Republicans: Fearing themselves to insignificance

The Republican Party is truly the ignorant, xenophobic fear-mongering party. See this video released by the Minority LEADER John Boehner... I think you will see why I am going to enjoy watching these radicals implode.

Religion: Update and Reflections

UPDATE AND REFLECTIONS on Religion Post (9/08/08):

This post certainly stirred some debate and controversy, which I believe is part of healthy discourse. After several days of reflection, however, I'd just like to bring my thoughts back to earth.

Let me be clear: the fact that I find religion silly, does not mean that I don't respect an individual's choice to subscribe to a particular belief. I was a believer for a long time, and I am far from certain that there is nothing out there. But I will say that even if there is a higher being of some sort, is there not some point where everything just is? In other words, even if there is a god or Flying Spaghetti Monster, isn't there a line where there is nothing higher, and everything just exists for existence's sake?

Who knows, really?

Furthermore, while I am happy that I shared my opinions on religion, I should have emphasized the more important and vital aspect of it: that religion is being used by the powerful to influence the masses into going along and supporting their plots for increased (albeit short-term) power and wealth. The masterminds of the Bush Administration are not motivated purely by zealotry (though they may be in part), but by gaining strategic power and economic supremacy in the world.

RELIGION: part dos

Not too long ago one of my old buddies from the "Evangelical Students-having-fun-while-proselytizingonthebeach Club" asked if I'd follow up on one of my very early posts dealing with how fucked religion is. Here goes.

Religion is the biggest bullshit mankind EVER CREATED. If you seriously believe that an invisible man lives in the sky and talks to people via talking bushes, you are severely lacking reason. If you believe in snakes that speak, I hope you aren't in a position of power. If you think that a "merciful" god is one who sends "sinners" into the fiery pits of eternal damnation, you are nuts.

Judgmental? Sure it is. But let me put it to you this way: it's "non-believers" like me who are the minority; we are the ones who are shamed by society for not believing in the Supreme Being. We are the ones who wonder if the President would be as willing to get our soldiers killed if he didn't believe they were going to heaven.

But I'm not a "non-believer", I'm just a rationalist. There is no God, there are no virgin-births, divine sons, or giant arks. Talking bushes are simply ridiculous, just like Humpty-Dumpty and Little Red Riding Hood are only fairy-tales.

Oh yeah: Jesus and Santa are the same guy. You were duped. I was duped. It's okay.

UPDATE AND REFLECTIONS (9/24/08):

This post certainly stirred some debate and controversy, which I believe is part of healthy discourse. After several days of reflection, however, I'd just like to bring my thoughts back to earth.

Let me be clear: the fact that I find religion silly, does not mean that I don't respect an individual's choice to subscribe to a particular belief. I was a believer for a long time, and I am far from certain that there is nothing out there. But I will say that even if there is a higher being of some sort, at some point everything just is. In other words, even if there is a god or Flying Spaghetti Monster, at some point there is nothing higher, and everything just exists for existence's sake.

But who knows, really?

Furthermore, while I am happy that I shared my opinions on religion, I should have emphasized the more important and vital aspect of it: that religion is being used by the powerful to manipulate the masses into going along and supporting their plots for increased (albeit short-term) power and wealth.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 2

Here is the next part of my research paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. relationship post 2003. If you'd like to read it in its entirety (and to dig my sources), check out my knol here.

In December 2004, almost two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Reuel M. Gerecht[5], a former member of the CIA and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a neoconservative think-tank), wrote, “Iran’s primary objective is to ensure that Iraq remains destabilized, incapable of coalescing around a democratically elected government.”[6] He describes a condition of bitterness between the Shia of Iraq and the Shia government of Iran—“The Iraqi Shia retain enormous bitterness towards … Iran’s clerical regime, which did virtually nothing to help their Iraqi ‘brethren.’ He continues by saying that the Iranians are resentful towards the Iraqi Shia “given the damage the [Iran-Iraq] war did to Iran, that Iraq’s army was primarily Shiite, and that Saddam’s elite Sunni Republican Guards were on several occasions near the cracking point. When the Iraqi Shia felt Saddam’s wrath in ’91, there was more than a little schadenfreude on the Persian side.”[7] While there is perhaps legitimacy to many of these claims, Gerecht’s assumption (one that is shared by many in Washington) that “Iran ideally wants to see … strife that can produce an Iraq Hezbollah”[8] does not seem to hold much merit considering the present situation.

