Sex, god, nukes and babies

As a self identified progressive and spiritual person I find myself constantly perplexed by the contradictions I see in the Christian neoconservative movement.  I understand that because our views are different I will never fully understand their position on any issue but what has really gotten to me this week is the disconnect between their righteous indignation of sex and their tolerance of the current administration’s nuclear policy.

Let’s look at the argument for abstinence.  They say there is no such thing as safe sex but they have no trouble proclaiming the safety of new nuclear weapons.  Sex is never safe because condoms are only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of HIV.  RRW is safe despite the 100% likelihood that testing these nuclear weapons will put more cancer causing uranium into our water shed system depleting our earth and spreading disease. 

What’s the likelihood these weapons will have to be tested?  I say the chances are as good as they are that at least 10 teenagers will engage in sex before they graduate high school; in other words, very high changes indeed.  New nuclear weapons will inevitably have to be tested because otherwise those who plan using them will have no idea how they work.  If neoconservatives believe the risk of sex with condoms is so great, how can they not see the risk in new nuclear weapons?

Of course, we know that the abstinence only program is not about disease it’s about god’s will.  God, apparently, does not think people should engage in sex unless it’s for procreation, the creation of life.  They believe the lives of people are the most important thing to protect.  They, neoconservatives, go so far as to say that a fetus is a life and must be protected by law.  This fetus, which must be protected at all cost, is most at risk from nuclear fallout and uranium seeping into the water system.  Look no further than birth defect rates in Ukraine for evidence.  Infant mortality, debilitating birth defects, and increased infertility have left this country with a declining population after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl.  Even with all the horrible things nuclear material does to babies in the womb, I never saw Jerri Fallwell at an anti-nukes rally.

Only talking about sex and babies is really missing the main point.  Nuclear weapons, whether new or old, are designed to kill people; people who, according to the faithful, were put here by a god that loves them.  Neoconservatives seem to believe that god has favorites:  fetuses, Americans, and Christians.  They will tout the importance of saving lives from abortion and then proclaim we should use our nuclear weapons to kill the brown people for having nuclear weapons (which they are not sure they have).  

Do you see the disconnect here, or am I crazy?  I work with all sorts of religious types whom I respect for their beliefs, even if I don’t hold them myself.  My mother, the priest, believes that god put us on this earth to be in community with one another and in doing so we are in community with god.  All religious fundamentalists seem to believe the opposite – their sole purpose is to break up communities by drawing arbitrary lines to suit their taste.  Life is sacred – as long as it’s a life we agree with.  God created the earth – but, it is not our responsibility to be stewards of that earth.  Science goes against gods will – unless that science enables us to kill people who do not believe the same things as us.  It’s infuriating and I challenge any fundamentalist out there to hit me back with some of your hate speech – tell me why you think war is so good and nuclear weapons are so necessary.  Then tell me why god supports you.  I’d love to demonstrate your ignorance live and in blog.

How Can We Stop this Madness

If this video tears at your insides as much as it does mine please consider taking action to stop this war.  Take part in regional demonstrations happening in areas near you on Sat., OCTOBER 27th.  Check out this website for more information.

People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmouhd Ahmenajad spoke at Columbia University.  His appearance was met with controversy and intrigue around our country.  Everyone was so upset that Columbia would let a known dictator speak at their University.  None seem to respect the fact that he is a President of a country which is critical to the future of our foreign policy. 

As a Nation we condemned what were certainly archaic statements regarding the Holocaust and plainly idiotic statements about homosexuals in his country.  Without a doubt Ahmenajad is a dictator with bad ideas and a horrible human rights record.   

It bothers me that we point fingers at Iran for the human right violations there and never look to our own human rights record. 

Even if we refuse to look in our own backyard why was the same media frenzy not given to American University when we hosted the leaders from Saudi Arabia.  No doubt a country, like Saudi Arabia with well known violations of human rights would have garnered the same media attention; that is, if human rights and holocaust denial were why he was such a controversy.  But it did not.   

Now, what about his nuclear weapons?  We don’t know anything about his nuclear capabilities, because we have never actually sat down and worked with him directly.  The Bush administration continues to accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, but we know how accurate his intelligence on WMD’s is. 

So, what did Ahmenajad come to Columbia for?  He came to provide another perspective perhaps not one we agree with – but isn’t it time we learned to listen to, debate, and confront the views of other nations with diplomacy and intelligence.  I condemn human right violations, nuclear weapons, preemptive strikes and unresponsive non-democratic governments.  I know how hard it is to live under these conditions – because I have been living that way since Bush took office.  We have documented nuclear weapons that we proudly wave in the face of other states.  We have been waging war for a little over half a decade in a country that never attacked us.  I cannot make either statement about Iran.  Before we point fingers at Ahmenajad, let’s hold Bush accountable. 

