a) Irans government is not accountable to Iranians,
Let me get this straight: Weren't the Americans pretty happy with the election of the present leader of state in Iran until he turned out to anti-American??
b) Iran's government is a theocracy,
Even more so than the American administration, yes.
c) Iran's government supports known terrorist groups,
America's
doesn't? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0512/dailyUpdate.html
d) Iran's government rejects the entire world and begins uranium enrichment,
America's government wants to control the whole world and it has the weapon's that enables it to do so.
e)Iran's leader calls the holocaust a myth
Now that
is stupid ... and a perfectly good reason to bomb 'em, apparently! Creating images of the enemy appears to be a universal requirement when preparing for war ...
and states repeatedly that Israel's destruction is close at hand.
Unlike America's leaders who have repeatedly destroyed and ruined countries and populations, but happen to like Israel, their controlling force in the Middle East. And unlike America's leaders who would never state repeatedly that Syria's and Iran's destruction is close at hand.
It's doesn't take a "
rocket surgeon"
to see where this is headed.
Indeed, it doesn't: Hurrah, the USA is going to war!
Usually humans follow the path of least resistance so I suspect appeasement is where this will lead...that is until it is too late - see: "the annexation of the Czech-Sudenland" as a lesson in appeasement.
Czech Sudetenland was occupied by Hitler's troops on the pretext that they did not treat the German-speaking population right. Many German-speaking Czechs happened to be Jewish (like Kafka's relatives, for instance, who didn't survive it) and therefore didn't welcome the annexation. A lot of Czech-speaking Czechs weren't too happy either. And even a lot of German-speaking 'Aryan' Czechs weren't too fond of the German occupation if they didn't happen to be Nazis ...
None of them had any powerful allies, however. No other European (or American) nation considered them or their territory to be of much interest, so in the view of the world the annexation wasn't very interesting. In hindsight, however, when you imagine the existence of a concerned but too lenient world looking on in dismay, it turns into a case of too much appeasement.
The same way anybody who doesn't want to go to war with Iran is looked upon as naïve and gullible, unlike the realistic guys who buy everything their government tells them about the next enemy whose image is being prepared for attack right now.
(Is there any comparison in WW2 for that attitude?)
