselves have never been tracing their history,
Iran and Pakistan have either been covering up all the historical facts
about Baloch or they have added them to their own fabricated histories. With
in last 10 years some well known historians have uncovered the fallacious
Iranian history and found that historical teachings in Iranian institutions
have been totally unauthentic.
After the Pishdadians, Kianian era started in Balochistan and this was
around 2600-4000 years ago. They also originated from Nimrouz, Shall (Quetta)
and Raxshaan. The Kianian rule extended towards Zabolistan (located in
Afghanistan; west of Kandahar and a pashtun territory). A Book on Kianian
history called Hoda Naamah explained this. However, only five pages of Hodaa
Naamah are left today and they are with an Indian individual in India.
-My research and observations about Shahnamah of Ferdousi conclude that
Ferdousi had Hodaa Naamah in his possession and reproduced great deal from
this book onto Shanameh and replaced Baloch’s name with Arian and Persian.
Hodaa Naamah’s mysterious disappearance occurred during Ferdousi’s time.
There is possibility that he destroyed Hodaa Naamah by himself to hide the
facts. Since I do not consider Ferdousi’s stories reliable, therefore, I
ignore Rostam and all of that written about him by Fedousi-
The head of Kianian destiny was Geshtaaseb. One day an interesting man
enters his durbar (the historians indicate this location around Quetta) with
some interesting philosophy whom Geshtaab likes and invites the man stay
there. He later becomes famous and be known as Zoroaster. In my opinion
Zoroaster has been a selective and genius man. A book remains from Zoroaster
is called Avesta with Zoroastrian philosophy which has many followers in
Pars, India and the west even today. There are Zoroastrians remain at a
location in Pirsouran Mountain Range of Balochistan. _ people in Sarhai;
especially Somalzahi are requested to protect our elders from some narrow
minded ill intentioned people-
The last of Kianain rulers were Ashkanian (Ashekzahis) who spoke Balochi
with no difference than Balochi spoken today. There are some writings on the
grave stones of Asheghbus which are 100% in Balochi. –The grave is located
in Turkmen Sehra within the ‘Kaus Dome’ City- The dress conduct of Baloch
during Ashkanis was no different than that of today.
The Ashkanian rulers are famous for their justice and humanity in history.
It was during the reign of these Baloch when many Baloch town and cities
were built and trades between India, China and some western countries got to
its full bloom; to an extend that it was this time when Silk Way was
constructed by Indians with the help of Ashkani Baloch.
History and the archeological facts indicate that Ashkanians were not engage
in any war. Instead others were impressed by the Baloch civilization and
adopted some of their norms and came under their reign. Some of the Balochi
words found in other languages such as Kurdish and Gilaki are believed to
have been adopted during the Ashkanians.
Around 2500-2550 years ago a nomad Nation called Arian lived between
Khorasan and Tajikistan of today. They used to attack the traders passing
through the Silk Way and robbed them from time to time. The history named
their gang leader as Zahaak Mardush. Ashkani Baloch and Chinese forces
attacked these Arians and drove them out of the area. Subsequently the
Arians befriended with Turks and Mongols and manage to create a flotilla
which attacked and looted towns and cities and displace many people along
the way. Arians later tried to bring the people under their flag and
implement Zoroastrianism. This new politics was introduced by one of their
leaders called Haxaa who thereafter became known as Haxaamaneshians. History
indicates that as from Haxaas onward religion and philosophy were mixed with
each other and any attack or incursion that occurred was in the name of
religion. This resulted Baloch retreating to their own territory and lived
disconnected from other nations. Complains of Haxaas reached Alexander the
Great who himself was a war adventurer. He attacked Haxaa-Mongols and
destroyed them. Alexander’s army advanced further and subjugated India.
During many years of Alexander’s rule he imposed a 10% tax on many of the
eastern nations.
When Alexander died the Haxaas faced civil wars, finally Sasaanians destiny
of Mongols-Arians founded their reign. As per their tradition they learned
some war techniques from Romans and created an army. Through out their time
the Sasaanians attacked and looted other nations and no nation was safe from
their aggression. They also attacked Baloch many times and killed and
imprisoned many women and children who never retuned.
When Islam emerged, this resulted uniting all Arabs on one platform. The
Arabs in response to Sasaanain aggressions sent messages of peace, but peace
was not Sasaanians way of government, they were used to aggressions. Living
in peace was out of question for them. When Omar became the Arab Caliph,
Seyahsawar Baloch sent a message of friendship to Omar. This was welcomed by
Arabs as they wanted to defeat the Arian-Mongol or Sasaanains. The Arab army
from the west and Baloch from the south attacked the Sasaanains and
eliminated the Mongol-Arians permanently.
Thereafter, Seyahsawar settled in Syria with his armada, but not many years
had passed by before Caliph Ali’s sons’ conflict for power with Mo’avia’s
sons started. This resulted discomfort for Baloch in Syria and they returned
to their homeland Balochistan. There are indications the time of this
migration from Baloch as said in Balochi folk poetry such as in Rendaani
Shayr is unfounded because this incident is not older than 550-600 years,
however, Baloch returned from Syria around 1390-1400 hundred years ago.
–Some Baloch remained in Syria who now live near Shaam City-
Arabs ruled over non-Arabs for centuries and during their rule Baloch were
also safe from Mongol-Arian aggressions. But since Arabs demonstrated
weakness during their rulings Mongol-Arians intimates once again emerged on
the surface and started antagonism against others again. Mongol-Arian
attacks on India namely Homayun and Baabar period remains a bad chapter of
history. Naader, Ghajar, Reza Khan Mirpanj and Khomaini blackened the face
of humanity with their atrocities committed against Baloch during their
attacks on Balochistan.
Though the burden of atrocities and injustices linger on Arian-Mongols and
they remain guilty of their crimes, they still continue to follow the foot
steps of their Sasaanian ancestors by oppressing nations like Baloch, Kurd,
Arabs, Azeri, Turkmen and Lors.
England rulers understood the Mongol-Arians attitudes very well that is why
English have became an ally with them. Whatever conspiracy theory westerners
create for their own benefit and the Arian-Mongols become the instruments of
it application. Chauvinism is the Arian-Mongol tradition. Since the time
when Ashkanains were defeated by them they have eagerly sought diminishing
many decent traditional norms of many nations. The Punjab is one of the
establishments which have been led towards chauvinism.
If the west; England in particular, Pars (Arian-Mongols) and Punjabi
establishments are normal and don’t wish to continue their injustices on
other nations they have to prove that by allowing Baloch nation regain
independence and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world.
Long live Balochistan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran and Syria Helping Hezbollah Rearm
Sat. 25 Nov 2006
Time
As Lebanon's government tries to maintain its shaky grip on power,
sources tell TIME that Tehran and Damascus are shipping weapons to the
militant Shi'ite group
By Elaine Shannon / Washington and Time McGirk/Beirut
Nov. 24 - Iran is smuggling weapons through Syria to re-arm Lebanese allies
Hezbollah, despite renewed efforts by United Nations peacekeepers and the
Lebanese army to seal off the mountain borders with Syria in the wake of
last summer's war between the Shi'ite militia and Israel, according to
reports by Saudi and Israeli intelligence sources that have been confirmed
by western diplomats in Beirut.
Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv say that Hezbollah replenished nearly
half of its pre-war stockpiles of short-range missiles and small arms.
But western diplomats in Beirut say these calculations under-estimate the
weapons flow and that Hezbollah has now filled its war chest with over
20,000 short-range missiles—a similar amount to what they had at the start
of the conflict, during which the group is believed to have fired over 3,000
rockets at Israel. "The Iranian pipeline through Syria was already working
during the war," despite constant Israeli bombing raids on the roads into
Lebanon from Syria, this Beirut source said.
Officially, Syria and Iran deny that they're supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
As for the Shi'ite group itself, when asked about receiving a new shipment
of arms from Syria and Iran, a spokesman told TIME, without elaborating, "We
have more than enough weapons if Israel tries to attack us again."
Over the past three months, according to a knowledgeable Saudi source,
Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers have been operating out of a military
base on the outskirts of Damascus. The Iranian government has dispatched
shipments of small arms and what appear to be missile components to this
military base, according to the source.
From the secret base, weapons have been shipped by truck across the border
into Lebanon. Western diplomats say that the Lebanese army has posted over
8,000 troops along the border, forcing smugglers to use mountain passes
instead of the heavily-monitored crossing on the main Beirut-Damascus road.
The Saudis, in particular, are alarmed at Iran's spreading influence in
Lebanon. "There has been a serious increase in (Iranian and Syrian) activity
in the rearming of Hezbollah," says Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security advisor
who is managing director of the Riyadh-based Saudi National Security
Assessment Project, a consulting group that advises the Saudi government.
Obaid contends that "a huge stream of trucks" has been crossing the border
from Syria into Lebanon, ferrying thinly disguised shipments of arms.
Moreover, Obaid says, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iran's Ministry of
Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are using the Iranian embassies in Damascus
and Beirut as command and control centers -- an allegation that was also
confirmed to TIME by Israeli military sources. Obaid says there appear to be
direct communications links between the Iranians and Hezbollah, via
Hezbollah officers working inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, and Iranian
officers in the field with Hezbollah fighters; in the past, some Middle East
analysts have rejected the popular notion that Hezbollah takes direct orders
from Iran.
