Another August 6, and the horrors of 63 years ago arise undiminished in the minds of our hibakusha, whose average age now exceeds 75. "Water, please!" "Help me!""Mommy!" ― On this day, we, too, etch in our hearts the voices, faces and forms that vanished in the hell no hibakusha can ever forget, renewing our determination that No one else should ever suffer as we did."
Because the effects of that atomic bomb, still eating away at the minds and bodies of the hibakusha, have for decades been so underestimated, a complete picture of the damage has yet to emerge. Most severely neglected have been the emotional injuries. Therefore, the city of Hiroshima is initiating a two-year scientific exploration of the psychological impact of the A-bomb experience.
This study should teach us the grave import of the truth, born of tragedy and suffering, that "the only role for nuclear weapons is to be abolished."
This truth received strong support from a report compiled last November by the city of Hiroshima. Scientists and other nuclear-related experts exploring the damage from a postulated nuclear attack found once again that the only way to protect citizens from such an attack is the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This is precisely why the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Court of Justice advisory opinion state clearly that all nations are obligated to engage in good-faith negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, even leaders previously central to creating and implementing US nuclear policy are now repeatedly demanding a world without nuclear weapons.
We who seek the abolition of nuclear weapons are the majority. United Cities and Local Governments, which represents the majority of the Earth''s population, has endorsed the Mayors for Peace campaign. One hundred ninety states have ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One hundred thirteen countries and regions have signed nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. Last year, 170 countries voted in favor of Japan's UN resolution calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Only three countries, the US among them, opposed this resolution. We can only hope that the president of the United States elected this November will listen conscientiously to the majority, for whom the top priority is human survival.
To achieve the will of the majority by 2020, Mayors for Peace, now with 2,368 city members worldwide, proposed in April of this year a Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol to supplement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Protocol calls for an immediate halt to all efforts, including by nuclear-weapon states, to obtain or deploy nuclear weapons, with a legal ban on all acquisition or use to follow by 2015. Thus, it draws a concrete road map to a nuclear-weapon-free world. Now, with our destination and the map to that destination clear, all we need is the strong will and capacity to act to guard the future for our children.
World citizens and like-minded nations have achieved treaties banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. Meanwhile, the most effective measures against global warming are coming from cities. Citizens cooperating at the city level can solve the problems of the human family because cities are home to the majority of the world’s population, cities do not have militaries, and cities have built genuine partnerships around the world based on mutual understanding and trust.
The Japanese Constitution is an appropriate point of departure for a "paradigm shift" toward modeling the world on intercity relationships. I hereby call on the Japanese government to fiercely defend our Constitution, press all governments to adopt the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol, and play a leading role in the effort to abolish nuclear weapons. I further request greater generosity in designating A-bomb illnesses and in relief measures appropriate to the current situations of our aging hibakusha, including those exposed in “black rain areas” and those living overseas.
Next month the G8 Speakers' Meeting will, for the first time, take place in Japan. I fervently hope that Hiroshima's hosting of this meeting will help our "hibakusha philosophy" spread throughout the world.
Now, on the occasion of this 63rd anniversary Peace Memorial Ceremony, we offer our heartfelt lamentations for the souls of the atomic bomb victims and, in concert with the city of Nagasaki and with citizens around the world, pledge to do everything in our power to accomplish the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Tadatoshi Akiba
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima
28 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Give Barack the Big Chair and steps toward that end may actually be made... unlikely, however, but he has said as much that disarmament of our nuclear arsenal would be best for the U.S. and the world. He'd not get it, but that his mind thinks this would be a good idea while nations like Iran seek nuclear weaponry...
It would be best that every warhead were destroyed and the nuclear material fired into the sun...
It would be best that every gun in the world were melted down and used in furtherance of peace...
It would be best that every tree good for the making of bows be burned, rather than see another man use such a weapon against another...
Better that we forget the art of metallurgy: smelting, and smithing...
