Christian crackpot radio and useless Bible prophecy

I've been doing a fair bit of driving lately, often between the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and Québec City.  Entertainment while behind the wheel is typically my car stereo as my vehicle is over 15 years old and doesn't have a CD player.  Anyone remember cassettes?

I make good use of the seek button and often find myself tuning into American stations which are dedicated to spreading God's word, or the narrow fundamentalist Christian take on it.

Such was the case this past week as I found myself listening to some yahoo expound on Biblical prophecy and specifically what it says about the nation of Israel.  You know the story in all likelihood, God's chosen, a master race if I dare invoke that term. 

Interesting stuff, and certainly good for a chuckle.  You see God, in his infinite wisdom, decided he'd give the Hebrew people the land of Canaan, a nice little present.  If you have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of God worrying about who lives where on this planet, try thinking of him as a Re-Max agent.

But what is Canaan?  Well, God is pretty specific on that point. In Genesis God promises Abraham and all his descendants certain boundaries, lands occupied by certain peoples.  In chapter 15 it says: 

To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites

It probably would have been nice if God, being all powerful and everything, if he had let all those people know he was taking their land from them.  Then again, it looks like God overstepped himself given that the Jewish or Hebrew people have never occupied all the land that is supposedly their's by divine authority.  Don't you hate it when divine beings don't stick to their word?

If God had kept his promise Israel would have included a massive chunk of what we currently call the Middle East.  But then the God of the Old Testament could be pretty erratic.  God had no problem with Moses ordering the killing of women and children, or with the keeping of slaves, or with taking conquered virgins as sex toys....or if you prefer the more polite term...concubines.

So why do I listen to this garbage when I don't believe a word of it?

Well, it does provide a decent window into the minds of many of today's ultra right wing neo-conservatives. 

And it also helps explain why some Conservative bright bulbs, like failed GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, have such a hate on for higher education.  Going to schools of higher learning that teach students the art of critical thought flies directly in the face of the blind obedience that so many fundamentalist Nimrods, (a little Biblical nod for those who get it) demand.

God and his prophets say and advocate many things which civilized people would never tolerate.  Stoning disobedient children is one good example, condoning the seduction of a friend's wife and then murdering that friend to hide the infidelity is probably an even better one...An eye for an eye?  Uhm, only some of the time. 

Any rational thinking person would take these writings for what the truly are, and would dismiss the God crap as leaders seeking justification for the atrocities they've committed. 

Its okay, God says we're cool, kill 'em all...the land is ours.

Fundamentalist, evangelical Bible beating holy rollers used to cast their franchise in the United States mostly with the Democrats.  Not hard to understand, it was because of Jesus' teachings about compassion and being your brother's keeper.  At least that was the case until senior American evangelicals were seduced into putting their pulpits to work for the Republican  party.  And we're seeing the same thing take place north  of the border in the last 10 years or so with our Conservative party.

Let Israelis worry about Israel, we have enough problems

Should a new Palestinian state be created, and if so where should its borders be?

WHO CARES!!!

There are trouble spots all over the globe, Afghanistan of course, the Congo, Sri Lanka, all over the Middle East in general and of course in Israel. 

We get plenty of news about Afghanistan and the situation in Libya given our involvement in those conflicts.  There's the odd piece about the Congo, and once in a blue moon if its a really slow news day you might see something on Tamils in Sri Lanka. 

But it all pales in comparison to when Israel makes the news, such as recently when U.S. president Obama waded in on where to start when negotiating borders with a potential new Palestinian state. 

Things that Canadians should be worrying about include the devastation of floods in Manitoba and Quebec, governments struggling to bring runaway deficits under control, a fragile economic recovery with no ammunition in reserve to fight the next recession, pending interest rate hikes that will push many over extended Canadians over the debt wall.

What land should Israel cede to a new home for Palestinians?  Its a fun academic question certainly, and a nice little diversion from issues closer to home.  But let's focus our attention of getting our own house in order instead of worrying about two parties incapable of compromise. 

Click the button below to vote for Canadian Soapbox at CanadianBlogosphere, then click green.

(You can vote once every day)

Iran protests - The U.S. would never interfere in another nation's affairs...Would they?

Accusations by Iranian government officials that Washington and Israel are behind the anti-government demonstrations taking place in that country are probably falling on a lot of deaf ears in the west.

