Why We Need Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad

We don't agree with all their ideas but they say what no one else says to those whom no one is willing to say it to. Indeed, they may say some things purely for the shock factor - but it gets people talking.

Take the encroachment of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Even the official US position is in accord with Iran's view. Holocaust denial? Extreme and perhaps vindictive as is the assertion that, 'Israel has no future'. But one can't escape the fact that Israel's stranglehold on Palestine is unjust as is its disproportionate response to Lebanese attacks. Let's face it, not many speak up for Palestine. And for all intents and purposes Israel seems to be wiping Palestine from the face of the Earth.

Gaddafi's tirade might have been rambling, but his criticism of the UN was justified. It's a toothless organization that often stands by and allows carnage (Rwanda?). CNN reported the following as part of Gaddafi's 'musings,

 He called for reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, including expanding it with more member states. He called for abolishing the veto power of the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- which he said used the veto to serve their own interests and treated smaller nations like "second class, despised nations."

Sounds like a reasonable demand to me and a believable interpretation of smaller states dilemma. Still, no one wants Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, indeed, no country should have such weaponry. But the hypocrisy of the West is highlighted through this issue. The US continues to be the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons...twice. Over 300,000 people were killed when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed and many have lived with illness related to the bombing to this day. But the subtle implication is that some countries have a right to nuclear arms and some don't. We need not mention 'pre-emptive strikes'.

The extremism of Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad is decidedly unattractive and undesirable, but doesn't negate the legitimate issues they raise. The West often plays the 'Hero in White' defending the world against the maniacal and pointlessly 'Dr. Evil', but Michael Moore's many documentaries and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine would suggest otherwise.

Bush's post 9/11 'they hate our freedom' claim was rhetoric so extreme one would think the US was the nation state version of Snow White.  But Dick Cheney as Grumpy dwarf advocating torture sullies that complexion. What makes US torture ' better' than torture conducted by any other nation? Nothing obviously. But a recent article questioning the efficacy of torture (excuse me, 'enhanced interrogation') was, perhaps unintentionally, tacit support for its moral acceptability...at least for the US. To say the least, Bush rhetoric and action was at least equal in extremity to Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad's.

The difference between the actions and rhetoric of Middle Eastern and Western nations is often down to the packaging. Don't get me wrong, there is obvious freedom and better practised democracy in the West which is good for the citizens therein, but not for those whom are exploited by Western economic and military might. Hence the Morales' and Chavez's of the world have an easy      target and become easy targets.

No doubt Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad are troublemakers at large. But they aren't the only ones, they just suck at PR and need a better wardrobe department.