Better that every stone capable of being used as a weapon be crushed and scattered to the four winds...
Better the world become a desert for all the earths foundation crushed to powder...
However...
The problem is not the weapon, but rather the problem is the individual and collective heart of man... Should we crush that as well?
Aren't we already hard at work doing just that?
Even if the following story were but 25% likely, the courage of saying, "If I should suffer for it, it is better that I hurt than I hurt others." could be construed as cowardice. If they were planning on throwing rocks at us I might could agree, but Iran isn't trying to "develop" rocks. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons.
U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.
--Kenneth R. Timmerman, July 29, 2008
Iran would not bomb the US even IF they had nukes and even IF we didn't. We still possess enough conventional WMDs and military strength to wipe Iran from the face of the earth and Iran knows that.
It would be suicide for them to take that step, and they know that. Ahmadinejad may be crazy but he's not nuts.
A better discussion would begin: Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? There are definite drawbacks in foreign relations from a nuclear research program. Not only from the US, but also from European states. The costs are immense and if you aren't going to use them, it is wasted money. ... Except for the threat of using them nuclear weapons are self-defeating and useless.
So why does Iran want the threat of nuclear weapons? There's the nubbin. Iran wants nuclear weapons because sizeable american and allied forces are station to the east and west of the country. Because 4-5 years ago when America stormed into Baghdad it looked like a western friendly government might spring up right next door. Anyone remember the war Iran and Iraq fought? Where Iraq was a proxy of the US? Iran doesn't have a modern air force or ground force. Their navy is better, but no match for the United States. The only effective deterrent to American bellicosity for the Iranians are nuclear weapons. Not the use thereof but the threat.
"And if I should suffer for it, it is better, that I hurt than I hurt others."
A really sweet sentiment if you are talking about yourself. Incredibly stupid if you are referring to the people who elected you to the highest office in the land. I don't recall being given the option of voting.
For that matter, I don't know if the mayor of my town is on board the goofy agreement upon which this post is based. Who gave any mayor the power to speak in that manner on behalf of the people back home?
This cat is out of the bag. There's no stuffing it back in in hopes that it will just stay there and despotic a-holes won't get their own cat.
As for whether or not Mahmoud or anyone else would launc against us or Israel, it is good to remember that scumbags never think they will fail, never think they will get caught, never think that they will pay the consequences. That's number one. Number two is, some scumbags just want to be the one who gets it all started. That's what makes them madmen.
We keep our nukes. We work toward preventing the Irans of the world any possession of them. The good guys get to keep them, the bad guys don't. If you don't know which is which, study harder.
I am impressed that so many can read the minds of madmen.
And I am impressed that Dr. Art can make a psychological diagnosis without ever having seen the patient.
What's that? Marshall is not a doctor or even trained in the science of psychology?? Well, that makes his all the more impressive, doesn't it?
Or lame, perhaps?
In truth, the demonization of our enemies is something humanity has done for a long time to make it easier to justify whatever course we want to take.
If Ahmadinejad is a madman who might crazily nuke us, then he must be stopped, right?
If the Japanese aren't really human, but monsters, then it is okay to nuke them, right?
If Africans have no soul, then it is okay to enslave them, right?
No. In truth, we have matured some as a nation and will not buy into cheap demonization tricks anymore.
I'm saying it is a similar kind of demonization at play and that is why I struggle so often to try to get us to have discussions without engaging in it (even if I sometimes fail and engage in it myself).
Clearly, thinking that Iran's being run by dangerous madmen is unnecessary demonization, as bad as suggesting that the Japanese aren't human or that blacks have no souls.
And to equate concern about Iran with racism isn't itself demonization; it's just a very reasonable comparison made by someone who realizes that he too fails to avoid such rhetoric.
He was once just like you evil racists, so don't hold it against him for standing up for the truth that the only real evil in this world is ourselves, our evil free market, and the damnable American military-industrial complex we use to expand our oppressive hegemony.
Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, a state that has arguably been at war with us since the assault on our embassy during the Carter administration and that continues to be at war with us as they aid the terrorists in Iraq who are targeting American troops. Its president denies the Holocaust and quite openly wishes for Armageddon. It continues to pursue the acquisition of nuclear technology when no one can reasonably believe their claims that it's for peaceful purposes.
I think it's quite reasonable to be concerned about Iran and its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. If somebody wants to disagree, I think they're delusional -- dangerously so -- but they're free to disagree.
But anyone who compares concern about Iraq to the racist notion that blacks have no souls should be punched square in the face.
Dan, your comment is reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I understand your point, Dan, but you can't apply the logic you employed on every situation and expect to come away with clean hands. As I said in reply to Ben, if they were just throwing rocks at us I could see where the live and let live diplomacy might be the better choice. But we're talking about nukes. Part of the reason the US dropped two nukes on Japan was to demonstrate to the world; i.e., Hitler, that we had what no man should have had, and that we had both the willingness and wherewithal to use it. That doesn't mitigate Hiroshima-- let alone Nagasaki --but there it is nonetheless.
Today, irrespective of how much power Ahmadinejad specifically has, the Mullahs are just as much if not more of Ahmadinejad's mind; that is, to wipe Israel off the map. It is part of their religious upbringing... this hatred of Israel. Don't believe me? perhaps you should check out some of what's being taught to their children about Jews specifically.
But this is where you lose me entirely:
"It would be suicide for them to take that step, and they know that. Ahmadinejad may be crazy but he's not nuts."
They [Muslims] commit suicide quite frequently, in the name of Allah, and for immediate reward in paradise. They are nuts, by western standards; they used down-syndrome women as suicide bombers, they use children as suicide bombers, they've even begun to use normal grown women as suicide bombers. You're making the fatal error-- as did Chamberlain --of assuming the enemy shares your own values and sensibilities. Islam has demonstrated, in the course of this war-- long before this war, in fact --that it does not.
Even the most casual study of the Qur'an shows that while Muslims do have a reflection of Judeo-Christian morality, it is largely, in terms of how they treat their women and deal with their neighbors shows they are anything BUT a reflection of Judeo-Christian values.
As to the News Max article. I first heard of US fears of Iran launching missiles from ships into the US from the CBS Evening News. I went looking for confirmation online and found blurbs here and there, but NewsMax had detail and interviews. Make what you want of that, I don't particularly care.
But one thing that truly surprises me is how easily those on the Left will guffaw at WND and NewsMax, yet buy, hook line and sinker, anything that comes from the New York Times and other such rags. The thing is, you disregarded the article BECAUSE it came from NewsMax, not for what it had to say. And I don't have to be God to know this. They very fact that you pointed out the "unreliability" of NewsMax, as if to suggest they lie about and distort the truth.... as if the New York Times, the LA Times, et al. aren't guilty of the same... shows a personal bias. I can only guess, but I'd say you trust the likes of the Times-- both NY and LA --far more than you do WND and NewsMax, and in spite of the grievous distortions and lies the Times's and such themselves instigate and perpetuate.
So when you diss WND and NewsMax, and Rush, and Sean, and Laura, etc., et nauseum, it's no skin off my back.... I understand where you're coming from....
A small town called...
[...]
Nope. Not going there. And I'm not in the business of backspacing this week. That shipment is overdue this week due to the high cost of diesel.
Well, anyone can misdiagnose, even with the extensive post-grad work I have under my belt. I could be rusty. But I don't think I need a degree to know a madman when I see one. It's not a matter of demonization. Mahmoud has done that all by his lonesome with the rhetoric he spews regularly. You are more than welcome to pretend that he's just like you. Don't be so presumptuous in saying he's like "us". He's clearly not.
At the same time, you've gone and done a similar thing in your dismissal of NewsMax, as if you know their minds. Where do YOU get off?
