USA - the axis of evil?
Ah-ha... I see Iran's uranium enrichment is back in the news today.
Apparently, an EU delegation is making a new diplomatic effort to resolve the present stand off between the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the West.
Now I know that Iran is what President Bush in 2002 described as a core component of the 'axis of evil' and, therefore, its acquiring nuclear weapons should concern us all. The thinking goes that Iranians' acquisition of nuclear power will lead to their developing nuclear weapons with which presumably - according to the EU nations and USA, at least - the world will be threatened.
Now in view of Iran's violation of human rights, heaven forbid that I should become an apologist for Ahmadinejad's terror regime.
But, equally, I'm not sure if I buy the view that Iran is as bad as the Americans will have us believe - especially when you look at nuclear history.
The USA, for instance, has been developing nuclear weapons as early as 1939. Of course, we all know it's the first country in the world to develop nuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them in war against another nation - a nation that didn't even have such power or potential. During the Cold War the USA conducted over a thousand nuclear tests and developed many long-range weapon delivery systems. Even today it maintains an arsenal of about 5,000 warheads, as well as facilities for their construction and design.
According to the Natural Resources Defence Council report in 2005, the USA still deploys approximately 480 nuclear weapons in Europe. And according to NRDC experts, the targets for these weapons are most likely in Russia, Syria and Iran.
Iran? 'Axis of evil'? I don't.
Against Japan - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the USA used two weapons that killed approximately 250,000 Japanese citizens outright, and thousands more have died over the years from radiation sickness and related cancers.
Between 1945 and 1990, more than 70,000 total warheads were developed, in over 65 different varieties and, between 1940 and 1996, the U.S. spent at least $5.8 trillion (in 1996 dollars) on nuclear weapon development.
Coupled with the fact that USA have developed and given credence to the idea of a pre-emptive war strike, I wonder whether Iran is really as evil as we're lead to believe.
The Americans and the West had the same concerns about North Korea and India developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. I wonder if the real issue - from an American perspective - is whether Muslims or people who aren't white and can endorse a western world view, can actually be trusted?
My question is: can the USA - especially under Bush-Cheney Alliance - be trusted to safeguard our planet so that it's passed onto the next generation relatively intact?
Older/Newer
« It's not education but... | MI5 file on 126 bus service from Birmingham to Wolverhampton! »



















The USA seems to see themselves as a global police force but are obviously above being policed by anyone else.
Some of the deep seated bias within the US can only mean that some countries are seen as evil whereas others can engage in similar activities and go unnoticed.
I've just come back from Jamaica and have been absolutely shocked by the lack of knowledge of anything outside the US borders by some of the American tourists - one actually thought Athens Olympics was held in London and had never heard of Greece!
Obviously everyone isn't this bad but there does seem to be a lack of understanding of anything foreign across the board.
I can only see this aggressive biased policy heading one direction and it isn't going to be pretty ending.
Thank you for this, David. You're absolutely right. And you know, USA scares me more than Iran, Iraq and North Korea put together. There is certainly a hidden agenda on the part of the United States especially under the Bush administration. Whether we'll make it to the end of this century, depends not so much on Muslim extremists in Iraq or Iran but on USA and its attitude to international conflict in whatever form it might arise.
Roshan, ever being defiant, "dear" shall be engraved on our friendship rings, with the good Peter being our best man; BP providing the champagne and your students singing in the choir - serves them right.
I haven't got the faintest idea as to the issue you raise. Recently the good AA Gill himself said: "To ask an American to make a cup of coffee is like asking him to draw a map of the world". I then recommended to the few Americans known to me personally to make a cup of coffee, draw a map of the world and pay particular attention to rivers since they add division, colour and gorgeous names (and no, the Nile does not count).
There are historians who say that the Americas are just an amalgamation of the Old World; quite right too - and implicating that we only have ourselves to blame; including us adopting the States as the to be obeyed big brother.
Of course, all generalisation is a dastardly business; but then humans feel safest when they can pigeon hole. There is that train of thought to just leave countries to their own destiny; and in a way I think that's correct. After all, how many of us interfere with gross problems next door to us (called 'neighbours')
As to the old chestnut of "axis of evil" may I refer people to Dante's "Inferno". In the end we'll all burn in hell - not necessarily in a chamber of our own choosing.
Let's take responsibility for each other; in not too hasty a manner. And let's not, by default, indulge the school ground bully.
U
I've got a friend who moved over to the States in the early 90s. And despite the fact that she's got two kids - fully Americanised - she herself doesn't feel comfortable about describing herself as an American - to her it just holds so many negative connotations. She told me that America is just a brash, culture - over-the-top, slightly ignorant and, generally, inward looking.
Yes, I know, one mustn't generalised - it's dangerous.
But anyway...
An excellent trail of thoughts, my dear girl! AA Gill, the Old World, Dante but, where did you get the notion of students - leading to an implicit deduction that I'm a lecturer?...
