PeaceChicken.com

I’ve been thinking about this whole Iran thing. As usual, I can’t understand the Bush administration’s logic behind going to war with them. Aside from the fact that, like the other wars we’re currently waging, we don’t have the money, soldiers, or moral justification to add a third war to our list.

The main argument for war on Iran is that they’re developing nuclear technology, claiming it’s for civilian purposes but others think it’s a cover-up for the real goal of a nuclear weapon, right? But WE think Iran can’t be trusted with this story [and our opinion is the only one in the world that matters] so WE want to take it upon ourselves and bomb every single suspected nuclear development site with complete disregard for the civilian population. Okay fine, I got that. Why communicate with words when you can just drop a bomb instead? Diplomacy is silly. Plus the U.S. government has already labeled all Iranians terrorists and “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.” See, if you attach the “T” word onto someone/something/entire countries, it’s basically a “Get out of diplomacy FREE” card. Or a “Go directly to WAR” card. Whichever you prefer.

My problem lies in the U.S. picking and choosing when to apply their reasoning. If their reason is the development of nuclear weapons shouldn’t we attack India? Pakistan? Israel? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? What about our own weapons of mass destruction? We have 5,735 active nuclear warheads stockpiled and we’re the only nation that has used nuclear weapons on another country, that seems pretty suspicious and dangerous to me. Does it possibly have something to do with who has oil and who doesn’t? Or who is a business partner and who isn’t? Or who is Muslim and who isn’t? What am I missing in the equation?