A Face On Humanity

Pres Ahmadinejad has a profile put up on facebook. It was probably put there by some supporters. I doubt it is his own. It is located here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1481016919&ref=profile#!/profile.php?id=100000124812284&ref=sgm
I have been jokingly ribbing him as though this was his own profile. Making comments akin to this:

"Hey Ahmy could you chill with the comments about wiping countries off of the map, now there's a nice fella"


Since Iran has ignited it's first nuclear power plant, that fact has put the Middle East on the thin edge. It was an eventuality that caused high anxiety in Israel leading to speculation about possible military action against the plant by the Israelis - since they feared nuclear weapons could now be made from the enriched Uranium required to operate the reactor. It has been postulated that such weapons could be developed within a time frame of 12- 14 months. It appears also that Iran has capable delivery systems.

Recently, when I made some comment on the Ahmadinejad profile at facebook that suggested he might want to find some small uninhabited island he could wipe of off the map, to sate his need for dominion, rather than spew inflammatory language in the direction of Israel. I got an email from a woman who said:

"Gary get a grip on reality."

Being prepared for a fight - I went to the Ahmadinejad profile from whence the comment came. I saw the woman who made the provocative comment. Her name was Huma. She is a news reporter from Pakistan.

I was in pugilist mode at the time because of some recent interactions with psychotics online who have remained faceless and anonymous, I was thinking that this was another of those types - taunting.
But when I got a look at her, I couldn't maintain my polarity. She was exceptionally beautiful. I let her know I was prepared to thwomp her, but couldn't. I'd been disarmed. She was too pretty, and her smile was too benificient. She took that remark in good humor. So, I told her that a "grip on reality" was something I was not likely acquire any time soon.

She accused me of wanting to beat up our mutual friend Ahmadinejad and allow him only a stick to defend himself, while I had high tech guns to shoot him. She saw the deck was stacked in my favor.

She was talking to me as though I represented my government. Therein lies the danger. A government has no face. I told her that I had no intention of beating him up, I simply thought his rhetoric was inflammatory. My comments were a tease, more than anything. It is very difficult to interpret Ahmadinejad's comments amidst the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the climate of suspicion surrounding the real intent of his nuclear program. His comments about Israel - in particular - are violent and Jihadist in tone. Also these facts not withstanding, his name is almost impossible to spell correctly.


I asked Huma if we could talk as two people, discussing a point, without assuming we represent our respective governments. Huma agreed.

Huma argued that it might be that Amadinejad's intent with nuclear weapons could be viewed "deterrence." She was not exactly agreeing with that strategy, she was arguing what he might be interested in doing, reflecting on what could be his psychology. She seemed hopping mad and outspoken, but very direct. And I was glad she was venting, I allowed her to do it, respecting her opinion.

(I don't mind when people get mad at me and express it directly, and speak their minds. I dislike it when sneaks go behind the scenes to snipe when they disagree. That is cowardice. But Huma was very up front in her indignation, which was in part, based on a global frustration - and in another way she seemed to be reaching out to reason. While those with malicious intent and no argument, use the subterranian approach. I found this discussion refreshing by comparisson.)

Huma looks quiet young, and educated, I referred her to the evolution of nuclear policy per the UN and it's politics. I suggested deterrence is not a contemporary concept. I respectfully disagreed that nuclear proliferation using deterrence as a rational was a sane road to travel. Nor was it the prevailing world view. Adding two new countries with obvious political antipathy to the ledger of countries with nuclear weapons did not make sense, when the main problems seems to be how to reduce the number of such weapons, and maintain control over them.

Which is why we have the concerns we do about North Korea. A marginalized rogue state that has set off atomic tests.

The notion of deterrence was being phased out since Cuba 1962.where deterrence showed itself to be a vestigial and dangerous concept, which nearly led to nuclear war. And if it had occured, 300 million people could have been killed within minutes, with millions more in the aftermath dying from radio activity induced leukemias.
I was nearly thirteen when the Cuban crisis occured. I remember those 13 tense days. I can still see my teacher telling us all, that if war broke out the school would not release us to go home. This is how close we were. On the imaginary clock to doomsday, we were minutes away from midnight.

It would not have taken much. A shot fired at our fleet that surrounded cuba in quarenteen. The Kennedy administration opting for a surgical strike, could have triggered nuclear war.
During that time, two logical positions were developed in the course of 13 days to cope with the placement of nuclear arms in Cuba by the Soviet Union.

The USSR, saw the move as having a dual purpose:

A.) Castro was clamoring for a means to defend his country against what he believed
was an imminent invasion by the United States. This, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, The Russian response was to provide short and medium range nucelar weapons to the Cuban island

B.) The second reason was to give the Russians a perceived strategic advantage in the nuclear arms race by placing nuclear weapons fifty miles off of our shores. The presence of these missles was seen as untenable, destabilizing and a provocative threat. The United States and the USSR were already faced off in Berlin - tank cannon to tank cannon. Berlin was a potential tinderbox that could lead to a ground war in Europe which almost inevitably would escalate - nuclear - even in the sixties the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was generally accepted. Cuba was now another fuse that when lit, could spark global nuclear war.

In October 1962 we had a sudden imbalance in nuclear strength motivated by strategy. The strategy being: 'Where the weapons are placed.' (The USSR was slightly lagging in numbers of weapons, and delivery systems at that time. But the numbers of H-Bombs at that time, were absurdly high. Especially since the detonation of one, over a major city would be considered not only a crime against humanity, but it would lead to full exchange as a chain reaction, with no one left to bring the responsible to a world court.)
The notion that these weapons were so far away from the USSR and in the hands of a hot head, Fidel Castro, was unacceptable. Those missles had to go.

The two logical responses I refered to, were courses of action. The first being:
Take the missles out with a massive strategic air strike if necessary. (There was secondary consideration - to follow up with an invasion ) This seemed a logical military response. This response of many of the hawks in kennedy's circle. The second possibile course of action was diplomacy, the diplomacy that was actually used put a human face on the enemy.
The world was 2 minutes to midnight.
Here is how the crisis was actually solved.

Robert and John Kennedy put a human face on Khruschev. They imagined themselves in his position, being pressured by his military to be more aggressive. They saw Khruschev as in a box. The Kennedy's would have applied the recommended military action within days. But they decided to give Kruschev a face saving move....They suggested through channels that they would be willing to remove antiquated missles in Turkey, if the Russians removed the missiles in cuba, otherwise the US would be forced to act and remove the missile by force. Military action could have precipitated nuclear war, as, a sky black with American planes would not necessarily be percieved as a surgical strike, it would be percieved as an invasion. This may have resulted in the launch of one of those missles - that would instantly annhilate our fleet which was blockading the Island.

We would responded with land invasion, and more than likely the Russisans would have moved on Berlin. This was an end times scenario, as nuclear war seemed probable.
Kennedy pressed the the diplomatic solution...the removal of the missiles in Turkey. A trade. The crisis ended in one way, a separate peace. If the other logical path had been chosen, 300 million people could have died in minutes.
Kennedy was known to have said to one of his aides who was eating his food at the height of the crisis

"The way you are eating my chicken you'd think you weren't going to be here tomorrow"
"Maybe I won't, " said the aide. That's how serious it was.
I argued with Huma, that the concepts that evolved after the cuban missile crisis, with regard to nuclear weapons were these:


1. Non proliferation
2. Bilateral disarmament
3. Detente

Nuclear deterence became a failed concept in October 1962. My essential concern was the rhetoric of Amjamadad. He has on many occasions threatened to destroy Israel, and now the concern is, he is developing nuclear technology and nuclear weapons to accomplish this goal.

I don't think that after Huma and I began putting human faces on one another that we disagreed on all that much. She said that the people of the middle east do not hate the US. I found that encouraging, as I expected as much. And, I am sure that we agreed on many issues during our short but revelatory debate.

We put a human face on one another.

