RUSH: Do you think the Iranians should get a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against us?
CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?
Now of course Ron Paul doesn't support nukes for any one, but they exist, and we have to live with them. But what is interesting about Rush Limbaugh's position is that he simply assumes that Iran will nuke us if they get nukes. What else can one conclude from Rush's position other than Rush wants to get into another War, this time with Iran?
Other countries with Muslim radicals have nukes. Yet Rush attempts to paint all of Iran as being a bunch of crazy Radical Muslims.
RUSH: The idea that is trying to wipe us out.
CALLER: That's not true at all.
RUSH: Militant Islam. He's content for them to get nuclear weapons!
So is Iran militant Islam? As usual, the first thing to go when war time hits is truth. Watch this video count how many radical Muslims appear.
Do we really want to go to war with a nation of people that in their everyday lives are minding their own business. But I have no doubt Rush is going to use more anti-Ron Paul arguments painting him as a blame America first pacifist nut. The caller raised the question of military invading other countries.
CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?RUSH: Well, you know --CALLER: You wouldn't like it. We would not like it!
Rush later responds by saying:
RUSH: By the way, who is attacking Iran, anyway?
Rush sort of has a point. It is true we do not have a base there at this time. Yet can Rush really deny that the American government has never intervened in the private affairs of Iran? As you can read here an article by Steven La Tulippe, the article states an historical fact little known by Americans.
Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian.
The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey's excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq's short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran.
In 1951, the control of Iran's oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.
So Rush is just outright wrong. The CIA has in the past, overthrown a democratic government so that oil companies can maintain their power in foreign countries. So to say that Iranians don't have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive foreign power, in this case the United States, is hypocritical at best. Of course, Rush stands in the same crowd of people who believe Lincoln was justified in killing over half a million people to centralize the very government he says shouldn't have so much power. Kind of odd, don't you think?
In conclusion, Rush is just inconsistent and outright wrong on the facts. And as my good friend often says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."
No comments:
Post a Comment