html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> From the archives: You can't bomb half the world.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

You can't bomb half the world.

I do not want to go to war against Iran. I wasn’t opposed to going to war against Iraq, although I never thought Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda or that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. But I thought Hussein was a madman, and that maybe we could depose him and leave a better government in his place, and that might be worth some cost to the people doing the real fighting. I thought that might be possible, and I didn’t actively protest or support the war. I was wrong.

Now, however, Bush and his administration are trying to get us into war against Iran. I don’t want to go to war against Iran. After my parents divorced, my Mom married an Iranian man. That’s done now, but for ten years Mom’s house was all adas polo and Persian paintings. I took a year of Farsi in college; my sister took two years of Farsi. I wanted to visit more than anything and we actually did get me a visa at one point. I don’t set out a haft sin anymore, but I still grow greens to throw into running water on Persian New Year. My Mom’s husband always loved me and my sisters and brother.

The other reason I don’t want to go to war against Iran is that I have the idea that it is beautiful. When I came back from Uzbekistan, where I learned that tans and blues were all anyone needs, I was showing my Mom my pictures. Her then-husband looked over. “Looks like Isfahan,” he said. If Isfahan looks like Bukhara, and I’ve heard that it is more beautiful than Bukhara, then we need to be very very careful that nothing bad ever happens to it. Beautiful places shouldn’t be bombed.

I know these reasons for opposing war in Iran are intellectually empty. There are better reasons, the cost in lives and hurt and damage to an international ideal of American democracy and money. But those are my real reasons. I know people from there. I’ve seen pictures of how beautiful it is. I do not want us to go to war against Iran.




.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, but if we attack Iran the people will postively embrace secular democracy and welcome Americans with open arms, just like they did in Iraq and ... oh wait.

Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights

8:32 PM  
Blogger Uneasy Rhetoric said...

Just because your feelings are emotional, I wouldn't consider them intellectually empty. If you really wanted to get academic about it, you could talk about the artistic and cultural significance of Iran.

10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah. What's intellectually empty about noticing that war destroys beauty, replaces it with ugliness and death? Or maybe you're just not clever enough to think your way out of the obvious truth, as so many in this country seem to do.

Marcus

10:57 PM  
Blogger billo said...

Peter, interesting point. Most of the Iranians I know are actually very pro-America/West (they love Pink Floyd ,though are not so keen on America's politics!)and they tell me that most youngsters are as well. Perhaps we should be thinking: us AND them , rather than us or them?

Megan, nice picture. That's the old watch tower in the background, isn't it?

11:42 PM  
Blogger ScottM said...

I think we're right to oppose it. The push that I'm seeing is a move to vocally make Iran a true litmus test for candidates for all federal offices. Making it known, loud and clear, that we won't support those who are taken in by a manifestly evil war.

(Good debate on the topic over the last few days was a series of posts: It's Time for a Litmus Test on Iran, Profoundly Unwise, Iran and Litmus Tests, The Long View, and When Keeping It Credible Goes Wrong.

9:37 AM  
Blogger JessRiedel said...

Whether or not attacking Iran is a good idea, your reasons for not attacking are indeed unsound (as you admit). I'm afraid that when weighing the risk of a nuclear attack on US against the destruction and destabilization caused by a war, your attachment to the beauty of Iran hold little sway. Merely admitting that your reasoning is irrational does not stop it from being so.

11:18 AM  
Blogger Megan said...

Reasons don't have to be rational to be good reasons.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can’t read the Valentine blogs and Iran blogs separately from each other. I read them on the days they were published, and felt responses to both. The first left me uplifted and optimistic (like riding a bike on a slight decline on a spring day); the second made my Valentine feelings feel somewhat hollow and self-indulgent (like riding a bike on a slight decline on a spring day). I don’t think, though, that either response is invalid, and I’m loathe to compartmentalize these emotions that both belong to me and both make me who I am. They intermingle, and on my best days, I believe that both feelings cooperate to help me judge the way I should treat others and react to events beyond the scope of my daily life. I am so ridiculously impressed by people who show daily patience and love to others, and baffled by those who wade in fountains of convalescence by finding so much fault in mundane inconveniences. I believe societies change when the balance between these people reaches some critical limit. If we are the kind of people who are likely to spread love through any of the ways, or more, Megan described, we are closer to becoming the people who will act when they see some injustice on a larger, more impersonal, level.
J.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm afraid that when weighing the risk of a nuclear attack on US against the destruction and destabilization caused by a war..."

Since there is at most a vanishingly small risk that a nuclear Iran would ever attack the United States, Megan's balancing was exactly reasonable.

Presumably, if there was even the smallest chance that the U.S. would be attacked in such a way, her deep aesthetic attachment to the Central Valley would come into play.

Marcus

11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice picture, Megan. When were you in Bukhara?

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bomb half the world?

Better to just go whole hog.

-john

4:51 PM  
Blogger billo said...

Yeah, bomb them..just don't look down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPYwmj-YoQQ

8:56 AM  
Blogger jjsingh04 said...

Bushes = Criminals

Back in the day, attacking 3 or 4 different countries at the same time was considered in some circles as a teeny little bit psychotic. But at least they all have oil (or, in North Korea's case, access to the Chinese economy) so that TOTALLY justifies it.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Megan for your pure feelings. This war will be the most stupid action that USA can do. As you know most countries just pretend that they have no relation with Iran (Tourist or Business) but the fact is another story. I can prove that even the biggest American Oil companies have benefits in Iran. European countris also will not lose this opportunity because the USA is not around pratically. It is just USA that follow the rules that European set it up and they could not follow it themselves. UK is the biggest partner with Iran and nbody can decline that but they pretend that there is no relation. I know many many companies from UK that are working here right now in sopite of sanctions.

Then this will be funny if you think Iran is not safe and it is danger to all the worlds. It is just what USA and its citizens think.

Thanks again.
Mehrnaz

10:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home