Tuesday, April 11, 2006

To nuke or not to nuke?? Apparently it's a question...

I saw some of this circulating yesterday, but I was too much in WTF mode to say anything productive and just vent disparagingly about the newest news update.

"one option still on the table is the use of tactical nuclear weapons to ensure
the destruction of well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities. "

This takes eye for an eye justice to new levels. Shit, they have nuclear facilities; how do we get rid of them? I know-- we'll use our nuclear missiles on them. This sounds so counter intuitive and utterly ridiculous, even for this government, that I have to take it with a little skepticism.

Too many people are coming out and saying that this isn't an option they are pursuing, for me to start adding this to my daily worries. Even if it was something they were considering, they aren't going to be dropping any nukes any time soon with about a million statements saying using them would be, ahem... "nuts" (oh Mr. Straw, you're such a tricky linguist).


"BLITZER: So your sources have concluded basically that the diplomatic
option as it's going forward is not necessarily going to work?
HERSH: That's the fear. The fear is that we're back to the pre-Iraqi invasion game when we went through the U.N. exercise. The fear is that the White House, there's
some people in the White House who aren't really, no matter what happens
diplomatically, they don't believe Iran's going to give up its ambitions."
Ironic that the word fear appears in every sentence of his answer? I think not. I think this a huge part of the problem. On top of the possible threat of nuclear weapons and the histaria that creates, we have the man who has been the front runner of these reports, adding more baggage to the claim. I feel like all he is saying is: In case you didn't get the message--be afraid. Not only is your government contemplating nukes but some of them want to use them.

Obviously I'm anti this administration. To an obscene degree. Even when I try to say to myself, hey it's not that bad; I find myself being proved wrong. But to say that there are people in the White House who want, and who will, use nuclear weapons on Iran regardless of what Iran does is ridiculous. Even the worst person in the administration, has the knowledge of what sort of public backlash using nukes would create, and they would not create this frivously. If for nothing else, nobody wants bad press, and this would be the epitome of that.

I really had a decent amount of respect for Seymour Hersh's writing and reporting abilities, but these types of answers bother me to no end. I don't think it is helpful at all to start making comparisons between past events and what is happening now, similarly to how I don't think it's cool that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being compared to Hitler (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/111736.asp). No two events are the same and when we start mixing the two different events we start changing what is happening presently. There can not be two Hitlers, and we cannot recreate the political environment pre-Iraqi invasion.

No comments: