From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 10:49:48 EST
Re: [OPE-L] What Ahmadinejad actually said - lost in translation...> This I think is false logic, presuming that nuclear weapons in the hand of maniac > leaders like Kim Jong Ill would somehow balance the economic and political strength > of America, Russia or the UK. Martin: He may or not be a 'maniac' -- a loaded expression and one which could equally be used to refer to many current or former bourgeois leaders including G.W. Bush and Sharon. Of course if North Korea had nuclear weapons it wouldn't balance the _economic_ and _political_ strength of the US, Russia, or the UK, etc. It wouldn't even balance the _military_ strength of those powers. But, it might -- or might not -- serve as a military deterrent. > I cannot anywhere see how such a development would be beneficial for progressive > political movements in other parts of the world. Venezuela recently (last year) agreed > with Russia that they would upgrade their military equipment tout court over the nearest > future, including the building of a Kalshnikov-factory in Venezuela. A contract all in all > worth billions of dollars. These types of transactions happen all the time, and even > though the US does not approve officially, they wont do anything about it. Most likely, > it's not enough to deter a potential attack from the US more that a few days anyhow. > Sweden is now negotiating with Saudi Arabia so we can sell them some fine artillery that > they can use to further oppress their people. I cannot see how this would be progressive > or beneficial for the democratic movement anywhere. Do you agree that the Venezuelan people have the right to self-determination and that the sovereignty of that nation should be respected? If so, then they have the right to self-defense, don't they? If we recognize that right then who are we to tell them from afar what weapons they should have? What's wrong with Kalshnikov rifles, anyway? The US-sponsored coup failed because the people took to the streets and risked their lives to keep their democratically-elected president from being ousted by military strength. A lesson of that failed coup, just like a lesson from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, is that the people have to be prepared to repel an imperialist attack. Arming workers and the poor in militias is a more democratic and popular model than just relying on the professional military, isn't it? (This raises the issue of 'gun control': so long as the police and the military have guns [i.e. so long as the agents of the state have guns], shouldn't workers have the right to be armed as well? I think that most of the arguments for nuclear disarmament and gun control are based on liberal principles including a liberal perspective on the role of the state. A non-state centered perspective would be different. For that reason most anarchists strongly oppose gun control legislation.) In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST