Robert Steiner

I like to ask a question with a question. Let us say we nuke Tehran, then what? I was fighting this "war" a hell of a lot earlier the 9-11 and in that time things have only escalated since we have turned it into a conventional war. Sure a nuke would be easy, but you can miss. Especially when you are fighting more the terrorists or another government. This isn't a straight you against me "war." This is about ideas and giving people freedom to choose their existence and not being forced into a fanatical cycle of hate. I am not against anything we are doing on the ground by any means, but it is not the only way we are going to end the war. Besides, in 10 years when we have reduced tensions in the middle east, what are we going to do about Africa? It will be our next stop in this "war." Should we nuke Africa too? One of the downfalls of nukes is the theory behind its use. Mutually Assured Destruction is the theory that no one will use nukes against us because we will use it against them and no one wins. It is a near guarantee that if we launch or drop a bomb, no matter who we say we are aiming at, we will be the next target.

Scalia's use of "historical narrative" concerns me. While I am relieved by the court's decision I don't think "historical narrative" should be a reason to be for something. Many crimes can be supported by historical narrative. History is how we learn why things are the way they are. We are supposed to learn from history not use it as justification.