Reflecting 6 Years Later

It is hard to believe how much in our world has changed since the events of September 11^th. I do not intend this post to paint a rosy picture of the world before the towers fell, only to mark how that day exacerbated the oppression and violence in our world by playing to our fears and prejudices. Bush and Bin Laden have created a world in their image though the violence they met out on our global community. They have created a world where we see a ‘culture clash’ instead of a chance to learn one another. They have created a world where our fears of ‘an imperialist west’ or ‘a terrorist threat’ command us to abdicate our rights and responsibilities as human beings. They created a world where the threat of nuclear destruction is at its highest levels ever.

On this fateful and devastating anniversary I ask that we come together to mourn the millions lost since to violence: in Afghanistan, England, Guantanamo, India, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Palestine, Spain, Sudan, United States & countless other locations.

• Afghanistan: After 9/11 the destruction of this country quelled Taliban power briefly while leaving millions without homes, jobs, or hope. They as a nation are still struggling with abject poverty, mounting violence, corruption, inequality, and oppression.
• England: On July 7^th London suffered a calculated attack to their transit system 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured. The horrors of that day were followed up by a less deadly attempt to destroy the Glasgow airport on June 30^th, 2007.
• Guantanamo: The camp has drawn strong criticism for its extrajudicial detention of captives and the possibility that captives held there were subjected to abusive interrogation techniques that constitute torture. The detainees held by the United States were classified as “enemy combatants” by executive order and without due process.
• India: On July 11, 2006 at least 200 people were killed when a train was bombed in an attack.
• Iraq: Too many deaths to count. Too much destruction to fathom. Too many soldiers used, abused, raped, manipulated, and martyred without one ounce of remorse from their Commander and Chief. Too many refugees scattered around the world. It makes me sick so I want you to check out this link for a realistic picture of the losses in Iraq.
• Israel & Lebanon: In July of 2006 Israel and Lebanon engaged in a deadly war. The violence began when Hezbollah forces crossed into Israel, killing three soldiers and abducting two others. After that cross-border raid, five more Israeli soldiers were killed, as well as two Israeli civilians. Two Lebanese soldiers and 45 Lebanese civilians were killed. Rocket fire to Israel was confined to the Haifa region while the air strikes on Lebanon destroyed the capital city of Beirut.
• Pakistan: On March 2, 2006 a car bomb killed 4 and injured 52 outside the Karachi Marriott – yards away from the U.S. consulate. In June 2002 a car bombing attack left 14 people dead, all Pakistanis outside the building, which lies in an upscale district of the sprawling city’s downtown.
• Palestine: Palestine, since 9/11, has deteriorated into wounded nation broken by rocket fire from Israel and sickened with civil war between 2 political parties. The violence mounts daily with civilians suffering the most.
• Spain: The 2004 train bombing in Madrid killed 191 people and wounded 2,050.
• Sudan: The genocide continues unabated while the world watches. Internationally, states make decisions about foreign priorities not based on resources but politics. The genocide continues because Africa is not priority in the war on terror.
• United States: On September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda orchestrated the most devastating attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.

On this, the day as we recall the horrors of violence in our borders let us not forget the violence meted out since. We have a choice in this. We must learn to address violence with justice or we will always be fighting the terror campaigns raged by state and non-state actors. We must invest in humanity by rebuilding New Orleans, by investing in healthcare, by stopping atrocity with diplomacy. We have a choice; to unquestioningly follow our leaders to a new war with Iran or to say NO before the war starts. It is beyond time to take our democracy back and make progressive priorities American policy. Only peace and justice can end terror.

Room for Diplomacy in Iran - from the Washington Post

The Washington Post printed a Peace Action West letter in response to last week’s article about the “failure” of diplomacy with Iran:

Room for Diplomacy on Iran

Regarding the Aug. 9 news story “In the Debate Over Iran, More Calls for a Tougher U.S. Stance”:

The article’s reference to the “failure of carrot-and-stick diplomacy to block Tehran’s nuclear and regional ambitions” falsely implied that the Bush administration has pursued and exhausted constructive diplomatic options with Iran. A serious diplomatic effort would involve talking directly with the Iranian government without preconditions, which this administration has refused to do. The administration also undermines the ability to engage in productive dialogue through hostile rhetoric and saber-rattling.

It is clear that military action against Iran would be disastrous and that it would probably accelerate any attempts by the Iranian government to pursue nuclear technology. It should also be clear that pragmatic, sustained diplomatic efforts have succeeded in the past and are our only hope for resolving tensions with Iran.

REBECCA GRIFFIN

Political Director

Peace Action West

Misleading the American Public on Nukes

Earlier on this blog I commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s attack on Sen. Barrak Obama and his stance on nuclear weapons. Frankly, I believe (like many of you) that neither candidate has fully accepted a progressive platform. What strikes me though is the inconsistency with which they (all politicians) conduct their campaigns.

A recent article by the Boston Globe elaborates on Clinton’s stance on nuclear weapons – just a year ago she said nukes were ‘off the table’ for dealing with Iran. Not only are these candidates inconsistent but their constant threats of military action on states like Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan only reinforce the Bush administration’s assessment that they are part of a falsely constructed ‘axis of evil’. I am almost hesitant to criticize the top Democratic candidates because I would rather be condemning candidates like Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Brownback whose platforms are so far from my ideals. But, if I cannot look to either party to find my values I must keep pressure on those candidates who most closely reflect them.

Related to this is a recent paper published in the Atlantic Monthly. The paper presented a cogent argument that China was a more significant threat to the U.S. than any Arab nation. That if we were to use nuclear weapons, unlike most politicians would like you to believe, they would be used on China. This was not a political paper – it was written by a professor and a former DOD official. It lays out the tactical plan, the devastation, and the potential fallout (political and securities focused fallout) of a nuclear strike. As an activist, for me, the underling issue is clear. Nothing good can come from any nuclear attack from the U.S. or any other state in this world. It only brings destruction.

Senator Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. He has been a vocal advocate for the collection and destruction of fissile materials throughout his terms in office; passing the Nunn-Lugar bill to focus this work in the Former Soviet Union. He recently wrote a commentary on the success of this program. We can achieve nuclear abolition if we continue to understand and communicate the devastating implications of nuclear war.

Do you agree? Is there ever a reason to use nuclear weapons? Vote in Parade Magazine’s poll on this subject, here.

Presidential Canidates Callus on Nuclear Question

Barack Obama’s statement, last Thursday, that he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and drew criticism from chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and accolades from anti-nuclear activists.
It appears Sen. Obama is the only leading Presidential candidate who is willing to consider the multifaceted implications of a foreign policy where ‘all options’ are on the table.

During the Cold War the U.S. public was intimately aware of the threat nuclear war posed to the country and the world. While the bombs have become more powerful the country has become more complacent about our leaders threatening their use. It is a shame that in all the rhetoric condemning or applauding Obama’s statement no one has questioned the destructive position of Clinton and the other candidates.

Nuclear weapons are never an acceptable form of force, but especially in this circumstance would be devastating to our world and to our national security – moreover, they would be ineffectual in their purpose.

Nuclear weapons cannot weed terrorists out of the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear weapons are designed to decimate a region or country – they have no purpose but to kill civilians for years after the initial explosion with cancer and birth defects. By definition, their use is in itself is a terrorist act because they so specifically target civilians. Our threats of a ‘nuclear option’ only further inflame a difficult diplomatic situation in the Middle East and radicalize new terrorist recruits.

Those candidates who would not take the nuclear option off the table are callus and arrogant – preferring to placate to the minority of the country who support the Bush administration than to stand up for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. They are
naïve for believing the nuclear option should ever be on the table.

Looking for something to do this weekend?

Couple of things:

The anniversaries of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are August 6th and 9th respectively. I suggest if you cannot find an event in your area you take a moment this weekend to think of the destruction Bush could cause if he tries to start a nuclear war with Iran.

Also, here’s a peacefully minded movie (for those without AC in their homes). I’m always down for the free AC at the theater.

The film NO END IN SIGHT: The American Occupation of Iraq - The Inside Story from the Ultimate Insiders only opened here and in DC (E Street Cinema, 555 11th Street NW,.entrance on E Street between 10th and 11th Street. (202) 452-767, showings at 2:20 5:05 7:30 10:00) this weekend. This Friday it opens in five theatres in LA. The next week (8./10) it goes to one theatre each in SF, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Philly, Seattle, and Dallas. Then Michigan and, Missouri, and Houston; Boston; Indianapolis, Austin, Santa Fe; Denver and Hartford; Colorado and CT, and so forth, through October. My hunch is the best thing we can do now is trek into the city to see it, so it has a big opening here in NYC. If it does well, we might be able to get it more local theaters.

I just watched the riveting trailer at the film web site, which has a ton of other great features including live clips, reviews, synopsis, etc. http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/

This film won the Special Jury Prize for Documentary at Sundance this year, its a Silvedocs selection, and the reviews are astoundingly good. The list of high-ranking people interviewed in this film is incredible:

U.S. Weapons Proliferation

Yesterday, the Bush administration announced that they would give 20 billion dollars worth of arms to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. According to the party line this is a viable attempt to bolster our relationships in the Middle East. This deal of course was opposed by Israel so to accompany the deal with the Gulf States the U.S. has increased military aid to Israel by 43%, adding 9.1 billion more dollars. Bush believes that heavily arming the Sunni Saudi Arabia will help the U.S. isolate Iran, a county supportive of the Shiite sect. This move is more of the same political posturing that will only further inflame the violence in Iraq and in the Middle Eat as a whole.

My first question is why are we friends with Saudi Arabia? Human rights violations alone should be enough to consider it a difficult state. But there is more. Saudi Arabia has been a negative influence on our occupation in many of the same ways that the President accuses Iran. A New York Times article recently pointed to U.S. intelligence which said, “Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.” Adding to this a senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Nuri al-Maliki. Despite this the Bush administration continues to point only to Iran and Syria as counter productive to peace in the region.

My second question – how is giving weapons to sworn enemies going to promote peaceful dialogue? Israeli military forces, disabled after their loss last summer to Hezbollah, now see an opportunity to reassert their military influence in the region. Iran sees another example of the U.S. destabilizing the region to our own advantage – this will only further inflame radical groups in Iran and all over the Middle East. Even if this military power is only a perception at this point it emboldens one state to try to undermine another.

My third question – will we as citizens let our government use our cries for peace to further promote violence? The U.S., for its part, is set on political posturing and weapons proliferation - perhaps in an attempt to extract ourselves from Iraq and let the larger states in the region fight for control. I am sure that Bush sees this as an opportunity to show his popularity with some states in the Middle East and a way to boost the U.S. economy. Our leadership in this deal will bring nothing but blood.

Despite the political players and their influence on our occupation of Iraq proliferating weapons will never foster peace. This is a basic principle. The only way to engage the regional players in Iraq is through conflict resolution dialogue. A cold or hot war with Iran will be devastating – our actions in the past week will do nothing but promote that war.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA

If you follow the Bush administration’s line of thinking (at least the line they have used in their talking points) we have been having trouble with Iran for decades. In fact, it was highly publicized that the recent talks with Iran were the first since a 20 year diplomatic freeze between the two states. According to James Dobbins, who was the Bush administration’s first envoy for Afghanistan after September 11^th, that is hardly the case. His insights in a July 22^nd Washington Post column shed light on how we have and can continue to engage Iran as a partner for stabilizing the Middle East and fighting al-Qaeda.

“Many believe that in the wake of Sept. 11, the United States formed an international coalition and toppled the Taliban. It would be more accurate to say that the U.S. joined a coalition that had been battling the Taliban for nearly a decade. This coalition – made up of Iran, India, Russia and the Northern Alliance, and aided by massive American airpower – drove the Taliban from power.”

This was not an anxious alliance, Dobbins goes on to emphasize the openness of the talks in 2001 during the U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany. “The Iranian representatives were particularly helpful…then-Secretary of State Colin Powell authorized me to meet anywhere, anytime, on any matter with any Iranian official, as long as our discussions related to Afghanistan.”

Contrast this attitude toward Iran with that of the Bush administration in 2007 when talks on Iraq went into their second, most recent, session. “U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he also challenged Iran over its suspected support for other radical groups in the Middle East such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran rejected all of the accusations, he said…. Crocker said there had been several “heated exchanges” in the seven hours of talks, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari described them as ‘very challenging.’” (Associated Press)

So what happened to our coalition against terrorists? “Only weeks after Hamid Karzai was sworn in as interim leader in Afghanistan, President Bush listed Iran among the ‘axis of evil’ – surprising payback for Tehran’s help in Bonn.” I can’t speculate on the reasoning for this change – I can only condemn it.

If we truly seek a democratic and stable Middle East region we cannot continue on this path. Iraq is a central place to bring our diplomatic relations back into reality. “None of Iraq’s neighbors was eager for the invasion four years ago ….All are now worried that the civil war in Iraq will serve as a breeding ground for terror and violence that will be increasingly exported to their own countries.” (Brookings)

“Iran has the most capability to be a decisive force given its intimate ties to virtually every Shia and Kurdish politician, its geography and its economic connections.” Iran’s influence in Iraq is more than apparent. Their cooperation in the stabilization and re-building of Iraq is essential to creating a workable plan.

The Bush administration would have us believe that staying in Iraq is the only option. Samuel Berger and Bruce Riedel would vehemently disagree. These Brookings scholars believe that Iraq’s neighbors cannot engage with the U.S. diplomatically before we end our occupation. Most notably, Iran fears Iraq becoming a base for the U.S to launch an attack against their country. Why would they cooperate if the feel threatened?

Creating a peaceful region without a permanent U.S. presence should be the number one priority of all involved. The first step toward this end is a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and cooperation with Iran akin to that of 2001.