Wednesday, May 28, 2008

An 'Only in Amherst' Movement


No blood for oil. And if only Americans stopped mowing their lawns how much oil could we save? Then there would be no need to go to war with Iran.

I remember the night of 11/1/06 asking Amherst Town Meeting to consider what they would do if Iran had a missile warming up on a silo that contained nuclear or biological materials aimed at the heart of Israel?

They overwhelmingly passed the nonaggression, appeasement article anyway. You would think an overly educated community like Amherst would not have to be reminded that those who fail to learn from history (giving Hitler the Sudenland) are doomed to repeat it.


EMBASSY OF PAKISTAN
INTERESTS SECTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
2209 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007

Tel: (202) 965-4990 Fax (202) 965-1073 www.daftar.org

In the Name of the Almighty

December 7, 2006

Ms. Sandra J. Burgess
Amherst Town Clerk
4 Boltwood Ave.
Amherst, MA 01002

Dear Ms. Burgess:

We would like to express our appreciation for the courageous stance of the participants of the Amherst Town Meeting in urging diplomacy with Iran and expressing opposition to any U.S. military action against our country. Your letter along with the attachments was submitted to the office of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Upon receipt of any response, this office will notify you accordingly. The staff of this office would be more than happy to respond to any questions you might have.

Sincerely,

A. Mohzabadi
for Mostafa Rahmani

Yeah, gotta love that December 7'th date of dictation and the "In the name of the Almighty" heading. Kind of like the last recorded words from the cockpit of United Flight 93.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Larry,

As someone who DOES believe that there is such a thing as a "just war",
I must say that you are not getting the point from people like me who
think military action against Iran before diplomacy is completely
foolhardy. This is one of those few times when your ridicule of Town
Meeting is off-base.

The people of Iran hate their current government at least as much as we
currently dislike our own. I would venture to say that Iranians as a
people have more affection for America than they do for the admitted
crackpots running their country. In our lifetimes, you and I have seen
positive upheaval with relatively little bloodshed in places like South
Africa and the Soviet Union. So it can be done. You've expressed some
compassion for the plight of Chinese in the wrong place at the wrong
time in the recent earthquake. The same kind of tragedy would take place
for innocent Iranians if we decided to bomb them before trying diplomacy
along with other approaches to spur peaceful change in that country.

I'm no reflexive pacifist and I would not put a sign in my yard that
said "War is not the answer." But if you're using the word "appeasement"
in the Iran context, I believe that you are seriously misusing it.

Since you seem to see all issues in terms of personal courage, have you
ever considered the possibility that our current leaders in the
executive branch do not have the stones to do diplomacy? I sincerely
believe that they are afraid to attempt diplomacy (you know, the stuff
that peaceniks like Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and Jim Baker did
for years?), perhaps because they have absolutely no clue how to do it.
There was a time when we had some restraint in our society about talk of
war. There was a time when we saw our diplomats get on and off planes
and meet with unsavory types all over the world. But not lately.

RMorse

LarryK4 said...

A barking dog with no teeth raises little concern. Workers unions that cannot go on strike (police and fire) are at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with management.

My only example to Town Meeting (a missile warming up on a silo pointed at a nation under our protective wing) assumes that diplomacy has failed.

After all, their President has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map."

Anonymous said...

Oh, the United States has plenty of teeth. Just ask any of the civilian families around the world who have had members killed by it in the past decade or so.

Sorry, I prefer this philosophy expressed in the West African proverb that entered our culture via Teddy Roosevelt :
"Talk softly and carry a big stick."

The saber-rattling trash talking needs to stop. Yes, that nut, who is the current president of Iran, has put his entire country in harm's way. But,
as recently as World War II, we had generals in this country who worried about killing civilians in foreign places, even those ruled by nuts. (See Stephen Ambrose's book on D-Day.) They didn't use clinical phrases like "collateral damage". They must be rolling in their graves at all this sloppy war talk from 21st century Americans.

With respect: this is beneath you, Larry.

We used to have leadership, Republican and Democrat, skillful enough to defuse these situations peacefully.

RMorse