As to your madman point: EVEN IF it were true that he was somehow crazy (evidence notwithstanding), that is not a plank of support for the notion of keeping our nuclear weaponry.
If a leader were truly crazy, there is no reason to assume that he would think that our ability to destroy him/her with nukes is any greater a deterrent than our ability to destroy him/her with conventional weaponry. The "madman" defense is not a justification for the US retaining nuclear weapons.
And, assuming we question a leader's rationality, that is also not a adequate reason for us to not talk to them. In fact, if a leader is behaving irrationally, that is all the more reason for us to have dialog going on between our leadership and that country.
In Ahmadinejad's case, it is in his perceived best interests to play the US as a rogue power who places itself above the law and arrogantly decides which nations deserve invasions and which ones don't. The more we play into his hands, the better it is for his self interests. It gives him increased power in his country and nation.
The Bush administration's failure to recognize that makes Ahmadinejad crazy, alright. Crazy like a fox.
Eric said:
But one thing that truly surprises me is how easily those on the Left will guffaw at WND and NewsMax, yet buy, hook line and sinker, anything that comes from the New York Times and other such rags. The thing is, you disregarded the article BECAUSE it came from NewsMax, not for what it had to say.
1. Who says we buy anything that comes from the NY Times, etc? We have had plenty of criticisms for all media. The point is not taken.
(You can look as close as my own blog's current post to see a criticism of the media for failing to properly cover the facts on offshore drilling, as a support for my contention that we recognize the limitations and failures of the media.)
2. I suggested that you need a better source, but I did not dismiss this particular news story from NewsMax. I commented on the gist of the story.
In other words, I dealt with the story as presented by NewsMax and I did not ignore it because it was from NewsMax. I merely suggested that it is not an especially reputable source of news.
All media have some problems. Including the NY Times and CNN and name your source. NewsMax and WND have MORE than the average set of problems. Speaking from a journalistic point of view. Eric, you're in journalism, you should be able to back me on this point. Did you take journalism classes?
Anyway, your mistakes have now been corrected.
You're welcome.
We have more reason to disarm because our arms wouldn't deter an irrational actor, and -- never mind that Iran's seeking nuclear weapons in the meantime -- we have more reason to dialogue with a world leader who isn't a rational actor.
"In fact, if a leader is behaving irrationally, that is all the more reason for us to have dialog going on between our leadership and that country."
(Why not kill two birds with one stone, and sell Iran our nukes?)
The position can be accurately summarized this way:
The more Ahmedinejad resembles Hitler, the more Dan thinks we should act like Chamberlain.
Where you say:
We have more reason to disarm because our arms wouldn't deter an irrational actor, and -- never mind that Iran's seeking nuclear weapons in the meantime -- we have more reason to dialogue with a world leader who isn't a rational actor.
Let's be clear what I've ACTUALLY said: That we can safely get rid of our nukes, not total disarmament. Again, it makes sense to talk about what people have ACTUALLY said rather than some misrepresentation.
Having thus clarified, yes, you have the gist of my idea correct.
1. Having an irrational leader is no reason for us to keep nukes.
2. Having an irrational leader IS a good reason to maintain close dialog.
Do you disagree with my actual positions or only the caricature of them?
Second, I understood that -- here, at least -- you differentiated between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, but what you didn't make clear is the logic behind that differentiation.
"If a leader were truly crazy, there is no reason to assume that he would think that our ability to destroy him/her with nukes is any greater a deterrent than our ability to destroy him/her with conventional weaponry. The 'madman' defense is not a justification for the US retaining nuclear weapons."
If we can't assume that nuclear arms have a greater deterrent effect against an irrational actor, for what reason to you think conventional arms would have any deterrent effect? If "the 'madman' defense" doesn't justify nuclear arms, why does it justify conventional arms?
I don't think you have a logical reason to differentiate between nukes and conventional arms. You call only for nuclear disarmament for rhetorical reasons, to make your position seem less radical.