Raed Jarrar[9], an Iraqi from the American Foreign Services Committee, explains that the ruling parties in Iraq are directly tied with Iran, and fails to see the logic in an Iranian plot to keep Iraq in chaos. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Iranian supported Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Nouri al-Maliki of the Dawa Party (a party with Iranian origins) came from Iran in 2003.[10] “Why would Iran send special Iranian forces (called Al-Kud’s brigade) into Iraq to attack a regime that is run by their own people?”[11]

Though it is quite unlikely (and illogical to assume) that Iran desires a complete structural breakdown in Iraq, it is clear that Iran has specific goals for Iraq’s future. The International Crisis Group suggests that:

Tehran’s priority is to prevent Iraq from re-emerging as a threat, whether of a
military, political or ideological nature, and whether deriving from its failure
(its collapse into civil war or the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan
with huge implications for Iran’s disaffected Kurdish minority) or success (its
consolidation as an alternative democratic or religious model appealing to
Iran’s disaffected citizens).[12]

To accomplish this, Iran certainly desires a Shia dominated government in Iraq that is friendly to Iran. Professor Sabah al Nasseri[13] from York University suggests that Iran wants a stable, independent, and democratic Iraq, but only as long as its allies (the regime of al-Maliki and al-Hakim) are in power. But if “other political forces—secular forces, or maybe Al Sadr”—become popular and offer a “different kind of democracy,” Iran will oppose it.[14] Direct Iranian intervention is known to have occurred in the January 2005 elections in Iraq, where “Iran had played a significant behind-the-scenes role in assuring the electoral success of the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance—a coalition of mostly Shia groups … in particular, the Dawa party and SCIRI), and had a great deal riding on the UIA’s choice of prime minister.”[15]

In 2005, President Bush made an appearance on Israel’s state-owned news network, and made a comment with regards to a possible military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear aspirations: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and, you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”[16] Within the Bush administration, there is a commonly held belief that “Iran is the major threat in the region and … simply cannot be allowed to produce nuclear weapons, whether or not it intends to do so.”[17] Iran has declared that it aspires only for “a civil nuclear-power programme,” and denies allegations that it will use these advancements for weaponry.[18] In fact, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; furthermore, Mohamed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated that there is no nuclear weapons program being pursued by the Iranians.[19]

....I'll post the next part soon.

Ahmadinejad and America's Test

Today President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran spoke to students and faculty at Columbia University in New York. His arrival was marked by heavy criticism and fierce protests, but he was nonetheless permitted to speak. Today this country passed a small but important test.

Let me first establish that I believe President Ahmadinejad is a terribly misled man who does not represent a positive force in the global community. He is the leader of a radical theocracy, which maintains brutal rule over its country—though this rule is in fact crumbling due to a very pro-western youth majority (60% of the population is younger than 30). The Islamic Republic is a known supporter of the radical organization known as Hezbollah and has been accused by Washington of supplying heavy weapons to the insurgency in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has been quoted calling for the “destruction of Israel” and has been accused of denying the Holocaust. In his recent talk at Columbia, he went as far as to denying the existence of homosexuals in Iran.

The debate occurring in the past few days has been one that I feel we have truly needed. Ever since the days of Woodrow Wilson, it has been this country’s supposed “duty” to spread freedom and democracy—criticizing and even invading nations in the name of this “freedom.” But now we have been faced with the question: “To what extent do we offer freedom?” Would it be justified for us to tell President Ahmadinejad, who is considered a “terrorist” by many, that he has no right to engage in conversation with America’s youth? I watched the event online, so let me be clear: serious questions were asked—questions that strove to get to the bottom of this terribly complex man. Instead of relying on the media, real students were given the opportunity to directly engage with a world leader who has been the focus of so much uproar. His answers, though ambiguous at many times, brought to light many issues that must be discussed. What caused this radical Islamic regime to come to power in the first place? What was the role of the United States? Why is Israel so hated? Why are we so hated?

Though I am greatly pleased that the President was able to speak, I remain disconcerted over the overwhelming opposition that I have seen in the nation’s leaders, in the citizenry, and in my peers. The “we don’t agree with you, so we won’t hear from you” mentality is what led to 9/11, and not much has changed. Our government interferes with the affairs of others, manipulates nations for our country’s economic interests, it bombs cities, stages coup d’états and assassinations, all to keep our oil prices down. We have made everlasting enemies who attack mercilessly and with brutal strength. Unfortunately, 9/11 didn’t wake us up like it should have. Shame on Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and all of our potential leaders who have denied the significance of learning from this experience—we need a leader willing to engage, not to ignore as we have for so long. To stop the bloodshed we must understand why people hate—and to do this, we must hear the voices of the haters. We don’t have to agree, but we must listen.

I encourage everyone to watch Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia--it is long but worth it.