What's the biggest issue for me in US politics? Foreign Policy. I believe that the foreign policy of the USA has a trickle down effect over domestic society, and I also believe that the foreign policy dictate and subsequent actions of my government have tremendous and profound impacts upon the whole of human society around the world.
The most important issue for me in the coming months, and as it relates to the presidential race between John McCain and Barak Obama, is the issue of Iran and its alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Both candidates offer similar rhetoric on Iran: that it cannot be allowed to possess WMD in the form of nuclear armament. But is there credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program? Or is the rhetoric bellicose and belligerent and tending towards provocation and aggression? Already, a 'silent' act war has been declared in the desire to enact and erect a military blockade against Iran.
In the fierce desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon device, many in positions of power have embraced the far-flung opinion that Iran should not have the right to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear technologies - as it has expressly stated is its only intention - that of the creation of nuclear energy.
So, this position on Iran is dangerous. It says, we don't like you and we don't trust you, so we say that you can't have nuclear technology. Ours is okay, but yours is not. We are good and you are bad. This is the wrong type of thinking if we want to create a peaceful world. The position on Iran of both McCain and Obama is belligerent and tends toward aggression.
Iran has expressly and officially and repeatedly denied its interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran is party to multiple international anti-nuclear weapon agreements. There is no evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program as of now, when I am writing this. So can we attack a foreign country just because we think it has weapons that we don't want it to have?
The position of the USA is so weak on this front for a number of reasons. One of which is that the USA is not party to many of the currently circulating nuclear weapons anti-proliferation treaties in the world today.
But basically, this policy toward Iran reeks of the global dominance manifesto. This is a policy where the supposed 'national interest' (i.e. as in it relates to energy policy, remember oil is the foundation of the economy) justifies bullying and taking without asking. The "Take without Asking" foreign policy is unworkable.
When deciding between McCain and Obama, I have no choice. Both are bombers. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" - Let it rain (reign?) John McCain"
Obama is, apparently, prone to bombing in order to entertain foreign policy, as well.
This is belligerent hostile rhetoric, given the absence of clear and present evidence of a nuclear weapons program; it is just plain wrong.
The right thing to do is to talk. Enter into dialogue with Iran. With all of the connected interests. Increase understanding. Increase trust. True and lasting Peace can only be attained through nonviolent means - through the promotion of mutual respect, cooperative efforts, respect, altruism and mutual interests.
So, tell me, who should I vote for in three months?
- signed by me, feeling disenfranchised in America
[p.s. Further, even if there was credible - undeniable - evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt of an Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, there must be further reason to believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of offensive use of those weapons, in order to justify any adversarial military action.
It is not enough to have evidence of a nuclear weapon, to justify attack. There must also be clear and specific intent to use the weapon in an offensive and physically harmful capacity. - And even in that extreme scenario, there must be UN Security Council agreement to legally (and morally) wage what would then be a "pre-emptive" attack.
Just because a foreign nation (like Iran) might possess weapons that our government (speaking of the USA) doesn't like doesn't give our government (USA) the right to attack it.
To attack: First there must be evidence of a weapons program beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Second there must be evidence of a specific imminent threat that said weapons are to be used in an aggressive, hostile / offensive manner. Third, there must be Security Council approval prior to any initiation of "pre-emptive" action.
Otherwise, in the absence of those prerequisites, it is clear - that it is the USA that would be the aggressor.
read something supportive and similar:pull the plug on the war state by charley reese]