Glenn Greenwald - George Orwell on the Evil Iranian Menace

[Yavin4]

Given the extensive violence and aggression the U.S. has perpetrated, and continues to perpetrate, on numerous countries in that region, one might think that not even our political culture could sustain the propagandistic myth that it is Iran that is the aggressor state and the U.S. that is its peace-loving victim. But, of course, one who thought that would be completely wrong. Not only is it a widespread belief, but it’s virtually mandated orthodoxy.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/04/george_orwell_on_the_evil_iranians/singleton/

I don't always agree with Glenn, but this is an excellent piece.

I would add something else. We're all supposed to scared shitless that Iran might get a nuke, but Pakistan, a far more unstable nation and is already home to many extremists, already has nukes. Yet, there's little or no talk about invading, bombing, and occupying Pakistan.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I agree

What about North Korea? I would trust Iran with nukes before I'll ever trust Kim Jong Il with them.

[tech3149]

5. We need to learn there's no future in pissing in someone else's

sandbox.
Iran develops a nuke? BFD! We've got thousands of them! Iran isn't suicidal. If they did develop and use nukes, they would be obliterated. We need to start looking at the rest of the world as equals and treat them with the respect we demand. All these perceived "threats" are just fear tactics that pose no existential threat.
As a nation we need to relax and take a deep breath. The only enemies we have are the ones we make.
There's no good reason we don't have diplomatic relations with Iran and Cuba for decades. It's a stupid and counter productive reason. We have to start thinking that we are part of the whole world and not some isolated entity.

It's better to make friends than enemies.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. I agree

dismantling nuclear weaponry and discouraging (peacefully) other countries from developing nuclear weapons is a good goal but the fact that country a, b, c.......etc. has or is developing nuclear weapons shouldn't be a prima facie justification for invasion or "regime change" IMHO. I don't believe President Obama is interested in military action against Iran but I'm worried that Israel is going to do something rash and we're inevitably going to get sucked into it. As to your larger points, I agree that we need to start being a better neighbor to the rest of the world ourselves, particularly while we're busy calling for other countries to be better neighbors to other countries and better to its own citizens.

[Fumesucker]

2. I like his update on the piece..

UPDATE: One other point: whenever you dare to suggest a comparison between the United States of America and whatever country happens to be the New Hitlers of the moment, you get accused of moral relativism. That has always struck me as so bizarre, because moral relativism actually refers to precisely what Orwell described: “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.” As Rudy Giuliani said when asked if waterboarding is “torture”: “It depends on who does it.” That is moral relativism.

[bemildred]

3. Yep, Pakistan and the Saudis are much more dangerous than Iran.

In the sense of being the likely spark for an unwanted large scale war.

[Karenina]

4. The Iran doo-dah coming from the U.S. is BIZARRE

looking at it from a seat further from the screen. :freak: