For advertisement

Sample

1/14/2006

the impending attack on iran

allowing a rogue nation to possess wmd is a nightmare. the concept is a very powerful one. many will be easily frighten by the possibility of a mad leader like hitler or bush who will be trigger happy to use it anytime he pleases. iran must not be allowed to own nuclear weapons. on the other hand, who is the rightful person or state to pin a rouge nation title on any country? who is morally good enough to earn that right? the next question is, why are some nations allowed to own wmd and some not allowed? why are are some allowed to threaten others with war and some not allowed? the israelis are very confident that they will be able to launch a successful attack on iran's nuclear facility. success always builds confidence, some times blind arrogance. we have done it and we will continue to do it successfully. our formula works the last few times and will work again and again. the opposition are weak and unable to think of better counter moves or strategies. this is the mindset of all victors. they always think that things will not change and they will win again and again. the iranians were once an empire, the persian empire. they are not fools. just like the chinese and indian empires, battered for many centuries and written off as backward and unprogressive people, hopeless and no talent. today they have stood up to regain their places in the international community as respectable people. the uae is also proving that arabs are no fools. will the iranian be able to stand up to the impending attack by the israelis and the americans? and would they be able to turn the tide? iraq said they will be smashed. iraq is a good example to all ambitious arab states that they are poorly equipped to fight a conventional war against the mighty forces of the empire. but would iran prove to be a bridge too far?

4 comments:

Speedwing said...

Hi Redbean,

If you return to one of your previous articles, I posted a reply asking you why certain countries are allowed the nukes while some are not. Can you remember your reply??

redbean said...

yes i remember. between the two, the usa is more comfortable. but when i ask question like that, i am looking at the inequality and the fallacy of rights and wrong. might is right.

Matilah_Singapura said...

There is a belief that Iran is the seat of Islamo-fascism. If this belief is true, they should bomb the crap outta the place.

Unfortunately one cannot trust the US to be "correct" in these matters.

MM Lee postulated the rise of Islam0-fascism years ago. He was branded a "bigot", and people in Malaysia and Indonesia were pissed off.

Now Indonesia and Malaysia are being avoided by many investors because they faied to stem the rise of radical Islam.

The people who suffer the most are the devout and moderate Muslims who are peaceful.

Religion and the state should be kept seperate. The current global situation shows the dangers of mixing religion with politics.

redbean said...

the power or religion esp islam is immense. i am particularly concern by the development in malaysia more than in indonesia. in the latter there are enough powerful secular organisations like the tni to stamp the excesses of a hyped religious revolution. further, the majority of indonesians are only nominal muslims. only a small minority are really religious.

in malaysia, the politicians are weak and could change side and take a religious stand at the slightest pressure. no bumi politicians would want to be seen as anti islam and cannot afford to be branded as one. and they do not have any secular organisation that can stand up to radical islam.

when undersieged, malaysia has a very high likelihood of turning into a middle eastern type of religious state.