But it's not as if you believe that we should build up our conventional arms while we reduce our nuclear stockpiles; it's not even as if you defend the current status quo regarding the size of our military.
Instead you have repeatedly called for a military that is much smaller than at present, hypocritically invoking the Old Testament when you dismiss other passages regarding God and war as "atrocity."
I think your problem with me isn't that I don't read what you "ACTUALLY" wrote, but that I see it context of other things you've "ACTUALLY" wrote.
If we completely eliminated our nuclear arms tomorrow, you would just as quickly call for a reduction of our conventional arms, because, after all, Iran has such an itty-bity army and navy.
("Israel, when it was most right with God, had a small volunteer army only used for special occasions when God called for it. We have the most massive military machine on earth.")
If we immediately reduced the number of fighter jets in our arsenal, you would just as quickly complain about the technological superiority of those that are left, because it's not fair that our enemies jets can't compete.
("Israel did not use the latest technology available. We are always on the cutting edge of killing technology.")
If we traded those cutting edge jets for, I don't know, single-prop planes and hot-air balloons, you would still complain about the existing of a standing military:
In short, I might concede the concept of an army based on the OT, but only if said military is done in an OT manner:
1. volunteer army amassed in time of crisis
2. only when God has told us to
3. without all the latest military weaponry and
4. without the HUGE drain on the budget that accompanies disobeying the first three rules
To suggest that your concern is just over nuclear arms, simply because that's what you mentioned here: that is what's fraudulent, Dan.
1. I don't think that truly "insane" people tend to make it into national leadership roles. The severely mentally ill have a difficult time managing day to day life in normal circumstances.
2. My point was that the "madman" defense (offered by some here) as a reason to justify nukes, is not a sound position. You have offered nothing to counter that, Bubba. For what it's worth.
3. I am fine (from a civic point of view) with a nation having a defensive military. This would include traditional weaponry.
4. With the size of our military (or even reducing it to "only" twice the size of the next largest nation - instead of nearly the size of the whole rest of the world, as it is currently), we can adequately defend ourselves. If a nation should choose to use a nuke against the US, we could handily respond to any such attack with our conventional military.
5. Therefore, there is no logical reason to hold on to nuclear weaponry. The only reason to do so is fear and that is an insufficient reason to hold on to these horrifying WMDs.
That gets back to the whole difference between advocating for theological ideals in a civic setting VS advocating civic ideals in a civic setting. I don't wish to legislate my theological positions, no matter how sound I think they are biblically.
Unlike some on the religious right.
About deterrence, I actually agree that massive nuclear stockpiles will not deter an irrational actor; by definition, nothing will predictably deter his behavior.
(And, I think history shows that, regardless of any clinical diagnose of severe mental illness, irrational actors do sometimes become heads of state. Hence, the repeated blunder of invading Russia as winter approaches.)
I agree that an irrational actor definitionally cannot be deterred, which is why letting Iran getting nuclear weapons cannot be an option. We should prevent that from happening, diplomatically if possible, through military preemption if necessary.
The point of a nuclear stockpile is A) retaliation, because I don't think even an equivalent use of conventional arms would be the appropriate response to a nuclear attack; and B) deterrence of nominally rational regimes, like China.
You write, "If a nation should choose to use a nuke against the US, we could handily respond to any such attack with our conventional military." If China ever decided to start a war with us, it wouldn't be by using a singular nuke, and it's not at all clear that we are equipped to respond using only conventional arms.
Your central thesis...
Therefore, there is no logical reason to hold on to nuclear weaponry.
...is misguided because it doesn't take into account superpowers like China.
But it doesn't seem like you're trying to account for the world as it is; you're trying to make the facts on the ground fit your thesis that nukes are illogical.
Because, even now, you can't help but make side comments about our conventional military being too big, I don't believe that your position is to disarm our nuclear arsenal while keeping our conventional military the same size.
