Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Iran Issue

Is Iran really a threat to the US? Killing their scientists in 2010 was not such a smart idea- although neither Mossad or the CIA will make statements as to their guilt. It does not help the issue when the country is tittering on a revolution. Now there are Iranians who are both pissed off at their government, and the US/Israel as well. So who wants to predict the future of this predicament? Sooner or later Iran will come around but maybe they should stop killing their people to build a greater society-their history is one that is complex and intriguing at best. The Iranian government is not innocent and no excuses can be made to for their actions. However the US and its allies are not innocent either. They should also stop bullying the country around, because it does no good. Maybe they should learn that you don’t piss off a madman and then expect them to act according to your wishes.

Between the US and the UK there is enough bad blood to justify the anger of Iran and it's people. The plunders of the 1900s did not make for good diplomacy in the part of the Britons-especially the 1918 bloodbath. The US and UK absolute siding with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran was not a great way to bridge the already increasing gap between the west and Iran. Don’t forget the Iran-contra affair. Then there is the embargo and the nuclear energy fumbles. Then off course there is the Israel issue-lets not forget, it is Israel that has nuclear capabilities, and since Iran is not a suicidal rampage, it might be time to regroup for NATO. All in all, the Western allies cannot claim innocence in the disastrous policies concerning Iran.

What happened to making policy based on long-term ramifications? Usually not investing in human capital is a bad idea. And such are the mistakes made by international policy makers and even the countries themselves. Investing in people instead of weapons is a smart investment. If the US is so concerned about the Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians and the Palestinians, where is the justice them? Obviously Iran posses no treat to the US- H.Clinton and even Chirac have pointed out just as much. Even on the basic level of nuclear capability Iran could work as a deterrent for the Israelis, for next time they decide that they can attack Lebanon, Syria or Gaza, they might have to think twice. Clearly, the Israelis would prefer not to have to look over their shoulder at what Tehran might contemplate doing in the way of retaliation- hence their staunch allies in the US puff and huff about a dangerous Iran. Obviously Iran is doing little in assuring the peace of its people, yet, pissing of the leaders is not the interest of anyone least of all the Iranians themselves.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

What if the US Constitution was flexible?

I have a godbrother whom I love very much. He is an annoying little twerp, but like my very many brothers and sisters (blood or adopted), he has been an integral part of my political thinking. He is a Jew, non-practicing, and I am a Christian. I would call myself Pro-Israel, for I am never pro any country. I do love its people but like many other governments, its politics disgust me. I am skeptical and would rather hope that Palestine will be free someday.
My brother is a 16 year old who has grown too fast, and has learned quality music like the Beatles and BB King. In one of our daily squabs, we have started on the constitution. i can always excuse him for not having read the whole document- he is in HS after-all. But he has bought into the whole American-exceptionalism and the menace of the idealism of manifest destiny. However, he is advocating for a flexible constitution. His argument? Things have changed! Apparently, the "founding" fathers could not possibly imagine a world where there were bombs, nuclear weapons, the internent, and spies. I couldn't get past a word to let him know that in those times, all these dangers, maybe with an exception of the nuclear war, were all a possibility or in existince, albeit on a smaller scale.
So I had to wonder if he was not onto something. What would it mean if the US constitution could be flexible? One of the most fundamental values of the US is the Constitution. In fact, it can be said that it is what holds this country together. It is what lawmakers boast about, the platform for many political debates, and the tool for justifying a lot of actions by the government and its people. The constitution is the fundamental brick, in the making and sustaining of this nation. Therefore, arguably, if the constitution was to be flexible, so would this country. The national debate would not be on the Federal government becoming bigger, it would be bigger. The states, well, one can only imagine that with all these states co-habitating under one umbrella, there are those that would have like to sucede. The price to pay for a flexible constitution is chaos. From the preamble, to the last sentence of the constitution, the laws that established this country have seen it come this far. But by all things comparable, the country is still young-Europe is much more like a good, bitter aged wine that takes a lot of getting used to. However, guaranteeing freedom of the people, and establishing the checks and balance system, the constitution has assured that the people have a louder voice in politics than those in the government, and that there can be some form of separation of powers in government that makes it essential in managing the very many facets fo the American system.
Things have changed, and there are things like the second amendment that could use some refining, but to make the US contitution flexible would be disastrous, as the government could claim the power they want, without the censorship of any law. There could also be a Bush dynasty in the making....Think about that. The arguments for a bigger government is just not pertinent. Even with Obama's efforts of a health care upheaval, the country is no where near becoming a socialist government. Even France at its best is not worst off for being a social democracy.