Iran's apparent efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to expand Shi'ite
influence in Iraq and throughout the region are of major concern to the
Saudi government, a leading power in the Sunni Muslim world that presumably
would like to see the U.S. take a more active stance in Lebanon against its
regional rivals. Obaid says that when Vice President Cheney visits King
Abdallah bin Abd Al Aziz Al Saud Saturday in Riyadh, the Saudi king is
expected to tell Cheney that "the Saudi leadership will not and cannot allow
Iran, through Syria and Hezbollah, to bring down the Lebanese government and
overtake the levers of power in Beirut." Obaid says the Saudi king is also
expected to discuss with Cheney the kingdom's worries about Iranian activity
in Iraq and the Palestinian territories as well as its alliance with Syria.
All of the Iranian and Syrian activity is taking place against the backdrop
of growing instability within Lebanon's government and Saturday's upcoming
vote among government ministers to bring the assassins of the late Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri before an international tribunal -- a process that is
expected to implicate high-level Syrian officials. Hezbollah pulled out of
the country's coalition government recently after its push for greater
representation was rebuffed; many observers viewed the push for effective
veto power as motivated by its concern that prime minister Fouad Siniora
would try to begin the process of Hezbollah's disarmament that was
reaffirmed in the UN-brokered ceasefire that ended this summer's war.
Moreover, some politicians in Beirut suspect that the assassination of
Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel on Tuesday was plotted by Syria to scare
cabinet ministers into voting against the international probe into Hariri's
death by a massive truck bomb (other analysts argue the predictable fallout
from the killing just ahead of such a crucial vote is precisely why Syria
would not have ordered it). Saad Hariri, the prime minister's son and a
supporter of the current government, told TIME, "Syria is waging a campaign
of intimidation and assassinations to stop the tribunal."
If the Lebanese government approves of the tribunal, it will then go to the
United Nations, which could slap an embargo on Syria. This process will drag
on for months before it wends its way into the UN Security Council.
Moreover, such a confrontational approach would run counter to the expected
recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, commissioned by the White House, to
engage with Syria. But after the assassination of Pierre Gemayel the notion
of US talks with Syria may be off the table, at least for the moment.
- with additional reporting by Aaron J. Klein/Tel Aviv and Timothy J.
Burger/Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A discussion between Prof. Chomsky and Ahmadreza Taheri about Rogue States/Global Sovereignty
Baloch Academic Association
28-11-2006
مناظره پروفسور نوام چامسکی، از استادان برجسته و معروف دنیا دانشگاه هاروارد، با احمد رضا طاهری دانشجوی دکترای تخصصی علوم سیاسی دانشگاه پونا.
پروفسور نوام چامسکی، تحقیقی تحت عنوان "حکومتهایی که قانون و حقوق بین الملل را زیر پا میگذارند"، انجام داده اند... http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html
احمد رضا طاهری، اخیرا مقاله ای تحت عنوان "حاکمیت جهانی: چه حکومتی شایسته آن است؟"http://www.balochacademist.blogfa.com/cat-37.aspx
از پروفسور نوام چامسکی در مقاله خود انتقاد کرده اند... متن کامل مناظره (به زبان انگلیسی) به این شرح است:
Prof. Chomsky: Thanks for sending me the interesting article. The fundamental premise is Hobbesian in inspiration: that the world needs "an experienced global sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past."
I don't agree. The fundamental premise is, in my opinion, groundless. There are far better forms of social and political organization, domestically and internationally: the forms that were proposed and partially developed in the early post-war system, for example, torn to shreds primarily by the world's most powerful state, which, you argue (on premises that I think are untenable), should be the global sovereign.
On your assumption, if Nazi Germany had won the Second World War, then we should support its claim to rule the world. It was by far the technologically most advanced power, was the center of the sciences, the arts, philosophy, the peak of western civilization, and having the won the war it would be the only choice to be the global sovereign. And the domestic analogue of your Hobbesian principle is that we should pick the most powerful and experienced person and make him dictator, so that he can guarantee order and ensure that his past crimes not be repeated. Perhaps the leading Mafia don, or a Hitler or a Stalin.
Ahmadreza Taheri: Fine, better forms of social and political organization?! If such forms are better, why then, have not replaced the existing global political system?! They might be suitable domestically, however, not internationally, because may divert the “national interest” of states, particularly, of superpowers from their major goals, otherwise, why don’t they spring up again?
Further, regarding Nazi Germany? Well, my idea about “an experienced global sovereign” does not end where you reacted, if we go further down in my article, we will come across “an experienced global sovereign of the contemporary period which certainly does not only possess of a mere military power to use always force and violence, rather possessed of a power in the field of logic, with a better degree of rationality who knows better than others, what is what.” Whereas, Nazi Germany lacked this particular element, that is why, it failed. If, in case, tomorrow America encounters with the similar fate that faced by Nazi Germany, or Soviet Union that ended up in its disintegration, then obviously, that can be indicative of America’s own lack of efficient political thought and theory.