You're conceding bits and pieces of reality, here and there, to make your Chamberlain impersonation a little more palatable.
You alluded to the idea of using nuclear weapons as a way of retaining America's superpower status against emerging powers like China. How far would you take this scenario? China has the largest standing army in the world, but because of their size they are technologically deficient. America in fact has the largest armed navy in the world. Wouldn't that be sufficient deterrent to any Asian superpower?
--------------------------
You and Dan obviously have an animosity to each other. It would be better if neither of you responded to the other. Dan and you have wildly varying opinions on many issues. But that is alright. So many of these issues you wrangle over aren't mathematic. They have no definitive right or wrong answer. There are only opinions. And the discussions here will have little effect beyond this website. So there is no need for the rancor and bile you two are dishing.
You know what, Brother Bubba? I don't really care what you believe. You are not omniscient. What you believe is a hunch, a guess, a tickle in your belly. Gas, perhaps.
And what you believe about me has most often been a wild hunch that is plainly wrong and easily shown to be wrong.
So you are free to believe that I am Chamberlain, reincarnated. You are free to believe that I have bunny ears and hop around town.
In both cases, you would be factually wrong, but believe on.
As to the size of our military: We are approaching spending $1 trillion A YEAR on our military and related expenses. The next largest military spender is China, at $122 Billion.
World military budget in 2008:
$1.47 Trillion
The US, in 2008:
$711 Billion
source
You may not think that that is obscenely large and a deterrent to peacemaking efforts and fiscal responsibility. You are free to think that.
I think that it is WAY too much. That is not a defensive budget. That is a budget that has been used for military adventurism and playing the world police. NOT conservative ideals, those, by the way.
Further, the US "maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational."
[wikipedia]
How many nukes do you think we need in order to be safe from China? And, is China your sole reason for thinking nukes are necessary, then?
And the discussions here will have little effect beyond this website. So there is no need for the rancor and bile you two are dishing.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
"I think that it is WAY too much. That is not a defensive budget. That is a budget that has been used for military adventurism and playing the world police. NOT conservative ideals, those, by the way."
Dan confirms my "guess."
--
For what it's worth, Ben, it's not merely the fact that Dan disagrees with me that is the source of the "rancor and bile" on my part. Like Dan, you wrongly assert that it's the position, when it's not that: it's the ridiculous manner in which Dan defends his position.
Here, as usual, Dan repeatedly accuses me of false accusations...
"You could do that but that would be a false representation of my position. Not that that would stop you."
"To the topic at hand (and just ignoring the false portrayal of my position), nuclear weaponry..."
...but he confirms what I've been saying, that his issue isn't simply with nuclear arms, that he supports far more drastic reductions of American military force.
The only thing that he rejects outright is the comparison to Neville Chamberlain, but the comparison is apt since he thinks that Ahmedinejad's madness would make dialogue more sensible, not less.
If the chicken suit fits, wear it.
In this case, I'm not guilty of asserting lies about Dan, I'm just pointing out inconvenient truths about him, both about the full extent of his antipathy towards American military might and the logical consequences of his tendency toward appeasement.
At the international level, peace is not just the absence of war; it's the presence of justice. Here, peace is not just the absence of personal criticism, it's the presence of arguments made in genuine good faith.
I for one refuse to pretend that Dan argues in good faith, just to maintain a facade of civility. To do so is to betray my own principles and to become an accessory to his often repugnant rhetoric.
Dan is free to ignore my criticism. I reserve the right to criticize.
I'm not sure the most effective comparison is between what the U.S. spends and what the rest of the world spends, because that vast category of the latter includes both our allies and our enemies. I don't think it's a problem for the United States to have a clear military advantage over totalitarian regimes and rogue states.
