Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's former President Jimmy Carter! Former United States President Jimmy Carter, or JC for short, is a busy guy. When he's not building houses and calling out extreme right-winged racist he's giving advice on how to deal with the crazy sandbox that we like to call Iran. Carter stated on Thursday that he thinks the U.S. should take a diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear program. Carters brought up the very good point that as far as everyone know so far Iran has done nothing wrong. Iran does have a right to enrich plutonium for energy purposes and the best thing that the UN and United States should do is approach this diplomatically and stop hinting towards attacking Iran with Israel as our tag team partner. Now I can see where Carter is coming from. Let's face it, if the political world were a mental hospital Iran would definitely be a patient with a padded room (denying the Holocaust is just a little hard to call normal). So, it's probably not a very good idea to poke this sleeping, soon to be nuclear, bear to hard with our super power stick. However, like any other patient Iran needs looking after. Iranian officials have said that they'll let in UN inspectors but they haven't set a time line as of yet. My basic point is that Carter is right, approach this problem directly but diplomatically.
CHECK CNN FOR FULL JIMMY CARTER STORY
In my opinion, Jimmy Carter is the only surviving President of the United States who truly appears to work for the good of our Country rather than to promote his personal agenda for financial gain. I believe the sayings we are familiar with have come to being based upon experience. The saying "you get more with honey than with vinegar" is appropriate in this case. You also talk about having to keep a watch on Iran? I ask you - why do you think the U.S. is so much better than Iran? While I love my Country and CHOOSE to live here rather than any other country, I am continually amazed at the "we are better than you" attitude. By watching over other countries and pushing our thoughts and ideas on them, it seems to me that we are no better than they. By no means am I promoting the idea that Iran should be allowed to make nuclear weapons - however, why do we believe Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons but WE SHOULD? Is this way of thinking based upon our belief that we are better than Iran? Is it based upon the belief that Ahmadinejad is a crazy person in charge of a country? Is it because we believe Ahmadinejad treats his citizens with lack of respect and controls by torturing? Perhaps we should look at our own backyard through a microscope to determine just what makes us better than every other country in the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with about 98% of what you're saying. I do not believe that America is better than any other country in the way that you're saying it. I do believe though that the UN should watch Iran, not because of the Iranian people but because of the Iranian government which is in reality religiously run by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who uses Ahmedinejad as a puppet. The Iranian government has shown time and time again that it is severely flawed examples include telling the UN that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist and by severely oppressing it's citizens during the recent political elections. Plus, America is on of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Counsel so it has a certain obligation to the Counsel to help keep an eye on nations that the UN might deem as "trouble makers". Now, do I think the U.S. should be all high and mighty, no, but America along with the rest of the UN should, in my opinion, keep a close eye on what Iran is doing with nuclear materials.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the US one of the 5 permanent members of the UN? Who determines who the "trouble makers" are or are not? Could the US have been considered a "trouble-maker" when we went to war in Iraq without the consent of the UN? (If I have my facts correct, I don't think Bush went through the proper channels to start a war.) Has not the U.S. shown it is flawed by failing to abide by the Geneva Convention? Oh, yea, I think we said that doesn't apply to us because we are who we are - forget the laws, we can do whatever we want because we are who we are. I guess this leads back to the question - WWJD? Come to terms with our adversaries through diplomacy or put the lives of the innocent at risk because of the egos of the few?
ReplyDeleteAs to why the U.S. is one of the permanent member of the Security Counsel I can't say. I think it has something to do with who started the UN. The five countries are the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, and China. These five countries have the veto power in the UN. If the UN votes on something and one of the five don't like it all that has to happen is for one of the countries to say "No" and the act is vetoed. As for the war in Iraq, while I don't agree with it the United States did not go against the will of the UN; it just was not supported by the UN. Bush wanted Iraq to be a UN based operation much like Desert Storm; there was no backing but the United Nations never said not to do it. And with regards to the Geneva Convention, officially no one has fowl play with that. The criminals don't just turn themselves in, they must be called to court. Do I think that some U.S. leaders should be called out on war crimes? Yes. Do I think America can do what it wants because of who we are? Slightly. The fact is this, we are a super power that is a permanent member of the Security Counsel, so, when it comes to nations represented in the United Nations we do have a "watchdog" like status with them. I'm not saying that makes us better than them or that we have a right to do whatever we want. But the point of being in the position we're in is to do what we feel is best for the security of the rest of the world. What the idea of safety is is up to representatives so you'd have to ask them for the specifics.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I made a typo in my last comment about fowl play, i meant to say "no one has called fowl play on that yet." Not "no one has fowl play on that."
ReplyDeleteThe reason the US is one of the five permanent members is because it was one of the five countries that founded the UN. Just FYI. Bobby has it right.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the US was one of the founding members of the organization begs even harder the question: Why does the US remain a permanent member of the UN? Is it because the rules say the first 5 will always remain in? Apparently, during the last administration, the rules didn't mean much to the US as it relates to torture. Over the last few months, the prior leaders of our Country (does Cheney ring a bell?) along with several political pundits have clearly agreed, and at times, with much pride, that the US used torture because it was "necessary" to get the information we needed. Perhaps I am incorrect, but my understanding of the purpose for founding the UN was to promote world peace and cooperation between nations and to protect human rights. If, as Bobby states, the UN did not back the US efforts in Iraq and the US gave no credence to the reasons why, did the US demonstrate another disregard for the the mission of the UN? If the promotion of world peace and human rights remain the underlying purpose of this organization, why should a country that blatantly refuses to adhere to its own rules be given continued recognition as a permanent member? Perhaps that is a flaw in the structure of this organization. If there is no sanction for openly defying the organization's mission, does the organization's purpose begin to lack meaning? In turn, does the lack of respect for the mission become the deterioration of the organization? My question still stands - Why is the US a permanent member?
ReplyDeleteBecause, to be blunt, the US is a superpower. Whether any of us like that or not it's true. If a country is a super power you don't piss them off. That's why it bad to trade with the Communists of Cuba, but the Communists of China are good (despite all their human rights abuses). That's the simple answer, you may not like it, but that's the truth. They are called super powers for a reason.
ReplyDelete