I saw in the news that 200 retired generals are urging congress to vote NO on the treaty with Iran: -- see this link Here is a link to the content of their letter. This sounds like "Big News" -- but there are now about 4700 retired generals (see this link) so that only represents a little more than 4% of the retired US generals, so, from that standpoint, it isn't all that significant. It is interesting that the Iranians aren't advertising "in favor" of the agreement. Does our "free press" inhibit those advertisements from appearing? I'd also like to hear the opinions of the other 4500 retired generals, wouldn't you?
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD. Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country. Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened. I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel. If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack. Do Iranian citizens do that now? In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools. However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD. Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country. Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened. I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel. If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack. Do Iranian citizens do that now? In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools. However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment