Monday, February 02, 2004
Mistake Prone
By
Mickey Z.
Add a Comment
-
As always, very interesting and astute comments Mr. Z. Your points of US militarism are exactly right, and an understatement, only because the magnitude of its collosal injustice is, with the possible exception of Noam Chomsky, too much for one person to enunciate. Starting from day one with Colombus and the Natives. Indeed, as one of European descent, an amalgam mutt mixture of Polish, Scottish, Lithuanian, Pennsylvania Dutch, and who knows what all, I find it hard to maintain the entirely justified moral tone you do here, Mickey. I would be interested if you spoke to that issue; how you do it; and whether you are of Native descent and therefore feel free in this respect.
Kerry may have asked, “Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try?” but a better question I think, would be, why is the United States sitting so high on its moral horse of hypocrisy that it berates and threatens the least country of trying to even develop a nuclear weapon, while it maintains and stockpiles them in the thousands? It stores, as Arundhati Roy has pointed out, the weaponry capable of wiping out the whole world in an afternoon.
I believe the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the US was a signatory, signed what? some 20 years ago, required nuclear “powers” to disband their arsenals with all due deliberate speed. With the collapse of Communism in 1989, the United States had, and I believe squandered, the chance to abolish nuclear weapons once and for all. And what happened? Instead of moving to abolish them, it actually increased its reliance on the big club, the better to enforce just the type of oopsey daisies Mikey writes about here. I would point out how potentially and probably eventually, self-immolating this is if I didn’t think I was stealing Noam Chomsky’s thought that Western imperial powers have time and again been willing to risk utter catastrophe to extend and maintain their wealth and power.
The US especially faltered in failing to set an example to the rest of the world with respect to nuclear disarmament, and for that, I think it is entirely to blame for the proliferation and the threats of proliferation it pretends to be concerned about. The magnitude of the duplicity is staggering, and its ho-hum acceptance astonishing. I doubt the tweedledee Democrats (I except Kucinich and Sharpton here) will speak to this issue.
Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 02/02 at 09:28 PM -
We have what I consider to be a less than perfect goverment and I’m proud to state I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Given what we now know about the environmental decline and tax related gains by the top 1% of our population we must choose a candidate that can unseat Bush and the entire Republican hold over America. The deficit is growing and the environment is dying. How can I explain to my children that the world I am leaving them is worse off now than when I was their age. It’s time for Bush to go, and if Kerry is our best hope, then I’m for him.
Posted by Ken Balban from on 02/03 at 04:37 PM -
Ken,
I can understand the sentiment but I really have to wonder if Kerry is “our best hope.” Considering Clinton’s record, the Dems are just as much to blame for the world you leave your children as Dubya’s criminals.
No easy answers here…
MZ
Posted by Mickey Z. from on 02/03 at 04:43 PM -
I agree it’s a tough call either way. As a very bright Green working for Nader said to me in the run-up to 2000, it might be good for Bush to get elected (in this case re-elected) to see how bad things can get, and shake the majority of the populace out of its apathy.
I don’t see much out of the way of the status quo in Kerry. And I think MZ is entirely right about Clinton.
Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 02/04 at 08:13 PM
Comments:
You must register to comment.
Login | Register



