Sunday, September 10, 2006

The US Theory of Relativity

contributed by

By Mustafa Zaidi

When Einstein annihilated the idea of absolute space and absolute time, he never imagined the most profound implications of his theory of relativity could be found in the White House long after his death. For the emancipators in the White House there are no 'absolute friends' or 'absolute foes'. They are relative. Relative to the US interests.

The frame of reference is US foreign policy derived from the preamble "For the Corporate Giants by the Mislead People". If you are surfing the Latin American pink tide, you may realise that democracy is not a democracy unless US emancipators align it with their infamous interests. To engage and to disengage is purely relative. And therefore, the intensity of US action varies from place to place. For instance, Iraq was occupied because it had WMDs. They were not found because they didn't exist. People all over the world had unshakable belief in their existence and US had to invade Iraq to prove otherwise.

US can lead an invasion because it was the only country to nuke another one twice in a war. Use of a nuclear weapon to destroy inhabited cities brought peace or end of the world war is difficult to answer for US, Europe and UN as well. Only US can stock nukes on the surface, under the water and in space as well. The indigenous products of a laborious search for peace can range from bio-chemical weapons to assassination squads to destabilize Andean democracies. In short, they are all weapons of peace and acts of peace. Hizbollah, who defended the Israeli invasion, must have to be a terrorist outfit. That's relativity.

Interestingly, the US foreign policy equations give most favourable inferences. Iran will misuse nuclear power while Israel's nuclear arsenal is an embodiment of peace and security in the middle-east.

Once upon a time, not long ago, Iran was ruled by a maniac Shah who was close to US. He wasn't, as they call in the situation room, misaligned. His regime sucked every drop of blood left after the US feasted on Iran's natural and human resources for decades. Relatively, there was no need for a democracy in Iran before 1979. The people and the leaders of its soil brought democracy to their country. But not a one aligned with US interests. So that's not a democracy. A true democracy, as defined in the White House, is an unconditional control over the people of a nation and its resources by a regime that's properly and promisingly aligned with US frame of reference.

Most of the governments in Latin America are not democracies because they are formed by the people. It is only the US that can spread democracy and have it too. It can be done in the name of homeland security. Or, more globally, as war on terror. The aim is to spread democracy wherever and however intended.

To Bush et. al., the Arab states are acceptable but Islamic states are a problem. There are no Arab terrorists, only Islamic terrorists. There is relativity deep therein. The results of the same problem vary in US from time to time. War is the only solution to peace. It is a paradox but as we know paradoxes are crucial to the US theory of relativity. You must kill citizens and do no body counts because it is a war against terror not the terrorists.

The US allies, including Ariel Sharon, are the men of peace while the peoples' leaders in Iran and Latin America are radical fanatics determinately aligned with their national interests instead of that of the White House. That's a relative inference again. To US, everything is relative – democracy, war, peace, UN's role and resolutions, friends and foes.

0 comment(s):

Post a Comment

<< Home