Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
if nixon could go to china...
Share:
by DrMarty | January 28, 2012 at 07:26 am
78 views | 2 Recommendations | 4 comments
Photos
European Energy Review Denounces War Drive.
The journal, a leading one for the energy industrial and research sector in Europe, including Russia, has an editorial which states that a military attack on Iran "would also, we might add, be a criminal act, as any military attack would inevitably lead to countless innocent victims.
This has to be pointed out because, sadly enough, it has become frighteningly normal in the West to shrug off the killings of innocent people in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia by American bombing attacks.
The editorial portrays an "alternative policy," citing a book by journalist Stephen Kinzer, that "the first step would be for the U.S. government to simply start talking to the Iranian government.
If Nixon could go to China, whose regime was every bit as brutal as the Iranian regime now, Kinzer asks, why can current American leaders not go to Tehran?
Under such a policy, U.S. businesses would no longer be forbidden to trade with Iran, but encouraged to do so. "Now you would think that there might be a role to play here for the EU. But, alas, Brussels is shirking its responsibilities by uncritically following the U.S. oil boycott.
The argument voiced by European leaders that an oil boycott will prevent the U.S. from attacking Iran does not make sense. The boycott is itself an act of aggression that will only serve to increase tensions, not lessen them. The war has already started," the editorial states.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 08:37 on January 28th, 2012
Love it.
at 08:42 on January 28th, 2012
Dr. Marty, wishful thinking has been around for as long as I can remember. But talking is one of the most sort out cultural entanglements that the Middle East and non-Arab Islamists Love about the West. Fools Gold! Talk is cheap and sweet.Part of the beauty of conversation in this part of the world. Lies are part of the resistance to western influence and therefore as long as they can get the West to talk, Iran in particular, they win on time alone.
When you view the world from Western logic alone in the end you will get a greased fist up the arse. Not pleasant.
at 13:48 on January 28th, 2012
The glaring differences between dealing with China years ago and Iran today are paramount. Not only in terms of State ideology but also economically and culturally. China was willing to trade off some Communist State controls over the economy and social dictates for the inclusion of capitalist oriented free trade economic zones that came with 'Western' technology, construction and manufacturing. China was in a state of willing transition. At the same time, concurrently, was China's largest ideological and trade supporter, the USSR. Iran on the other hand only recently, in terms of comparative history, overthrew democratic ideals for strict ultra-conservative Islamic adherence and state control over the entire social, religious, political and economic sphere while maintaining international trade. Iran is in a condition economically and politically where they "can afford" their attacks financially, materially and ideologically on their closest neighbors who themselves are Islamic States and holding the same base political and religious ideology. Though not in all instances is this expressed to the same degree or strictness of interpretation, they are no more willing to surrender religious ideological domination over their social and economic realm. Iran is perfectly safe from any united attack from the OIC and by extension sheltered from any "invasion from the "West". Now if Iran had a force for change like what transpired in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya or Yemen. The proposition would be quite different. The Iranian Clerics would have a battle on two fronts and be willing to make some compromises to at least still any internal revolt with out loosing total power. Unfortunately at this time, the only pro-democratic influence with in Iran comes from the MEK, and they are too small a voice and being hunted relentlessly to be able to mobilize public opinion to effect real change.
at 13:57 on January 28th, 2012
The glaring differences between dealing with China years ago and Iran today are paramount. Not only in terms of State ideology but also economically and culturally. China was willing to trade off some Communist State controls over the economy and social dictates for the inclusion of capitalist oriented free trade economic zones that came with 'Western' technology, construction and manufacturing. China was in a state of willing transition. At the same time, concurrently, was China's largest ideological and trade supporter, the USSR. Iran on the other hand only recently, in terms of comparative history, overthrew democratic ideals for strict ultra-conservative Islamic adherence and state control over the entire social, religious, political and economic sphere while maintaining international trade. Iran is in a condition economically and politically where they "can afford" their attacks financially, materially and ideologically on their closest neighbors who themselves are Islamic States and holding the same base political and religious ideology. Though not in all instances is this expressed to the same degree or strictness of interpretation, they are no more willing to surrender religious ideological domination over their social and economic realm. Iran is perfectly safe from any united attack from the OIC and by extension sheltered from any "invasion from the "West". Now if Iran had a force for change like what transpired in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya or Yemen. The proposition would be quite different. The Iranian Clerics would have a battle on two fronts and be willing to make some compromises to at least still any internal revolt with out loosing total power. Unfortunately at this time, the only pro-democratic influence with in Iran comes from the MEK, and they are too small a voice and being hunted relentlessly to be able to mobilize public opinion to effect real change.