Since my first article about Iran's nuclear program, I have been following the issue closely and I am coming to the conclusion that Iran, despite mounting pressure and despite sanctions, is continuing its programs and in fact, appears to be stepping it up. This by itself is a disturbing fact and it seems that both Israel, the USA and many other allied countries of the West are getting closer and closer to considering an attack on the nuclear facilities. This time, I am not going to write a long article, but would like to bring forward the following words of Benjamin Netanyahu, who I respect and agree with on this matter:

Benjamin Netanyahu on March 5, 2012 (AIPEC) referring to Iran’s supposed medical nuclear program with reference to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) – “If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? What is it? That’s right, it’s a duck, but this duck is a nuclear duck and it’s the time the World started calling a duck a duck!”

As much as I would like not to see the suffering of innocent people, Iran's government needs to be stopped and the time for action is likely to take place in months, not years. Israel and the USA will not let Iran develop nuclear weapons. The only option still left on the table is the dismantlement of the program. Failure to do this will most likely result in some sort of military intervention. Time is running out for Iran and as far as I am concerned, Israel has every right to intervene and stop Iran.

“Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face.” Charlton Heston

Political correctness has always been something that most politicians try to stick to, i.e. do their best to embrace at all times. Usually, this is so becuase they have their herds of sheep to cater and need to do things, react to events and foresee the future in a way that will please the most amount of potential voters. However, in true politics, political correctness should not be the universal method of doing things.

Political correctness often leads to unification of arguments/ideas and anyone who sticks out from this, is considered an outcast and sometimes branded an outsider. Unification of beliefs and ideas can be a good thing, but can also lead to the belief that only one opinion is correct and the rest does not count. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that mainstream political views are wrong, but sometimes, I have the feeling that people in political positions of power are reluctant to say what they feel in fear of backlash. This backlash, I understand can be personally damaging and also damaging to the parent, i.e. the party, but should be communicated.

Politicians who are less politically correct are often in media spotlight and cause the public to react. Very often you find that there is popular support behind their ideas and comments, but within the political village, this is less apparent. It is of no surprise that you find politicians being reported as saying one thing on TV and another behind closed doors. They know that should they wish to remain in power, there are things one can say and things one can say and be scrutinized for.

I have to admit that it is still quite early for me to be following the US elections of 2012, but one candidate that I respect for being different and for arguying differently is Ron Paul. He is not afraid to say what he believes and during the TV debates, is often ridiculed by competing candidates. This does not surprise me. Ron Paul is intelligent and in now way a radical. However, there are core issues that he feels strongly about and may not be mainstream politically correct.

I think we shoudl all embrace differences in opinion and non-politically correct statements that some politicians gain the courage to say. There are moral norms and behaviour expectations that even a non-politically correct politician can follow and indeed should follow. Such an approach will lead to political and social discussion and will enrich the mutual understanding. Non-political correctness is in fact a reflection of the current state of affairs and a reaction to real life events.

I respect those who have an opinion, even if it is different and will always be willing to listen to those whose opinions are different to those I hold. However, what I have a hard time swallowing is the fact that those that hold these opinions should be scrutinized, ridiculed and sidelined - and as is the case with Ron Paul for example, not given the chance to speak. This is offensive and casts a shadow on those who oppose him - raising suspicions (just or unjust) that there is a higher interest somewhere.

Political correctness can be considered by some as a vehicle for denying the truth and opressing those who hold it. It can be a tool that can be misused and under the premise of protecting all. Those who say otherwise are often labeled as extremists, fools etc. What many fail to realize is that normal people often have their own worries and do not always have the power to express themselves through political means or at demonstrations. Politicians continue to believe that their stances are the right ones, when in fact those they lead believe otherwise.

When basic human principles, morality, ethics are accounted for, comments that are not politically correct can and should lead to mutual discussion and should result in enriching the information pool that politicians have to make decisions. If all objections would be taken into account, we would have decisions that would act as consensus and not reflect the opposite side of the story. Nobody will ever speak for everyone, but proclamations taking into account opposing views would better place us into the position of making our own mind up and ensuring that we are not near-sighted, but always see it all in the bigger picture.

For as long as I was old onought to take in information about prophecies of the end of the World, I always kept a cool head and rejected them. Each year, we hear of a group here and there predicting the downfall and the end of all days.

With most, they were simply bits of information that were guaranteed to raise eyebrows and bring the media channels the desired attention. Cults, religious groups and other individuals all had something in common. They predicted the end of the World based on something they hold to be the truth. However, as they say, "One man's waste is another man's treasure", i.e. we perceive information differently and reach different conclusions.

Perhaps the most media attention has been dedicated to the year 2000, i.e. the turn of the Millenium and more recently, December 21, 2012 which spells the end of the Mayan Calendar. The Mayans were without a doubt an extremely advanced civilization with an equally striking calender. However, I find the fact that a single date could spell the end of the World based on this mere nonsense. Yes, the World is not going through its rosiest phase and the climate has been upset by human actions. However, the fact is that if anything, the turn of this year can bring new developments with a global impact.

We have seen the Arab Spring getting rid of dictators, we have seen the Occupy Movement (which I am not a big fan mind you) and other isms if you would allow me to call them. They all push for a change and to an extent, they have resulted in a shift in approaches. As always, I look at things in a more realistic light based on reasonable information available to me and I say that we will all be happy to see December 22 without any major change taking place.

What do you think?

Václav Havel, the Czech dissident, poet and playwrighter has died yesterday, Sunday 18.12.2011. This day will forever become a scar for those who knew what he stood for and what he fought for. Václav Havel will forever be remembered by me and other Czechs. Without him, the Czech Republic / Czechoslovakia would not hold the status that it now holds. He died at the same age as my grandfather and had many things in common. Both him and my grandfather opposed the regime and paid for it. Both helped the Czech Republic join the EU, NATO and both believed in the potential the Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia had in the international context. True stars never cease to shine. May he rest in peace.

In the past couple of years, we have heard rumors of Israel considering attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in a preemptive strike to render it incapable of producing nuclear weapons.

First of all, it is no longer a secret that Israel possesses nuclear weapons (Mordechai Vanunu). However, there is one major difference. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a developed, modern and western-thinking nation is not a scary prospect. A nuclear weapon in a rather side-lined and isolated Islamic government hands is another issue altogether.

IAEA latest release of information on Iran's nuclear activities and fears of its nuclear usage has triggered yet another wave of global discussions. On the one hand are those, including me, who see a preemptive strike as the lesser of the evils, while on the other hand, there are those who fight for the right of all nations to develop nuclear technologies that would allow it. Iran has been playing that game for too long.

Some argue that the US, Israel and other major players put pressure on others while having large nuclear weapon arsenals and technologies that far surpass that likely to be developed by Iran in the coming years. All that aside however, there are serious indications Iran is heading towards developing technologies that would allow it to compile the needed weapon technologies. Links with North Korea's secluded regime in terms of technology exchange have been reported numerous times. Mind you, North Korea has already crossed the line of development and successfully tested nuclear weapons in the past.

Similarities and parallels can be drawn between these. However, Iran has considerably more resources than North Korea and unfortunately could cause far more serious destabilization of the region should it successfully develop it. Fallen regimes like Saddam's Iraq or Gadhafi's Libya show that these nations were indeed aiming towards nuclear weapon production and have had programs that produced biological and chemical weaponry.

Essentially, the question arises of whether the prospect of attacking Iran is a real one? We have heard similar reports in the past and to date, none have solidified. This time, I fear, something is different. Most nations, excluding the usual Russia and perhaps Chavez's Venezuela feel that Iran is playing a dangerous game. Nobody will rush into all-out war, but there is a likelihood that an attack that would happen without the need of an army would be an option already considered. The attack would not be expected and would come at a time that Iran would least expect it.

As much as I hate to say it, I believe that a preemptive strike would render the programs useless, destroy the intention and would bring Iran to the negotiation table with the fear that more strikes could follow. It's a like the old fashioned way of a parent slapping a child on the butt for doing something wrong. Without a slap and without enough solid signal, the child will likely continue doing so until someone else stops it and it realizes that it has to do things differently.

I do not usually take sides, but fully understand that Israel has the right to intervene rather sooner than later to limit the danger that Iran poses to the region. When a country's existence is threatened by the leader of another (Ahmadinejad's numerous anti-Israeli comments), it has every right to defend itself by diplomacy and if needed, by military force. The dice has been cast and Israel has the time to see what it decided to do. The burden and consequences should be carried by Iran which, should it be proven that it has been developing weapon technologies, has nothing to be surprised from.

Hopefully, following the newest wave of sanctions led by the US, Canada and other nations, Iran will take a step back and realize that it has reached a tipping point and one which will determine its fate. Should it choose to negotiate, then it will meet a warmer response than that which would await it should it choose to pursue further nuclear development.

I will end this quick entry with the following latin quote as food for thought:

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum - If you wish for peace, prepare for war

How do you feel? What do you think is the solution?