by Clay Deschamps

Created on: October 28, 2008

This very question smacks of a tendency in today's journalism that leaves us awash in the ambiguity of euphemisms. Were they not so cruel, they would be absolutely ludicrous. For example, during WWII, what is now known as the, "Secretary of Defense," was known as the, "War Department." As aggressive as the latter title may sound, at least it had the merit of being honest. In those days, the War Department waged war.

Nevertheless, nowadays, when Washington speaks of, "Defense," this is rarely the case. Rather, the thinly veiled efforts of the powers that be to qualify its efforts as such pale when one realizes that their basic thrust is not one of, "defense," at all. Indeed, they are persistent manifestations of a calculated intent to coerce, divide and conquer and otherwise basically dominate the world political scene under the pretext that Washington acts under some divine guidance.

It doesn't.

In fact, the overwhelming evidence points to a single focus on behalf of Washington that consists of calling the shots, not in the interest of worldwide political cohesion and, why not? peace and prosperity, but instead to ensure its domination of the world's economy and politics. Americans may be quick to recognize among their fellow citizens a spirit of E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) within the US, yet abroad, this is clearly not their political credo.

It all comes down to domination.

We're not talking about justice, nor defense.

There is abundant proof pointing to the fact that the US attack on Iraq had much more to do with oil than with defense. Political theorists and propaganda artists of all stripes know that if one dresses a lie elegantly and repeats it long enough, it quickly takes root as, "truth," in the primitive collective consciousness. Labeling, "aggression," or, "war," as, "defense," is a cheap, though frighteningly effective, subterfuge.

That said and getting back to the question: Should Israel preemptively strike Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb? Now, perhaps, we may proceed to define the question properly. Why say, preemptively strike? Why not call a spade a spade? Why not say attack? Is not a preemptive strike an attack?

As for, "to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb?" Why should Israel have a nuclear bomb and Iran not? China has a nuclear bomb. They never asked anyone for permission to build it. The same goes for France, India and several other countries.

Could we thus not reformulate the question: Should Israel attack Iran to keep them

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>