Redalgo
Sr. Member
Posts: 2,681
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2012, 07:30:50 PM » |
|
|
« Edited: July 13, 2012, 08:11:59 PM by Redalgo »
|
This treaty threatens to further erode the reputation of Atlasia in West Asia and, in doing so, afford various terrorist organizations even more fodder to use in their recruitment drives and campaigns of propaganda. The security-related self interests of Atlasia and Israel are far from being identical, a treaty is unnecessary for Atlasia to assist Israel should it become the target of a war of aggression, and Israel's nuclear arsenal and mistreatment of the Palestinian nation puts us in the awkward situation of having to back up a country which is at least partially to blame for ongoing strategic challenges in their region. What useful purpose does the proposed agreement serve?
Iranian and Israeli possession of nuclear weapons is no vital concern of Atlasia so long as both countries use their arsenals for the purpose of strategic, defensive deterrents, which seems far more likely than the Iranian leadership pressing ahead with some plot to crater out Tel Aviv - in the process plunging itself into a major regional conflict from which it is unlikely to emerge without suffering grievous wounds inflicted by either Israel itself or a collection of allies in an overwhelming retaliation. I feel no country should have nuclear weapons, but if we can be trusted internationally to have them and so can Israel, and we tolerate Pakistan's stockpile, then why not Iran's?
And the fact of the matter is, Israel can defend itself without us playing the part of its nightclub's bouncer, and we ought not to be getting ourselves too close to a regime whose policies at times prove to be more of a liability than asset for the Republic of Atlasia - in terms of our security and reputation in the greater community of nations, alike. Indeed, I would even go so far as to state that Israel has become one of its own worst enemies in threatening its own capacity for providing long-term security and stability for its people. I can also confidently say that what West Asia in general needs today is not any further preparation to exchange senseless killing and destruction.
Our relations with people in West Asia would benefit from a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, commitments to aid human development so young people have improved economic opportunities in the future, and special attention given to poverty-stricken areas of countries rife with discontent. Many terrorist organizations hunger for the desperate, hopeless, and disenchanted; folks who feel they have nothing to look forward to in life or little to lose are choice prey for the advocates of violent causes to exploit. In the short-term, we ought to dispel impressions of Atlasia being a force of Judeo-Christian (or otherwise imperialist) aggression that "deserves" to be attacked for being set on corrupting if not replacing all aspects of traditional cultures in the region. For finding a positive endgame in regards to Iran, meanwhile, I think it is important we be more empathetic and respectful in our methods of engaging them on security issues. Diplomatic efforts should aim to achieve mutual gains - not renew previous gestures of suspicion or voice brutish threats of violence (which is what this treaty tacitly does, I reckon).
So, though I do want to apologize in advance for being a bit disorganized in the presentation of my thoughts here, I am convinced that President Napoleon and a number of my colleagues in the Senate were wise to take a stand against this treaty, a treaty that paves the way for essentially none of the constructive changes that we should be seeking in the difficult years to come. To be clear, I stand in solidarity with the good people of Israel no less than I do with those people who reside in other countries, and do appreciate the sentiments of those who have worked in support of the agreement, but it is as it stands today completely unsuitable for ratification.
|