By an experienced global sovereign, I do not mean a mere global dictator, rather, a rational and advance global power in all respects. Today, among the various countries of the world the most advance state is America, however, it is relative, and not absolute, but can we find another better alternative? In your “Rogue States,” you have pointed out that it is for the Security Council to decide such and such issues, but the question then comes who has/have masterminded Security Council. Are not they the very western powers?
Besides that, I do not favor what Hobbes commented on absolute sovereign, rather have just made an analogy between the “old national sovereign” of Hobbes, and “global sovereign” of the modern world, which is a mere explanation. However, as repeated earlier, I believe that an old national sovereign of Hobbes lacks the current skill, rationality, and flexibility in which possessed by global sovereign of today. The difference between Nazi Germany and the USA is that USA is a flexible and intelligent global dictator, whereas, Nazi Germany was a dogmatic and strict dictator --- Among many vital factors for the political survival of states (as you know well) one factor is the element of flexibility in international politics.
Prof. Chomsky: I do not really see much point to discussing the possibility that the Taliban, or Iraq, or Iran, or in fact any other state in the existing world or the world as it is likely to evolve as far as we can predict, might conceivably be a global sovereign. That abstracts much too far from reality, in my opinion.
Ahmadreza Taheri: In this regard, I do agree with you, and what I wrote in my article is a kind of hypothesis that if e.g. Taliban comes to that stage to monitor the international politics, then imagine what may come (taking into consideration their typical ideology that inspired their practices at home), and why they cannot come to that high stage, because of their superficial and weak political vision, as well as, presence of stronger political actors.
Prof. Chomsky: Incidentally, you ignore quite a lot that is highly relevant. On the hideous crimes of Saddam, for example, you overlook the fact that they were quite consciously abetted by the United States, which precisely did want to murder people -- on both sides in fact.
Ahmadreza Taheri: I have not overlooked this bitter reality, and also have no doubt in it. In fact, this is what that motivates me to think that leaders like Saddam Hussain are much more dangerous than Bush, simply because, they can easily fall into the hands of superpowers and play puppet role even to sacrifice their own citizens or subjects for their own personal interest. But, how many of United State’s presidents were abetted by foreign factors to sacrifice or murder their own citizens?!
Prof. Chomsky: I also incidentally think your argument on intention is flawed, for reasons I have discussed in print. If we walk down the street knowing that we will crush ants, we do not intend to kill them, but we do not care because we regard them as less than human. The same is true when we carry out actions that are sure to kill many civilians, but who cares? Bombing slums in Panama for example (while sending in elite units on dangerous missions, some being killed, to pick up wanted targets in rich communities), or destroying half the pharmaceutical supplies in Sudan, knowing that tens of thousands will probably die (as they did), but who cares -- merely to take some of the minor footnotes to the crimes of the "experienced global sovereign." That raises a general moral issue: which stance is more grotesque, killing people intentionally (as when the US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD), or killing them because we do not even regard them as human (the entire history of aspiring "global sovereigns," your candidate being the leading recent example). You regard intentional killing as worse than killing because we regard the victims as sub-human. That is dubious, to say the least.
Ahmadreza Taheri: agreed, but, if we start thinking like that then we must not move, and stop where we are. Then, we must not kill or sacrifice animals or any living being for our own first basic and vital needs e.g. food. This is the philosophy of life: wild animals kill domestic animals for nutrition, we too kill animals for nutrition, and natural phenomenon like Tsunami and floods kill men unknowingly. As we crush ants while walking happily, nature crushes us. The world is constantly changing and in this process things, people, etc can place either into the elimination process or into production process --- some thing quite natural, though, sad.
US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD. That is correct, and that is all about politics (political games) that differentiated men from other creatures, and thus I agree with you. But, every state is searching for its own interest and it is not the case with the USA alone, let me remind you to see the other side of the coin --- how much benefit global community got from western powers, and how much it got from non-western states? Let’s also account for positive developments…!
Any way, for all that, I do not defend America, but I am just saying that it is reality, and we can change this reality, but, for time being it is there, and can’t be altered in the near future, that is what I mean, and every development in the universe has two sides --- its negative aspects and positive aspects. That is some thing which programmed by nature.
Prof Chomsky: I wish I had time to discuss this further, but I am afraid I do not. I spend many hours a day responding to questions and queries, and much as I'd like to, cannot become involved in lengthy discussions.
Ahmadreza Taheri:
I am indeed very grateful to you for your kind attention and remarks.