I made the point that there seem to be two main issues that are used as political footballs in the middle east: one is the issue of oil, and the other is the Israeli issue. Huma is very cynical about human greed where it regards oil. "Blood for Oil" is her fundamental cynicism. Most citizens do not approve of war for the sake of oil. And Huma and I agree, that to the extent we do have input into our governments, this should be our policy. The other issue is the use of the Israeli/Palestinian problem as inflamatory politics. It is used as a rhetorical football. Yet the problem is not being solved by those citing the problem, and this is where my cynicism shows, I think there are Arab states who will not solve that problem and intervene in a constructive way, because the conflict plays to a politcal advantage. In that sense - there's no solution for some arab states, except for the destruction of Israel. This is not an acceptable, when no solution becomes advantageous to politicians inflaming the people over ancient land rights, hatred, and religious differences.

Israel is a fact, just or not. And, rather than force the issue of dismantling a "Jewish State" secondary to percieved historical injustice in it's formation; there are other ways to view the problems, Using the language of force as if it were the only solution - shows a lack of faith, that the inequity would not heal itself, and it could if the world validated the concerns of both sides. Instead - the antipathy and polemics of both sides is fueled by vested interests. I think my friend Huma would agree.

Since we have put a human face on one another, we have realized this: We want to live...We want to survive. And, we want to focus our energies in a positive direction, onto the issues that matter - while the solutions may be achieved by willing participants, particulating the political difficulties and solving them, one by one. This can only be accomplished by accepting the humanity of both sides.

Putting a human face on peoples everywhere.

Huma lives in Pakistan, and since India and Pakistan are faced off with nuclear weapons. A ground conflict there - in the disputed danger zone of Kashmir - could spark a wider war... I reminded her of how that could lead to a nuclear war by miscalculation, or accident, or from desparation when losing a ground war.

The sword of Damocles hangs over both countries. So I think she feels the same sense of dread Americans and Russians felt in the 1960's

The same is true when another polemic is created involving nuclear weapons: Israel and Iran. Israel is not officially listed as having nuclear weapons, and so I cannot comment on that issue. I do suspect, that if they did have them, they were provided by the US. But, since israel has shown no imperialist inclinations, any weapons they may have could be removed, if the surrounding Arab nations dropped the notion of detroying Israel. Israel has not voiced a desire to destroy any Arab nation. If Israel has nuclear weapons that is a travesty. But, it is also a travesty that there are those bent on destroying that country. It is also a travesty that nuclear weapons exist at all.

When the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle, the machinery of our own destruction was let out too. The only solution is to stop the spread of these weapons. And reduce the need to cope with perceived threats by nuclear means. The political problems need to be solved.

As more countries develop nuclear weapons, if they are used, their use is a sign of a failed human experiment. If they are ever used, we are all extinct.

And while neither Huma nor myself speak for our governments, I believe we both speak for a l more general human sentiment. Suicide is not an option. Nothing is worth the destruction of this marvelous portal of consciousness we call humanity, that it could grow, to someday understand the mind of God.

Huma eventually understood that I was not some blood thirsty bigoted Yahoo out for Islamic blood. We put a human face on one another. Sane people are not like that. and most people are sane.

On the other hand, I will say this, those countries that allow themselves to be overrun by brutal dictators who have nothing other then their own aggrandizement in mind, who might develop nuclear weapons to weild their power and influence, need to be sanctioned and monitored. It is not clear that Amadinejad falls into this category. If his use of nuclear power is for peaceful purposes only - he should be amenable to UN inspections to assure the world of same. The concept of deterrence is already proved a fallacy.
The only rhetoric on the part of Israeli's has been the need to prevent him from developing weapons. Now he has the capacity to do so.

There are two undeniable facts. The world needs oil. And Israel "is" a state, whether the nations of Islam agree it should be a Jewish state or not. Perhaps it should not be. Perhaps the solution is to allow nature to take it's course, and see that any essential injustice in it's creation, perhaps motivated by holocaust compensation - could be mitigated by diplomacy. And by that time, more Arabs and Islamists are represented in it's government. But such changes cannot occur when those countries surrounding Israel and determined to destroy it. And they use language that suggest that violent means are the only options.