We're 'the good guys' right? I mean, countries like the United States would never interfere in the internal affairs of other nations....Would they?

The United States never interfered in Cuba or in Iran itself. Chile, Venezuela, Guatemala...everyone knows when it comes to sovereign nations, the U.S. and other western powers are all about democracy.

They say in war the first causality is truth, and when it comes to controlling information and public opinion, the battle never ceases.

We in the west would do well to finely tune our cynisim and aim it directly at our own media sources. After all we wouldn't want to be tricked into believing the enemy is engaging in atrocicties invented by PR firms.


Can you help this blog out?

Canadian Soapbox is ranked at CANADIAN BLOGOSPHERE, help this blog climb the ladder by clicking on the icon below, then hit the green button to vote. (1 vote per IP per day)

Thanks eh!

Can criticizing Israel get you sued? Ask Jimmy Carter

I'm going to go out on a big limb here and state my opinion that the creation of the nation state of Israel was a big mistake. I've written about this before, how Zionists used terror tactics to gain control over then British controlled Palestine.

And I've also mused about the fixation of the Harper Conservatives and Ignatieff Liberals on garnering the Jewish vote when so few Canadians are of that particular faith:

Supporting Israel - Wooing CanWest, Not Jewish Voters

Why All The Fuss Over Israel

Does that qualify as criticism? Should I be worried?

I don't think so, but former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is reportedly being sued over a book he wrote in 2006 entitled, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". According to an article in the Jerusalem Post the lawsuit alleges that the book was intended to deceive the public and promote an anti-Israel agenda.

You can also read about it here:

THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE

and here:

Commentarymagazineonline.com

Obviously there are individuals who don't like to see Israel criticized. But this lawsuit is likely to spur more interest in the book President Carter wrote. It was I believe P.T. Barnum who coined the phrase: "There's no such thing as bad publicity".

Can you help this blog out?

Canadian Soapbox is ranked at CANADIAN BLOGOSPHERE, help this blog climb the ladder by clicking on the icon below, then hit the green button to vote.

Thanks eh!

Egyptian crisis - The end of Bush Senior's 'New World Order'?

Anti-Globalization types and conspiracy theorists often point to a speech made by the elder George H.W. Bush back during the first Gulf War in which he heralded the establishment of a "New World Order" or NWO for short.



The NWO according to these groups is a movement toward one world government, with US corporate and multinational interests as masters of the universe.

Regardless of how one feels on the whole NWO question, events in Egypt have certainly sharpened our focus on how the west deals with many other parts of the planet, particularily the Middle East.

Lost in many history lessons about the impact of World War I is that it wiped out the Turkish or Ottoman Empire, putting most of the world's proven oil reserves under western control. After the so called "War To End All Wars" the former Turkish empire was carved up into a number of different countries, none with democratically elected governments.

Instead of elected leaders, many in the Arab world found (and find) themselves ruled by dictators and thugs, or by royal families such as in Saudi Arabia. And that's all well and good, so long as those leaders are willing to appease Washington and western interests.

But now in places like Tunisia and Egypt people on the street are rising up and demanding reform and true democracy. Its not a new story, its happened before in places like Cuba and Iran, where the people grew tired of corrupt and brutal regimes and engineered their replacements.

The questions now are:

How far will this spread?

Is the order of the world changing?

We've seen the unification of Europe and the establishment of the Euro as a prominent currency. The economies of China and India are growing and modernizing at breakneck speed. Is the Arab world now poised to rise up and rid itself of the yoke of Western domination? If so what does it mean to us in the west?

Taking the historical view I am definitely concerned. Times like these have typically led to armed conflict. And given the technology and weapons of the modern era, a war of any size and scope has the potential to dwarf the carnage of any of the previous world wars.

Ultimately it is in the best interests of western nations to rid ourselves of our dependency on oil. Eliminate our need to dominate the world's energy markets and our interest in the Middle East will be signinifcantly reduced.

Leave individual nation states to be governed by people popularily chosen, not by dictators and despots beholden to foreign interests, and the world will be a safer place.

Can you help this blog out?

Canadian Soapbox is ranked at CANADIAN BLOGOSPHERE, help this blog climb the ladder by clicking on the icon below, then hit the green button to vote.

Thanks eh!

