Lately, there has been a heated debate about what we should do with Iran. That verb "do" is significant. It assumes that it is in our best interests and in the interest of the world that we do something. Yet, is that such a smart presupposition?
Right now, I am teaching about the Cold War. It seems that the nations where we intervened are typically worse off than those we left alone. Relations are heated with Cuba, but then again, we tried to assassinate their leader numerous times. We nearly had a nuclear Holocaust. Communist China, on the other hand, is pretty friendly with us. Vietnam is still a little strained, but it is improving; while North Korea still hates us.
It is not America's job to be the Big Brother to the world. The whole attitude reeks of imperialism and an attidude of "white man's burden." You know who has never been in a war? Cape Verde. No one hates them. No one really hates Sweden for that matter, either. Or Costa Rica. I have never seen angry Muslim clerics parading around burning Bolivian flags.
Personally, I do not have a big issue with Iran having nuclear weapons. For half a century, we've had them - enough to destroy the world eight times over. We've even had some pretty dumb presidents (one of whom has a penchant for inventing words) and yet they have been smart enough to avoid nuclear disaster. As crazy as Amijinadeb (sp?) may be, I don't think he's insane enough to end the world by launching a nuke at Israel.
Perhaps I sound too idealistic. Yet, it is my pessimism that makes me believe nuclear Holocaust is doomed to fail. People in power want to stay in power. We are naturally selfish and our sense of self-preservation will prevent even the craziest dictator of launching a nuclear bomb.
The more nations that have it, the more likelihood there is of a worse retaliation and therefore global catastrophe. When it was just the U.S. dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was one thing. We could commit a hit and run and leave. Yet, now if we were to do that, it would set off a chain of events involving ten nations. I simply cannot fathom that any nation would choose that route. So, I say, let Iran join the nuclear club. It might be fun for a Big Brother to have a crazy cousin.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The views of this blog are those of the author only . . . and a few people crazy enough to agree with him. They do not in any way represent those of the Cartwright School District or its staff. If you find something offensive, please e-mail me at socialvoice@gmail.com and we'll engage in a respectful dialogue.
2 comments:
"Why does there need to be a distinction? Isn't the heart connected to what you are thinking? Don't the words, the thoughts, the experiences of the mind change how you feel? And doesn't the way you feel affect how you think? What if the separation is merely a cultural distinction that does not actually exist?"
From me:
I have no idea... I guess I was thinking specifically about my homiletics class. The textbook and the professor have us follow a strict outline method when forming our sermons. It's helpful to have a structure and a method to follow but I was thinking about when I finally went to preach in class my sermon wasn't all that good mainly because I was so worried about whether or not I was following the structure that my emotions and my passion did not come out. I guess I was mostly thinking about the idea that sometimes knowledge can actually be detrimental or we can get lost in the pursuit of it. I would love to hear your thoughts about the cultural side to your questions above. They are good questions.
Hello, friend!
Long time no talk, and now I found you - or at least an outlet of your thoughts...
Hope all is grand,
Sam
Post a Comment