By Sodium
The five nuclear powers in the Security Council of the United Nations plus one, namely United States of America, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, ( and Germany is the plus one), had a meeting, last week, with an Iranian delegation to reach some kind of accommodation, concerning Iran's activities in the nuclear field. They met, but achieved nothing of tangible values that both parties could brag about. Why so ? What is really the core issue between the two parties ?
The nuclear powers plus one accuse Iran of working to build a nuclear bomb. Iran insists that all its nuclear activities are geared for peaceful utilization of nuclear energy and being a sovereign nation, it has acted within that authority provided by being a sovereign nation. More important is the fact that there is no confidence, let alone trust, between Iran and the Western nuclear powers, namely United States, France, United Kingdom plus German. It boils down to the fact that the Western nuclear powers will continue doing everything at their disposal to prevent Iran from becoming a country with a nuclear bomb. That will serve Israel just fine, as long as the Western nuclear powers stay the course, even if it takes attacking Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb and the rest of the countries of the world have to suffer because of the consequences of such an attack are so profoundly unpredictable on their economies.
My Comments:
===============
* Iran should not build a nuclear bomb. So should not any other country in the globe. The human kind has already too many of them that can destroy the whole world ten times over. All it takes fools idiots, or mad persons to start pushing buttons for their cherished Armageddon to take place. Those who claim that such a thing will never be permitted to occur, they may change their mind after they read Michael Baigent's book entitled " RACING TOWARD ARMAGEDDON ".
* Before attempting to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the five nuclear powers plus Germany should start destroying what they already have. If they do so by just having a practical and reasonable plan to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world, then and only then their attempts to stop Iran or any other country from building a nuclear bomb will bear credence. Otherwise, their position on Iran cannot be described by anything positive and constructive at all. To put it bluntly it is really hypocrisy with distinction.
* After he retired from being president of the United States of America for eight great years, President Dwight Eisenhower was interviewed by former Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, one of the 50 states of the United States of America. During the interview, Findley asked Eisenhower about the nuclear weapons and Eisenhower responded by saying that nuclear weapons were/are useless except in one single objective: they act as deterrent. These are not the exact words President Eisenhower used, but close enough to convey to the readers the meaning of his response to the former Congressman Paul Findley. Eisenhower's response has a defining moment of the nuclear weapons what they actually are for all humanity to be aware of. Here is a General of Generals, and the only Five Stars General in the entire military history of the United States describes nuclear weapons as useless except they act as deterrent. No country needs to waste its energy, time and wealth to end-up having such a horrible deterrent. There are other ample ways to possess deterrence.
* If the nuclear powers of the world cannot overcome their hypocrisy, then they should not act so hypocritically whenever a country like Iran wants to have nuclear bombs like them.
Sodium: A fair and an excellent essay. Thanks for being so straightforward.
ReplyDeleteI love this post. It says it as it should be said. Perhaps because I am a pacifist.
ReplyDeleteMay God bless the writer of this post whoever might have been. It is the content of the post that has impressed me. It has said what I have in mind for years and for unknown reasons, even to myself, I could not say.
Again, May God bless you.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteGood to know that you and I are in agreement, here, for a change. And Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Judy,
ReplyDeleteI have appreciated reading your post for being honest with yourself and with this website. A person, any person for that matter, cannot be honest with others unless he or she is honest with himself or herself first. Hence, please accept my compliment for being what you are: a profoundly an honest human being.
And thank you for your blessing and thank you for visiting this website. Much appreciated.
Sodium, you really have hit the score in this essay, especially about President Eisenhower.
ReplyDeleteWhat Eisenhower had said about nuclear weapons was, indeed, a " defining moment " , as you have eloquently put it. Let me say this about Eisenhower: he was a wise man who knew how to lead the free world, not through " might makes right ", but through his moral authority. His honesty certainly shines in his farewell speech as he warned the American people about the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).
A great post, Sodium. Thanks.
Sodium,
ReplyDeleteI recall that I read the interview of President Eisenhower by former Congressman Paul Findley in the " Washington Report On Middle East Affairs ", a magazine published in Washington DC and distributed world wide. I do recall it was published in less than two years ago by an article written by former Congressman Findley in relation to Iran's nuclear program. It seems that Findley has written about his interview with Eisenhower from some files he still has when he was a young Republican Congressman from the State of Illinois.
I agree with what Warren has posted about Eisenhower. I must add that his honesty was a rarity among all American presidents in the 20th century and 21st century, so far.
A great essay, Sodium, because it hit the target for establishing a world free of nuclear weapons so justly and so honestly. Many thanks.
Warren,
ReplyDeleteI hope that one day I shall have enough time to review certain files and write an essay about President Eisenhower and his legacy. He was one of the towering public figures, world wide, of the 20th century.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
Mo,
ReplyDeleteI am pleased that you read the " Washington Report on Middle East Affairs ". A great magazine to which I have been a subscriber for, at least, the last 20 years.
Since the publishers of the magazine publish only nine issues of it per year, it is easy to review the 18 issues that have been published in the last two years and find the article written by former Republican Congressman Paul Findley in which he referrers to his interview with the already retired President Eisenhower.
As far as I am concerned, what Eisenhower had said about nuclear weapons should be read by every person who is interested in seeing a world free of nuclear weapons and should be well known to the people of the world. I would never underestimate the power of the people in every country of the globe. When they are well informed, they can change their governments policies with regards to nuclear weapons for the better. Am I dreaming? Perhaps.
Robert Kennedy once said: " Some people dream and say impossible. I dream and say why not ? " Not exactly Robert Kennedy's words, but close enough to convey the correct vision of Robert Kennedy about dreams to the readers.
Thank you, Mo, for your kind words. Much appreciated.