U.S. facing a bigger threat than terrorism - Oil trade moving to other currencies

There can be little dispute that in the post WWII world, the United States has been the world's preeminent economic power. Its no coincidence her economic strength came in tandem with military might, empowered to ensure the protection of American business interests around the globe.

Living in the shadow of the world's only current superpower, (with China quickly gaining ground) our news often lacks a truly global perspective. Such is certainly the case with reports about Arab nations teaming secretly with China, Russia and France to move away from the US dollar for trading in oil. You can read about it HERE in the UK's Independent, I haven't seen anything on CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS or CBC/CTV.

Those who might be quick to dismiss such news don't fully grasp the significance of global money markets and the potential for a seismic shift in the world's balance of power should such a move come to fruition.

Because almost all of the world's buying and selling of oil is transacted in US dollars, the greenback's valuation has an almost iron clad backstop against catastrophic devaluation. Countries trading in oil must keep huge deposits of US dollars in reserve. Moving to other currencies, (the Euro, Ruble or Yuan) would mean nations divesting themselves of Benjamin Franklins on a massive scale...in the trillions of dollars.

What effect would this have on the US dollar?

The results would be devastating. Contrary to the knowledge of many, there is no gold or silver standard backing up the valuation of America's currency. There are no underground vaults with stores of precious metals, no concrete tangible commodity...nothing holding up the currency's valuation aside from the normal pressures of supply and demand. The U.S. dollar, and the Canadian dollar for that matter, are "fiat" currencies.

With just about all the world's oil trading being conducted in the greenback, this assures there is always plenty of demand for American money.

It should be noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had started demanding payment for Iraqi oil in Euros or Rubles, not US dollars. Iran as well has announced that it is moving its cash reserves from dollars to euros, this after opening their "Oil Bourse" for the trading of petroleum products based mostly in the European currency.

For those who believe that almost all conflicts between nations are borne out of economic considerations, this should provide extra food for thought with respect to both the Iraq war and the current sabre rattling in the direction of Tehran. It certainly lends credence to a view expressed very well by Eric Margolis, that the U.S. is being less than honest about the discovery of Iran's "secret" uranium enrichment plant near Qum, a plant that has been a known quantity for more than two years. (READ ERIC MARGOLIS' COLUMN HERE)

The economy of the United States is already under severe stress, a mass dumping of U.S. dollars on the world's currency markets could very well be seen as a fatal blow. With a massive trade deficit, all the products Americans currently import would very quickly succumb to hyper-inflation. Of course the products Americans sell abroad would dive in price, but therein lies the problem...the U.S. has not been a net exporter for ages.

This is definitely something to keep an eye on, but it requires looking beyond corporate American media. A quote from the above linked article by a Chinese bank official says all we need to know about the significance this move could bring:

"America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."

The denials are already out, here's one from Bloomberg.


Canadian Soapbox is now listed in the Top 3 at CanadianBlogosphere. To help this blog climb even higher click on their icon, then hit the green button to vote - limit 1 vote per day per IP - thank you.

Supporting Israel - Wooing CanWest, Not Jewish Voters

In my most recent blog entry I pondered the battle between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff in the arena that is "Support for Israel". The leaders of our two main parties are in a battle to win the votes of Canada's Jewish constituency, or so says a recent CP news story.

The question I raised was basically...Why the fixation on such a small group? Canada has about 300,000 people who identify themselves as being of the Jewish faith, roughly the same as the number of Buddhists, or Sikhs or even Hindus. Muslims by contrast number almost 600,000 in this country. The figures available from StatsCan are from 2001, and given immigration and birth rates, its conceivable that the number of Muslims in Canada has trended significantly higher.

So is this really a battle for less than one quarter of one percentage of Canadian voters? Or is there another reason for Messieurs Ignatieff and Harper to be falling all over themselves in an effort to appear as the Canadian who is Israel's greatest champion?

In searching for another more logical answer I'm drawn to the issue of media ownership in Canada, and the trend toward the creation of media empires. Politicians rely on media to carry their message to the electorate, both in news coverage as well as in editorial and opinion pieces.

Do Canadian media giants have a bias toward Israel when it comes to conflicts and issues in the Middle East? Would a leader or a party seen as being critical of Israel have cause to worry that they might be shown in a negative light?

