At this point in discussing an attack on Iran, I think it would be refreshing to remember where terrorists actually come from.
While there are different forms of terrorist around the world, from IRA to home grown crazies, the ones that are constantly being touted in the news and in other propaganda, are "radical muslim terrorists" from the Middle East.
The hijackers of 9-11 imfamy were from Saudi Arabia primarily, a country "friendly" with the US admin and one that has suffered no ill consequences despite its production of the actual culprits. Afghanistan we can all agree also hosts terrorists directly implicated in that attack. The other "terrorists" we hear about seem to have bloomed spontaneously after their country, Iraq, was invaded by US forces and occupied. So we can argue about whether they are terrorists or "freedom fighters". They seem to have few political ideas other than ousting the US occupation force- so I would not brand them as terrorists hell-bent on harming the West.
Iran, on the other hand, is a democratic nation (yes there is a supreme ayatollah in there) and not generally known for harboring terrorists. They are, however, branded by the current US administration as being the "central bank" of terrorism without much in the way of evidence. The central case for attacking Iran from a US perspective, is that they fund and support terrorists in Iraq. Do they support the fighters in Iraq trying to remove the US force there? Probably, since they are predominantly Shiite and wish to form alliances for their own security within an unstable Iraq. Evidence for this is still weak at best. Even assuming this is the case, does that give the US the right to bomb that Country or its nuclear facilities, further de-stabilizing the ME? Let's face it, Iran has a much larger stake in Iraq's well being than the US or any other foreign nation. They live right next door, and if anything, the West should be negotiatiing with Iran so that they can support the efforts to create stability.
Iran seems to have been arbitrarily branded a "state sponsor of terrorism" by a current US admin for political ends. We all heard the propaganda coming from the Bush Admins cohorts prior to the, more or less, unilateral attack on Iraq. So why trust that their "intelligence" and instincts are right in this case? They've made so many other blunders (lies?) that I believe any attack on Iran should wait for a new admin and a much stronger case before the world at large can consider condoning it.
Is Iran a sponsor of terror? There's no proof, only hearsay from the CFR and other far right "think tanks" in the US. As such there should be no attack, unless Iran proves itself in some way an aggressor, which they have yet to do. Common sense tells us that until a person, or a government proves themselves guilty of some offense, that there should be no punishment.
While there are different forms of terrorist around the world, from IRA to home grown crazies, the ones that are constantly being touted in the news and in other propaganda, are "radical muslim terrorists" from the Middle East.
The hijackers of 9-11 imfamy were from Saudi Arabia primarily, a country "friendly" with the US admin and one that has suffered no ill consequences despite its production of the actual culprits. Afghanistan we can all agree also hosts terrorists directly implicated in that attack. The other "terrorists" we hear about seem to have bloomed spontaneously after their country, Iraq, was invaded by US forces and occupied. So we can argue about whether they are terrorists or "freedom fighters". They seem to have few political ideas other than ousting the US occupation force- so I would not brand them as terrorists hell-bent on harming the West.
Iran, on the other hand, is a democratic nation (yes there is a supreme ayatollah in there) and not generally known for harboring terrorists. They are, however, branded by the current US administration as being the "central bank" of terrorism without much in the way of evidence. The central case for attacking Iran from a US perspective, is that they fund and support terrorists in Iraq. Do they support the fighters in Iraq trying to remove the US force there? Probably, since they are predominantly Shiite and wish to form alliances for their own security within an unstable Iraq. Evidence for this is still weak at best. Even assuming this is the case, does that give the US the right to bomb that Country or its nuclear facilities, further de-stabilizing the ME? Let's face it, Iran has a much larger stake in Iraq's well being than the US or any other foreign nation. They live right next door, and if anything, the West should be negotiatiing with Iran so that they can support the efforts to create stability.
Iran seems to have been arbitrarily branded a "state sponsor of terrorism" by a current US admin for political ends. We all heard the propaganda coming from the Bush Admins cohorts prior to the, more or less, unilateral attack on Iraq. So why trust that their "intelligence" and instincts are right in this case? They've made so many other blunders (lies?) that I believe any attack on Iran should wait for a new admin and a much stronger case before the world at large can consider condoning it.
Is Iran a sponsor of terror? There's no proof, only hearsay from the CFR and other far right "think tanks" in the US. As such there should be no attack, unless Iran proves itself in some way an aggressor, which they have yet to do. Common sense tells us that until a person, or a government proves themselves guilty of some offense, that there should be no punishment.
.
