Thursday, March 29, 2007

Online Slideshow and Petitions to Preclude Bush Attack on Iran

I have signed the two petitions linked below to preclude Bush from invading Iran. I suggest you sign them, too.

Now that 15 British sailors are being held by Iran, and tensions are rising quickly, the potential for fatal errors on all sides is growing. Bush is a loyal to his allies, whatever else one can say about him. He will never abandon Tony Blair and Great Britain in this mini-crisis, which may mean whatever these two other countries do, for well or ill, might well decide America's fate in that region.

I think barring such an attack is especially important now that the Spring Congressional recess is quickly approaching. It's clear to me that Bush is in total denial about the failure in Iraq and is willing to do anything to "extend the mission" and pray to not be proven wrong again. I don't put anything past them, including faking intelligence to justify attacking Iran. Why not? It worked before! Also, news reports about the Bush administration's plans to attack Iran have been surfacing for months without being definitively denied. There's always a wiggle phrase that would allow for such an attack if necessary. Meanwhile, we've doubled our massive naval and air presence off Iran's shores.

"We cannot afford to forget the lessons of the war on Iraq: Four years into a war based on fabricated and flawed intelligence, we have seen the abhorrent result of our occupation and we face a more dangerous world as a result of our actions...We cannot stand by and let yet another country endure the death and destruction that has been heaped upon Iraq. Please join us today in making sure this does not happen again." ~ Linda Schade, Voters For Peace

As an antidote to these constant appeals to fear, I highly recommend viewing this slideshow provided by Voters For Peace: watch this slideshow of the people, geography and culture of Iran. You know the axiom, "A picture is worth a thousand words?" This brilliant montage of images speaks volumes about Iranians and daily life in Iran.

Seeing color pictures of an active and diverse Islamic/democratic culture in which people look free, happy, prosperous, and creative is not something the average American sees much. Why? Because the Neocons in the Bush administration and their corporate allies don't want us to see these images any more than they want us to see the flag-draped caskets arriving every night in Delaware.

I'm occasionally saddened to realize that five years ago Baghdad probably looked much like these images of Tehran. Yes, they had the oppression of Saddam, but they also had a working secular society and economy and most people had peace of mind in living their daily lives. There may have been occasional inter-tribal threats, but not bullets, bombs, rockets and death day by day.

When I think of life in politically reactionary regimes, I have a tendency to visualize things in black, gray & white, like the dreary images of Communist housing blocks in Russia and China that we saw on TV and in the movie newsreels of the '50s and '60s. Even when shown in color, life there looked colorless and oppressive and the people looked oppressed and depressed. The Fall of Communism, which our government helped engineer, seemed a great kindness. I have a feeling I may not the only one with this mental cast, and it's a mental habit we need to shake because it no longer applies!

Bush and his sycophants want us to continue to see Iranians monolithically: as them, the enemy, those evil ones over there. It's much easier for them to justify attacking enemies - over there - when we think of those people in such gray and one-dimensional terms. They don't want us to think about the real people such an attack would effect. Watch this slideshow of the people, geography and culture of Iran.

Most Iranians don't want either liberation or war. Ayatollah Khomeini and the fundamentalist Mullahs we remember bitterly from the days of the Iran Hostage Crisis twenty years ago no longer control the country. They are still exercise religious power, but are not autocratic or monolithic. There is a vibrant secular society and economy. Their President, Ahmadinejad, is a big-mouthed politician with world power aims, but he doesn't really speak for the whole of Iranian society any more than Bush speaks for the USA. If we don't push Iran to a confrontation, they aren't about to seek open war with us.

So, let's not let Bush back us into Armageddon during the recess.



Dick Jones 212-787-0700 - -
WHOSE news are you watching? You need to know!
When in doubt, follow the money.


Anonymous said...

I find it more than a little ironic that I linked to this page from a comment you made on about the media being biased and that we need a fair and balanced view. Shouldn't have been shocked (but I was) to find that the first article on your page was a request to sign a petition banning the President from supporting his allies. News Flash the Brits are home and it wasn't a conspiracy. You may be a tad off on your quest to present an unbiased presentation of facts.

Richard R. Jones said...

Hi (You didn't leave your name or I'd have addressed you personally.)

I'm sorry you were shocked that "Online Slideshow and Petitions to Preclude Bush Attack on Iran" was the first posting you saw. That was pure happenstance.

In this case, I felt the potential for a major disaster in this situation made it appropriate to call to peoples' attention here because it was being ignored by Big Media news outlets. I don't throw the word Armegeddon around lightly. Had they been reporting about the potential strategic threat we would face if Bush touched off a Muslim Jihad across the Middle East and nearby Asian states in their coverage, I wouldn't have felt the need to highlight it.

I'm very glad the British sailors have been returned and tensions with Iran eased. Please note that Tony Blair didn't achieve this good result by pursuing a Bush-like intransigence, but by quiet diplomacy.

When one is seeking to restore balance to a news system that is out of kilter, one has to add weight to the side that is being over balanced.

I hope after leaving this message you looked at some other posts before making up your mind about whether my editorial balance is, in fact, "a tad off."