Israel "Izzy" Asper helped create the massive Canadian media conglomerate Canwest Global Communications. Canwest has ownership stakes in the Global Television Network, The National Post, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun and a host of other newspapers as well as Internet portals and international media companies. Asper was known for his strong support of Israel, in an obituary piece the CBC reported:

"Asper was also known for his outspoken views on many political and social issues, especially his support of Israel. He often used his media outlets to call on the Canadian government to strengthen its support of Israel".


There have been numerous complaints from Canwest publications and news properties centred around a lack of editorial freedom and the need to toe the company line on controversial issues, including conflicts between Israel and the Arab world. Back in 2004 the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations called on the Ontario Press Council to investigate CanWest publications for biased reporting. They cited the fact that in the Post and Ottawa Citizen Canwest had:

"...inserted the word "terrorist" into a Middle East story reported by wire service agency Reuters, and substituted the word "terrorist" for words such as "militant and "insurgent" in an Associated Press story".

While Israel Asper has passed away CanWest is now run by President and CEO Leonard Asper, with David Asper as Executive Vice President and Chairman of the National Post.

Granted CanWest is just one of Canada's media empires, but there's no mistaking its size. It certainly seems more logical to suggest that Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper are catering to the views of a media giant as opposed to worrying about the votes of a mere .2 % or so of Canadian electors.

Comments are welcomed and feel free to pass this along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share’ icon below.

Why All The Fuss Over Israel?

Recent media reports suggest the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are making strides to woo Canada's Jewish voters with strong words in support of Israel. The most recent I've seen comes from the Canadian Press under the headline: Liberals, Conservatives battle for Jewish Support in next election. Stephen Harper is widely believed to be stridently pro-Israel, and with good reason. In this Canwest News Service story it says that Conservatives..."acknowledge that many Canadian Jews appreciate Harper's unwavering support for Israel".

Is Canada's Jewish population so significant that the leaders of our two main parties should be falling all over themselves to voice their support for Israel?

According to Statistics Canada back in 2001 Canada's Jewish population wasn't much greater than the Buddhist population. In fact Canadians of the Jewish faith have numbers roughly equal to that of Hindus and Sikhs as well. We sure don't see Harper and Iggy battling it out to see who can be the most pro Tibet to win votes amongst the 300,000 or so Canadians who follow the teachings of the Buddha. You don't hear either of them having much to say about the Punjab either, a cause celebre with our 280,000 or so Sikhs.

There are hot spots all over the world, and Israel is just one of them. According to canadaimmigrants.com Israel doesn't even make the list of the top 24 countries with citizens immigrating to Canada. You think Stephen and Mike would have more to say on China, with over 300,000 Chinese citizens coming here to live since 1991. India and the Philippines are the next 2 in terms of immigration levels. When's the last time we saw Ignatieff or Harper doing all they can to attract the Filipino or Indian vote?

In the years leading up to the creation of the Israeli state Zionist groups resorted to terrorist acts to achieve their goal of a Jewish homeland. Now there are Islamic groups using terror tactics to achieve the same goal for a Palestinian state. There's no need to pick sides here, a pox on both their houses. Neither side in this conflict has the moral high ground, they're both guilty of atrocities.

If Harper and Ignatieff are really interested in attracting voters they should go after the almost 5,000,0000 of us who proclaim no religious affiliation.

Comments are welcomed and feel free to pass this along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share’ icon below.

Palestinians Following Zionist Playbook...

I've never blogged on the Israeli Palestinian conflict before, its not that I don't follow developments in one of the world's hottest conflict zones, its more a case of seeing neither side as having the moral high ground, far from it. Typically I find most commentators choose one side or the other, pointing to the wrongs of the group they oppose, while ignoring the atrocities of the side they support. About the best Op/Ed piece I've seen was written by the Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein, its entitled: No Reason To Choose Sides

Goldstein touches on what many ignore, the history of the region. There is one thing he avoids however, and that is the tactics employed by Zionist groups in their effort to have the British relinquish control over Palestine so that the modern state of Israel could be created. There's no need to go back thousands of years to the Jewish Diaspora, something that took place intermittently over hundreds of years. Wars and conquests have led to the displacement of many peoples over the course of human history. If every ethnic group on this planet started fighting over ancestral homelands we'd have total global conflict 24/7.

Rather than going back hundreds or even thousands of years, we can look back just a few decades. Specifically to the events which led to Israeli statehood on May 14, 1948.

