A different perspective on Iran - Why We Worry
« Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer: The Interview
Chris Cornell, WTF? »
Part of what makes war politically palatable in a democracy, despite the large human toll, are campaigns to dehumanize the enemy. Thus Hussein and Ahmadinejad become Hitler, and dead civilians are erroneously labeled Al Qaeda terrorists. It’s rarely mentioned that most of the people who die in wars are innocent people, guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead we’re made to think countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia before them are filled to the brim with lunatics hell bent on conquest of the entire world.
While these hawkish viewpoints dominate our media, at least one notable dissenting voice has emerged. NY Times Op-Ed columnist Roger Cohen has been writing a string of excellent articles about modern day Iran. The picture he paints isn’t uniformly bad or good, but it becomes clear that the Iranians aren’t insane, and there is plenty of common ground for cooperation with “the West” moving forward.
And, of course, those commited to demonizing Iranians are rhetorically pummeling Cohen for daring to even think the Iranians aren’t cartoonish villians. They’ve gone as far as to say Cohen is a self-hating Jew.
In any case, as the drum beat for war with Iran gets louder, I think it’s important to know who and what we’re poised to destroy.
This entry was posted on at 10:23 am, filed under Middle East, Terrorism, War, World and tagged Iran, NYTimes, Roger Cohen. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
So we are to agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons? Is this something that is taken as a given? I still think that is open for debate. Obviously a nuclear weapon only has the capability to destroy, and thus in the ideal situation, no one would have them and they wouldn’t exist. We have them. Why can we tell them not to have them? Just because we have them and we feel scared of them? I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I can’t rightfully say they can’t have them as long as we have them. I’m certainly not going to pick up a gun and march to ensure they don’t, and I’ll vote against any politician who wants us to go to war.
I think it’d be nice if Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons. But I that the costs of preventing that from happening are too high, if it’s even possible to stop them through a bombing campaign.
Kevin McCarthy abruptly drops bid for Speaker of the House, shortly after admitting the Benghazi hearings are just a political witch hunt.
At the risk of sounding partisan, the GOP has almost an entirely negative effect on this country's well-being.
Jeb Bush's growing list of unfortunate comments http://t.co/OabboYZgOQ
A different perspective on Iran - Why We Worry
« Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer: The Interview
Chris Cornell, WTF? »
Part of what makes war politically palatable in a democracy, despite the large human toll, are campaigns to dehumanize the enemy. Thus Hussein and Ahmadinejad become Hitler, and dead civilians are erroneously labeled Al Qaeda terrorists. It’s rarely mentioned that most of the people who die in wars are innocent people, guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead we’re made to think countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia before them are filled to the brim with lunatics hell bent on conquest of the entire world.
While these hawkish viewpoints dominate our media, at least one notable dissenting voice has emerged. NY Times Op-Ed columnist Roger Cohen has been writing a string of excellent articles about modern day Iran. The picture he paints isn’t uniformly bad or good, but it becomes clear that the Iranians aren’t insane, and there is plenty of common ground for cooperation with “the West” moving forward.
And, of course, those commited to demonizing Iranians are rhetorically pummeling Cohen for daring to even think the Iranians aren’t cartoonish villians. They’ve gone as far as to say Cohen is a self-hating Jew.
In any case, as the drum beat for war with Iran gets louder, I think it’s important to know who and what we’re po
ised to destroy.
This entry was posted on at 10:23 am, filed under Middle East, Terrorism, War, World and tagged Iran, NYTimes, Roger Cohen. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
So we are to agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons? Is this something that is taken as a given? I still think that is open for debate. Obviously a nuclear weapon only has the capability to destroy, and thus in the ideal situation, no one would have them and they wouldn’t exist. We have them. Why can we tell them not to have them? Just because we have them and we feel scared of them? I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I can’t rightfully say they can’t have them as long as we have them. I’m certainly not going to pick up a gun and march to ensure they don’t, and I’ll vote against any politician who wants us to go to war.
I think it’d be nice if Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons. But I that the costs of preventing that from happening are too high, if it’s even possible to stop them through a bombing campaign.
Kevin McCarthy abruptly drops bid for Speaker of the House, shortly after admitting the Benghazi hearings are just a political witch hunt.
At the risk of sounding partisan, the GOP has almost an entirely negative effect on this country's well-being.
Jeb Bush's growing list of unfortunate comments http://t.co/OabboYZgOQ