CAVEAT: Dear readers of Roshan's blog; this is sort of personal - so don't waste your own good time reading it.
Roshan, in answer to your question, let's just say: "Guardian" 07/08/07. And if you come across the good Steinbeck himself (again), or any musings on poetry, during this summer's GCSEs marking please be kind to my son.
Yes, Americans. It's like saying the British, the French, the whatever. I hate stereotyping - other than as part of a little bit of dinner party fun. Though, of course, every cliche has a grounding in a few grains of truth.
No one gets more needling than an American abroad. One of my American friends (she kindly passes me her well read copies of The New Yorker) married an Englishman, followed him to his own country and is the butt of many a joke - made mostly by her husband who loves her very much. Occasionally it's borderline; to her credit she endures it with good humour.
Interesting that your friend, by virtue of living in America, feels the need to refer to herself as 'American'. Why? I have lived in this country for over twenty years; yet I wouldn't dream of claiming that I am British. I am not.
U
Ursula. Gosh, how early is this - not even 7am! But I'm going to a conference in near Swiss Cottage so had to wake up early.
Thanks for your reply.
Hmmm. yes...
My British friend in USA doesn't feel American but feels a 'compulsion' to regard herself as such since her husband's family have adopted the country as their very own. Her children by virtue of being born there are very much American but she herself, exists in that strange vacuum, in a kind of a cultural transit not here, not there - just being(excuse the seemingly 'poetic' gloss there!).
Isn't there a similar idea in Britain today, that if you live here you should adopt a British way of life and identity (whatever that might be or mean0? Surely that's the thinking behind silly ideas as creating a British Day - to celebrate a sense of nationhood and cultural unity.
Actually my father - from India - had been saying that he was going to go back (to India) after my brother, sister and I had grow up. When he did eventually get the chance to go, he didn't last more than two months! He realised that he had romanticised the past, that India of the fifties had changed beyond recognition. But he also realised that in terms of mentality, affiliation with lifestyle, cultual identity he was British and that he had taken this country for granted. Indian-ness was only an aspect of his past not his present. I suspect that, like my father, many people who have lived in Britain for such a long time will feel alien in their 'home' country. Deep down, I reckon if my friend in America had to live here for a couple of months, she'll sense her Americanism creeping through.
And Ursula - strange as it might sound - I suspect it might be the same with you. Britishness and identification with these isles only happen to you when you're abroad. That's when you truly sense how British you are...
Forgive my rambling but actually, I think I might do a blog on this very theme sometime in the future.
Ursula. Gosh, how early is this - not even 7am! But I'm going to a conference in near Swiss Cottage so had to wake up early.
Thanks for your reply.
Hmmm. yes...
My British friend in USA doesn't feel American but feels a 'compulsion' to regard herself as such since her husband's family have adopted the country as their very own. Her children by virtue of being born there are very much American but she herself, exists in that strange vacuum, in a kind of a cultural transit not here, not there - just being(excuse the seemingly 'poetic' gloss there!).
Isn't there a similar idea in Britain today, that if you live here you should adopt a British way of life and identity (whatever that might be or mean0? Surely that's the thinking behind silly ideas as creating a British Day - to celebrate a sense of nationhood and cultural unity.
Actually my father - from India - had been saying that he was going to go back (to India) after my brother, sister and I had grow up. When he did eventually get the chance to go, he didn't last more than two months! He realised that he had romanticised the past, that India of the fifties had changed beyond recognition. But he also realised that in terms of mentality, affiliation with lifestyle, cultual identity he was British and that he had taken this country for granted. Indian-ness was only an aspect of his past not his present. I suspect that, like my father, many people who have lived in Britain for such a long time will feel alien in their 'home' country. Deep down, I reckon if my friend in America had to live here for a couple of months, she'll sense her Americanism creeping through.
And Ursula - strange as it might sound - I suspect it might be the same with you. Britishness and identification with these isles only happen to you when you're abroad. That's when you truly sense how British you are...
Forgive my rambling but actually, I think I might do a blog on this very theme sometime in the future.
Roshan, adopt a British way of life? Only in as much as to queue in an orderly fashion, say please and thank you at all times, not forgetting to mention the weather and house prices.
I haven't moved back and forth the same distance as your father. I am a European national; so the transition, though English not being my mother tongue, was comparatively easy. And I chose to stay in this country when I had the chance to move back to the one of my birth.
Sometimes two very different concepts get muddled: Where you stem from and where you feel at home. I visit my very large family (and feel at home) and afterwards I GO home - which is here, abroad.
May I also say, and it took me years to get over it, that the English, with all their politeness, will never let you forget that you are a "foreigner". I am happy here, as indeed I would be anywhere. Yet, I have never applied for a British passport. Why would I? My son has two nationalities (and passports): The world being his oyster.
To this day, I look from the outside in - in either country. You might say I live in a self manufactured no-man's-land.
U