One Jewish terrorist group was Irgun, credited with carrying out the bombing of the King David Hotel in July of 1946. There was also the Deir Yassin Massacre which resulted in roughly one hundred Arab deaths (some accounts are higher), an atrocity accredited to Lehi and Irgun (also referred to as Etzel).

For those sufficiently motivated to do some research, there's plenty of historical information out there about this time period...after the end of WWII and leading up to May 14, 1948. Sadly what it typically comes down to is a case of justification. Machiavelli would have been right at home in the Middle East, because each side in this conflict believes their end justifies the terrorist means employed. While moderates on both sides decry the violence and bloodshed, hardliners in each camp view the use of terror tactics as justified in achieving what they believe to be the greater good. There are Palestinians who will not rest until Israel is totally defeated and wiped from the map, just as there are Israelis who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, those who continue to settle in the occupied territories.

The ultimate irony facing Israel is the use of terrorism by Palestinians in their efforts to establish a homeland. It was actions by Zionist terror groups such as Irgun and Lehi which led to the creation of the modern Jewish state in the first place. I don't see any resolution ever in this dispute. The extreme elements on both sides of the equation believe their actions have sanction from God almighty. Arabs believe they have Allah on their side, and Jews believe the land of Israel to be their God given birthright by virtue of them being a chosen people.

There are times when neither side in a conflict has moral superiority, which brings me to conclude the best reaction is the citing of a familiar bromide. A pox on both their houses.



Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.

Why Is Canada In Afghanistan...And Not The Congo?

Canadian soldiers are doing much of the heavy lifting in southern Afghanistan, attempting to secure an area vitally important for a long desired natural gas pipeline route. Over one hundred of our nation's best killed, in what is largely framed as a humanitarian battle against Islamic extremists...with little reporting of the long proposed TAPI pipeline. Our European NATO allies have been reluctant to commit to the battle, with many seeing the war in Afghanistan for what it truly is...an imperialistic land grab over resources and geopolitical gamesmanship.

Meanwhile in another part of the world a far deadlier conflict has been raging for the better part of the past decade, with casualties numbering in the millions. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) is the centre of the widest war in African history with involvement of at least 9 other African states. While the DRC lacks huge deposits of natural gas and oil, it is rich in many other resources...which is is ultimately fueling the conflict.

In Afghanistan much has been made of the plight of women. Canadians are proud to see our nation's military involved in a struggle that is helping many Afghan girls attend school for the first time...a justification the Soviets used when they invaded. Meanwhile in Central Africa an even more insidious and disturbing war is being waged against women and girls...rape on a massive scale.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)

Perhaps this is part of the reason why our attention hasn't been riveted in this direction. Some news is just too disturbing, which makes ignoring it all the easier. Reading stories about Islamic fundamentalists throwing acid on girls attempting to attend school gets us angry, while reading about the gang rape of a child is too unsettling making it convenient to ignore.

For those with the stomach to educate themselves about this conflict and the way in which rape is used as a tactic of war, then I suggest watching...THIS VIDEO. Be warned however, the content is incredibly disturbing, which is perhaps why there is so little coverage. Mainstream media hasn't totally ignored jt, 60 Minutes did a story as well with the video and write-up available HERE.

But we don't see emails invading our in-boxes exhorting us to do anything about this conflict, no suggestions that everyone wear a certain colour of clothing one day a week to show our solidarity with the pop-gun UN security presence in this forgotten region of the world.

Canadians to a large extent have willingly bellied up to the Kool-Ade bar and drink up with thirst the propaganda being fed to us about our mission in Afghanistan....while we turn a blind eye to a far greater evil. Meanwhile the mining of Congo's resources continues, with western companies reaping huge financial rewards....Of course that's what war is almost always about, economics. Humanitarian concerns are just a sidebar story to convince brave men and women that the lives they're sacrificing are worth the price.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back To Canadian SoapBox Home

Follow On FaceBook

Obama Wrong On Afghanistan

Now that the euphoria over Barack Obama's visit to Canada has had time to wear off its easier to take a step back and examine exactly what was said. A large part of the conversation and coverage had to do with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with Obama heaping praise on Canadians for our commitment and sacrifice, with over 100 of our service men and women killed.

The new President has a ton of political capital to expend, and with his combination of charm, charisma and intellect its difficult to take exception to any of his initiatives. What a contrast to George W. Bush! Even on those very rare occasions where 'Dubya' actually got something right (nothing springs to mind immediately) you still wanted to oppose the dullard regardless.