I do think it's a problem that, even accounting for GDP and population, our expenditures are significantly greater than those of our European allies, but that doesn't necessarily imply that we should spend less: it could imply that they should spend more. Arguably, because of the vast social welfare system they've created (and which the Left thinks we should emulate), they don't have the funds to protect themselves. They couldn't even handle a relatively small crisis in the former Yugoslavia without our help; Russia is becoming increasingly worrisome, so Europe needs to step up.
Our military spending -- 33% of the world's total, by Dan's numbers -- doesn't seem quite so bad if you consider our GDP is itself 21% of the world's total. If you started accounting for even fractions of the GDP of the industrialized countries who rely on our military power in whole or in part -- Japan, South Korea, the countries of Western Europe -- one could conclude we're spending less than we need to.
Intrinsically, I don't have a problem with the idea of comparing, say, the total military spending of the democratized West (and, by extension, allies such as Japan) with the total military spending of totalitarian regimes like China.
My problem is with the analysis that suggests there's a problem unless both totals are roughly equal. That implies a moral equivalence that simply doesn't exist, or a stability that is at best temporary and is probably illusory. If the dictatorships of the world had a significant military advantage of the democracies, that would indeed be a problem, but the reverse is not true. When democracies have a significant military advantage, the world is generally safer, because democracies behave more rationally, and they don't start wars lightly.
But even if war was the predictable result of one group or the other having a significant military advantage -- and it isn't -- it would still be better for the democracies to have that advantage because of the intrisic moral superiority of self-rule, and the intrinsic greater legitimacy of governments that have the consent of the governed.
But the problem with the left isn't just a moral equivalency between democracies and dictatorships, it's an active tendency to malign the West.
Multiculturalism isn't really about treating all cultures as equal, it's about denigrating Western culture. Likewise, the Left's philosophy regarding foreign policy isn't about maintaining parity, but about actively undermining Western interests.
That can be easily seen with Ben's attempt to condemn America for the threat Iran poses.
So why does Iran want the threat of nuclear weapons? There's the nubbin. Iran wants nuclear weapons because sizeable american and allied forces are station to the east and west of the country. Because 4-5 years ago when America stormed into Baghdad it looked like a western friendly government might spring up right next door. Anyone remember the war Iran and Iraq fought? Where Iraq was a proxy of the US? Iran doesn't have a modern air force or ground force. Their navy is better, but no match for the United States. The only effective deterrent to American bellicosity for the Iranians are nuclear weapons. Not the use thereof but the threat.
Dan echoed this sentiment a while back on his blog when he blamed the United States for all the ills with Nicaragua: never mind the actual chronology of events and never mind Moscow's work to expand its own power, it was our fault even that the Sandinistas sought aid from the Soviets.
It's actually quite condescending to act as other countries aren't responsible for their own behavior, to act as if they're unthinking machines merely responding to Western behavior by rote.
More to the point, it demonstrates why it is futile to discuss foreign policy with the Left. Even if they genuinely desire that the United States and its interests be safeguarded -- and for some that's questionable -- their ideas about foreign policy are so diametrically opposed to what I argue is common-sense reasoning that it is a mistake to compromise with them at any level, because doing so will just make it even harder to defend ourselves later.
I believe in American exceptionalism. America is in a unique role as the leader of an exceptionally moral civilization. The United States is by no means a perfect nation, and the civilization from which it has sprung is also far from perfect, but its embrace of liberty makes it the most moral civilization in the history of the world. This exceptional civilization should be defended, and it's not a bad thing for it to maintain a military advantage over its totalitarian enemies, nor is it a bad thing for Western influence to spread rather than permit the spread of dehumanizing alternatives.
The problem isn't that the Left denies American exceptionalism. Far too often, they turn that exceptionalism on its head. We're not exceptionally good, they think we're exceptionally evil.
In this case, on the subject of war and peace, they think that the focus of evil in the modern world is American military strength. Why even discuss with them whether the U.S. military is too large? We know that there would never be a time where they wouldn't call for its further diminishing, because we know that they see our military as a problem that must be reduced in all circumstances.