OpEdNews Op Eds

For Iran, No Nukes Is Not Good News

By       Message Mark Drolette     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Author 7540
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
- Advertisement -

One thing I’ve learned while researching columns is that oftentimes, the smaller the item, the louder it speaks.


Check this thirty-six worder from page A3 of the September 29 San Francisco Chronicle:


Petroleum for Pyongyang: President Bush Friday authorized the first U.S. shipment of heavy fuel oil to North Korea in five years, a reward to Pyongyang for moving forward with its agreement to end its nuclear programs.”


That’s it, in its entirety. Its brevity, however, belies its true voluminous content. ‘Cause:


Isn’t North Korea, like Iraq and Iran, a charter member of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”?


And isn’t North Korea, unlike Iraq and Iran, the only one of the three to possess nuclear weapons?


Well, gosh, that’s odd. Because why, then, did Bushco engage in (successful) diplomacy with North Korea while Iraq lay in ruin and Iran sits next in the crosshairs?


What on earth could be the difference? (The more accurate query would be: “What in the earth could be the difference?”)

- Advertisement -


For Bush supporters in the audience, the ones who still insist Iraq’s obliteration is about spreading freedom n’ democracy and killing anyone who resists such beneficence, let me spell it out for you (don’t panic, it’s only three letters): o-i-l.


Come on, even Alan Greenspan said as much. Uh, until he didn’t, that is. (It’s not nice to fool with motherf*****s.)


But, just as transpired before we plundered oil-rich Iraq, we’re now told we must pummel oil-rich Iran, even as lip service is paid to giving peace a chance.


And right on cue, bellicosity rises to muffle such phony calls for diplomacy as Dick Cheney and his pinheaded PNAC pals paint Iran as a grave danger, salivating over the day they can bust its chops and loot its resources.

Calculatingly chiming in with a blustery salvo is the revoltin’ John Bolton, long-time pit bull of the American far right (so far right, in fact, he’s disdainful of those damn feel-good neocons and their “excessively Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy.” Ouch.)

- Advertisement -


Bolton declared recently in Great Britain (as reported by Ros Taylor of The Guardian UK) that talking with Iran was useless and “he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.”


Naturally, this saddens him. “I don’t think the use of military force is an attractive option,” he laments, no doubt sponging away tears that’d make a caiman proud, “but I would tell you I don’t know what the alternative is.”



Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Mark Drolette is a writer who lives in Sacramento, California.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

It's amazing what decades of sh*t can do

9/11 a conspiracy? Ha! Well, OK, so it was, but not the weird kind

You go, Hugo, and take your goody-goody goodie bags with you

You can cry for us, Argentina

Martial law's really only a problem when it's declared