But make no mistake about it, Obama is wrong on Afghanistan. And while we're not yet being asked to extend our mission date beyond 2011, only a fool would believe that request isn't coming. Obama's handling of this issue has been masterful, going to great lengths to laud our efforts while not even hinting that Ottawa will be asked to extend our combat operations. Like a good manager who lavishes praise, it will make it very difficult if not impossible to refuse when the eventual request does come. And when it does come, Canada should say no...we shouldn't even be there now.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)

Everyone knows the old saw, 'those who fail to recognize the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them'. Former U.S. NATO commander Dan McNeill is on record as saying that if counterinsurgency doctrine were properly followed NATO would need 400,000 troops to win this war. The Soviets sent in almost 200,000 soldiers backed by about 200,000 more Afghan communist forces when they invaded...and the Soviets were still forced to withdraw.

And why are we there? Obama's tack has been to categorize Afghanistan as a potential incubator for terrorists, one that must not be allowed to resurrect itself under the leadership of the Taliban. This is the same Taliban which enjoyed friendly relations with the United States up until their refusal to approve a U.S. led consortium's bid to build a massive natural gas pipeline. Obvioulsy there's the whole 9/11 issue, but that attack could have been used for justification to invade any number of nations, including U.S. client state Saudi Arabia...which is Osama Bin Laden's country of origin.

Things are bad in Afghanistan and getting worse. Supply routes are so vulnerable to attack that Washington is cutting deals with countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, nations which could easily be labeled 'terrorist states' were they not complying with Washington's foreign policies.

Here we are in the midst of a global economic meltdown that's being compared to the Great Depression...yet both Canadian and US taxpayers are footing a bill in the billions of dollars to secure natural gas and oil pipeline routes. The cost in terms of dollars and human lives is only going to climb higher and higher. Obama is talking about increasing U.S. troop numbers by 30,000 to 60,000....that's a long way from the needed 400,000.

I blogged on this previously here: Afghanistan’s Pipeline – Canada’s War

You can read about General McNeill's comments on troop levels back in June 2008 on BBC: Nato 'needs more' in Afghanistan

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back To Canadian SoapBox Home

Follow On FaceBook

Iran Flexing Its Muscle, Wants U.S. Apology

Iran launched its first ever satellite yesterday, an achievement which has many western nations fearing the military capability that could ensue. The timing coincides with Iran's 1979 revolution which overthrew the U.S. backed Shah. It also comes as Barack Obama is attempting to foster diplomatic negotiations in an attempt to halt Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

Obama, as he stated during his campaign, is willing to engage Iran in direct talks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying, "We are reaching out a hand, but the fist has to unclench". Iran however is apparently insisting that the United States, often referred to as the "Great Satan", must first apologize for past wrongs.

What wrongs has the U.S. committed against the people of Iran? A good starting point might be the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh

Mossadegh had nationalized Iranian oilfields, which resulted in the British and American governments conspiring to overthrow the democratically elected PM in a plot code named Operation Ajax. After the successful coup the hated Shah of Iran was installed as a western friendly dictator. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, better known as the Shah Of Iran, was a tyrant...so much for the U.S. promoting democracy. Anyone who did not join his Rastakiz Party was a traitor.

To quote 'The Shah' directly:

"A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”

(Blog entry continued after advertisement)


If that's not sufficient then there's the U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein when he launched an invasion against neighbouring Iran. The result was an 8 year war which is said to have killed 500,000 soldiers and civilians. There was a time when Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical warfare agents like mustard gas, they'd been supplied by the Americans to be used against Iran.

It would seem there's plenty the U.S. should apologize for, but doing so would probably be political suicide for America's new President. Obama though could point to the apology already offered back in 2000 by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the first Clinton administration wherein she called Operation Ajax. "a setback for democratic government".

Obviously the Iranians are not about to be bullied by the west, they've already been down that road and I doubt they want to go back. They've opened their own Oil Exchange or Oil Bourse, which refuses to deal in U.S. dollars, something Iraq did just prior to being invaded.

Obviously the launch of a satellite is of concern, there are only 9 countries which have accomplished the feat. And of those 9 only Japan has not later developed missile technology.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back to CanadianSoapbox Home