|
And what about OUR "hard-line dominated congress," assholes?
"Hard-line" means what? They don't want to get nuked by Dick Cheney (or Hillary, if the Dick can't pull it off)?
Hard-line = stiff, unbending, aggressive, "either yer with us or agin us," kill first/talk later, doesn't flinch at torture or dead babies, nuke 'em back to the stone age...
Actually, there's quite an argument that could be made that Iran's leaders are anything but hard-line. They have put up with an enormous provocation right on their border, with no retaliatory aggression, and with--as far as I can see--only defensive thinking (they want nukes--who wouldn't, in their situation, with two nuclear powers gunning for them?). They have apparently made a number of peace proposals to the Bush Junta--all ignored. And they are the victims of constant saber-rattling, threats, "axis of evil" slanders, and aggressive actions (U.S. seeking sanctions against them; infiltrations, border bombings).
It seems to me that "hard-line" would have sent the Republican Guard over the border, in full force, long ago. (There have been many U.S. border provocations, which don't get well-reported here.) And the threat to Iran, from the chaos in Iraq, is very great--including the Bush-instigated civil war spilling into Iran, and millions of refugees with enormous food, housing and health problems.
As for Iranian provocations--Iran would be crazy not to have operatives in Iraq, if, for no other reason, to determine WHAT is happening there (wouldn't WE, if, say, China invaded Mexico?). Iran also has a big stake in Iraqi civil order, and in who ends up in power there. Again, any government that IGNORED such a situation--a foreign invasion of a neighbor, and creation of chaos there--would be derelict in its duty to its people NOT to be spying on the chaotic neighbor and the occupation force, and would have a legitimate right to intervene.
I think there is a strong argument that Iran has shown great RESTRAINT in this situation.
The U.S. Congress' Iraq War Resolution was "hard-line"--it led straight to an aggressive war; it gave permission to do so. Calling the CIA dirty dogs is not especially "hard-line," nor is condemning unprovoked war in which hundreds of thousands of Iran's neighbors have been slaughtered. The invasion of Iraq WAS a terrorist act.
I don't know about dragging Hiroshima into it. That's a tough call. The worst thing I've read about it, in terms of motivation, is that atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "show the Russians" (our feared allies!) that the technology works and that we are now the "lords of the earth." Aside from that, it's difficult to gainsay people who had been at war, on two major fronts--with enormous carnage on both sides--for five years. Total war. The whole society must have been suffering "shell shock" by then. The temptation to end it quickly must have been enormous. And, relatively speaking, the non-nuke bombings of Berlin, Dresden and other cities (including Tokyo) were hardly less horrendous. I think it's difficult to judge people who were caught in such a narrow tunnel--the psychological tunnel of war. So much death already. So much burden on the human psyche. So much fear. Non-stop adrenalin. And someone hands you a way out.
It's hard to understand the SECOND bomb, though. Why Nagasaki? And, if the point was to demonstrate the technology (and the power), why not blow away an uninhabited island?
The miracle is that they haven't been used since (possibly partly because the radiation impacts have become better understood--and, if you've read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," even a limited nuclear exchange would raise a dust cloud that would engulf the earth, and kill the earth).
On second thought, the Iranians did have reason to raise Hiroshima/Nagasaki--because they fear that they are next.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