A solution to the Palestine question would also help the current Arab/Israeli conflicts.
Which have, for so many years remained stubbornly insoluble. One side has invariably blamed the other for an inability to come to terms. Yet Israel has been attacked in 1948 and in 1967. It has been attacked in these outright wars, and since these major wars, it has been attack by terrorists action. In 1991 - Saddam Hussien sent ICBMs into Israeli during the gulf war, nobody knew what was on those missiles. This was a brazen act, since at no time since the nuclear age has a missile capable carrying a nuclear weapon, chemical/biological weapon (WMD's), been fired on another country. In a time of war with the US, the attack with missiles, on Israel..a non involved party should not be forgotten. The act was symbolic..

It took great restraint on the part of the Israelis not to respond. Israel stood down, on the demand of the US who were engaged in the gulf war against Hussein..

The critical realities the world's need for of oil, ancient religious differences, the state of Israel and the disaffected peoples of Palestine are issues that need to be solved. Playing the issues for political reasons is a most dangerous game. As at no time when this is a done, is a human face put on anyone. When that face is applied though, we really see that our hatreds are small in scale compared to what we sacrifice. We need to make it clear to our governments worldwide that at no time are we prepared to sacrifice blood for oil. And if it is possible, no war should be sanctioned when it is motivated by religious differences or land disputes that go back centuries. The stakes are too high.

And at no time should we settle our political and religious differences by fanning the fires of ancient hostilities - forgetting that a human face is on the other end. A person. One who wants to live, and one who wants their children to live. Huma describes herself as a "universal person" on her profile. And this is a perspective we should all share and grow in to... As Kennedy a more universal perspective in a post Cuban missile crisis speech as the world breathed a sigh of relief after the cuban missile crisis. He suggested we need to make the world "safe for diversity" he ended his speech this way: "We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." And we were nearly all extinct just days before that speech.

Nuclear proliferation does not put a human face on our differences, those differences are faceless. But the image I put here, Huma's image, might well be an image of your child, or your mother sister, or wife.. It is a human face put on our differences. And the magic of seeing this face, some how diminishes our differences

.
At the end of our conversation Huma said our focus should be on the real issues that are difficult enough to deal with, such as environmental issues, every day survival struggles, such as the ones that they are having now in Pakistan with massive flooding and loss of human life.

Another human tragedy - like the recent one in Hatti. I hope my friend Huma is safe. And I hope that by bypassing our governments, the internet can be used to communicate the real concerns people have, and the real attitudes, without relying on propaganda from the media outlets on both sides. The internet is a new tool that can be used for good or ill. This debate was used to promote understanding.

Huma has a face on facebook. Ahmadinejad has a face on facebook. We need to put a face on all of humanity.


Here we put a human face on the current suffering in Pakistan. asking you to
please donate to ameliorate the suffering from the floods there:
http://www.unicefusa.org/work/emergencies/flood-relief/?gclid=CJ33s4KV3aMCFYp_5QodoUObkg

Addendum: I have been revisting Allan Watts. And where some people feel the problems of the world are particular, that may be an erroneous notion. The problems may be at a more root level, that is: they may lie in how we percieve ourselves. We have evolved with a view of ourselves as isolated from everything else, alone - and different, and the correct view might well be that that sense of aloneness, and "differentness." is an illusion. Albiet, a stubborn one. But if we were conscious of our connection to things, there are so many things that would disappear. One thing that would vanish is the sense of hostility we have toward those of different stripes. Greed, would become a foolish enterprise. The idea of one people being superior to another, would dissolve. War would disappear, because to war with another group would mean we would be warring with ourselves. Of course, these are just words, the only thing that would change anything, is the consciousness that goes with the words. And, so here is a possible view of ourworld and ourselves that me may want to ponder. Here is Allan Watts lecturing on the need for a new kind of consciousness.

Here is an upclose personal look at the natural disaster in Pakistan Flooding

Here is a good summary of the Cuban Missle Crisis which occured October 1962