I've been a pro-leftist for years and I think I will always be, and then there are days. I understand the anti-Imperialist stance of nations, and I understand the use of that position pollitically. I also believe that many leaders use this catch phrase as a means to another end, a pollitical scapegoat or catch-all, that can be used to justify any action against an Imperial nation. And also, please remember that Americans in general are NOT Imperialists, just the one's that Republicans like to elect.
For instance, Chavez of Venezuela is a very left leader and I have supported his desire to set the course of Venezuela without the heavy handed influence of the US. That is their right as a country. And I understand many of the viewpoints in the Middle East that want the US out of their affairs as well.. some for very reasonable and righteous reasons, and some for political and often aggressive purposes. I think the conflict that is arising (politically, NOT militarily) with Iran is being argued on these levels. But that this is sometimes used as afalse front as an attempt to use a valid argument to further a dangerous, and possibly catastrophic, plan of action.
Recently the president of Iran met with Chavez and they spoke out together against the US imperialists. Understandable when coming from Chavez, who has felt directly the covert operations of the US secret service, and not so secret services. However this is not as reasonable when coming from someone who touts freedom with one lip and hatred with the other! Ahmadinejad is an outspoken anti-Semite who is actively pushing for the destruction of Israel and all Jews. Is this the kind of ally anyone should be making (anyone who is not a racist I mean)? Chavez has his hands full diplomatically with the US and the UK and probably the EU to a lesser degree, so why would he lend his support to someone with even worse relations?
"My enemies enemy is my friend" as the adage goes... a philosophy that speaks volumes about this strategy, and ultimately a strategy that works in wartime but not in times of peace. And that is what this is all about. Peace. Chavez, I want peace between all nations, and between Venezuela and the US is a good place to start. There are many people here in the US who support your efforts towards equality and freedom, and this is HURTING your cause, and mine.
I hope that this sentiment reaches your ears or eyes and you can review your choices to work with this man whom I believe is touting dangerous and hateful positions. Please do not facilitate this further degradation of your position or of the attempts to find peace between all peoples and all religions.
Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man and not someone to ally with until he changes is stance.
6 comments:
I think it's fair to say I don't support President Chavez as much as you do. One way you can judge one's character is to look at the nature of the company they keep. Chavez is making friends with Ahmadinejad and is buddy-buddy with Fidel Castro of Cuba.
Ahmadinejad is an Islamo-fascist, a Holocaust-denier, an authoritarian tyrant, among other things. Fidel Castro is a murderous thug who has killed thousands of his own people. Castro's close ties to the Soviet Union brought us closer to the nuclear brink than virtually any other country. His version of Communism, quite simply, kills people.
Both of these goons are evil, evil men... and they're the ones Chavez chooses to keep company with, some would say emulates. I say that makes Chavez questionable as well.
I echo your call for Chavez to reverse his course and actively bid for idividual freedom and property rights for his people.
trav.is thank you for your reply. I think that Castro is an interesting subject and not one i'll touch on this blog because I do not know enough about him or his history to make an educated statement. I do know that he is hailed by many as a great leader and revolutionary, and by as many others as an evil man. My inclination is to judge him with leniency as he seems to universally loved by the current population of Cuba. And I like to see nations experimenting with different and untested forms of government.
Just some more thoughts, via the Phalanx, to keep discussion alive.
Peace!
trav.is
Yo, E...
Take care when listening to the mainstream media's spin on Iran and Ahmadinejad. He's certainly not the friendliest person in the world, but he is not the monster he is made out to be, either. Remember how Saddam and Iraq were demonized before the US invasion in 2003, and how that muted critical thinking about the US's actions.
Specifically, Ahmadinejad has never called for "the destruction of Israel and all Jews". He has called for the collapse of the Israeli regime (i.e. government), which is something the US routinely does without being called racist. (See our current policy towards Iran, for one.)
The myth that he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" comes from a faulty translation that was widely repeated in the western world.
Also, I disagree with trav.is's characterization of Ahmadinejad as an Islamo-fascist (a nonsense propaganda word which groups the Sunni Wahabbists (bin Laden) in with their enemies, the Shiites (the Iranians)), a Holocaust-denier (Ahmadinejad has never denied the existence of the holocaust, but has decried the use of the memory of the holocaust as a justification for Israel's actions), and an authoritarian tyrant (In Iran, the president is a figurehead; real power rests with the religious clerics in the "Assembly of Experts" (and with a name like that, what could go wrong?)).
All of this is of vital importance right now, because the Bush presidency wants to fight Iran really badly, so they are putting out all sorts of propaganda to make their case, just as they did in late 2002 and early 2003 leading up to the invasion of Iraq. We have to be vigilant in our critical consumption of news and information if we don't want to be fooled again.
(ps. let me just reiterate that I don't particularly like Ahmadinejad, it's just that all of the charges leveled against him here are false.)
Tarek,
Thank you once again for giving balance where it is most needed. How accurate an observation - and how timely. I do remember the demonizing of Saddam Hussein (RIP - no matter what he did when alive, eternity is not a place for condemnation)and the lies perpetrated by the Bush administration that lead us into this illegal and unjust war. Thank you again and I hope I can count on you for this invaluable balance.
(In Iran, the president is a figurehead; real power rests with the religious clerics in the "Assembly of Experts" (and with a name like that, what could go wrong?)).
A figurehead? Constitutionally, the President of the United States is a figurehead, too. Legislative power and the ability to declare war rests with Congress. If a figurehead is powerless, why do so many people lay the blame for all our ills at Bush's feet? The point is, neither Ahmadinejad nor Bush are figureheads. And the Iranian president is much less restrained by his government.
What could go wrong? Remember the US Congress and Military Chiefs - our own "assembly of experts" - failed to prevent the 911 attacks and told us Iraq had WMD's.
Relying subjectively on politically motivated "experts" is inferior to relying on ethical principles.
Iran is a theocratic, totalitarian autocracy - with Ahmadinejad at the helm. The state owns all the media, they operate all the schools, radical Islam is required learning, they are actively developing nuclear weapons, ad nauseum.
But all this is beside the point. The original point was that one should consider Chavez's close association with people like Ahmadinejad questionable from a man who claims to work for peace.
Post a Comment