host

Individuals also can't help but embracing revolutionary politics because they have to live in the world.

Nelson Mandela went from 25 years in an island prison, to heading his suddenly "unoutlawed" political party, to Nobel peace prize winner, to president of his country, in less than four years.

He experienced political justice. His experiences thrust him and Bishop Tutu into circumstances and a mindset that could establish and conduct "Truth Commission" hearings where fact finding and admissions of culpability were enough to counter the urge to punish....an extraordinary display of grace and humanity which our more "advanced" society, holds little hope, or even an ambition, to ever emulate.

Who are the "prisoners of conscience", the true "poltical martyrs"? Are they the ones who risk the most because of a political stance they've taken? Was Corliss Lamont, for example, an example of a political martyr....giving up certain success in the corridors of fiance and power, as the son of JP Morgan chairman, Thomas Lamont, in favor of promoting a marxist political agenda in the US in the 1930's? Or, is Cindy Sheehan a political martyr, giving up nothing but here anonymity to wage a one woman protest against a US "war president", in the name of her son, killed in that war?

Can neo-conservative politics, even serve up "prisoners of conscience"?

Where would US foreign relations be today, if President Carter had rejected demands to invoke a military response to the Iranian revolutionary occupation and hostage taking of the US embassy and 52 Americans in Tehran in 1978?

Does a "military option", at the disposal of a country with an investment in the military, like the size of the one the US has, eliminate even the need to consider political justice or accountability? Carter had the choice of responding to the Iranians by apologizing for the US role in the 1953 coup in Iran, the manipulation of oil prices Iran received for its exports, the installation of the Shah's monarchy and the training and organizing of the repressive Savak...the secret police enforcement arm of the Shah's regime, or to respond militarily after he permitted the exiled Shah to come to the US to reside and receive medical treatment, and made any chance for US diplomatic concession contingent upon the release of the 52 hostages?

We know what Carter chose, and we know where we are today.

If this thread can be a "process" with a goal of finding out how "each other tick", with no argumentative intent, I'm asking how you do it. I'm bestowed with a requirement for political justice, as an indispensable component of decisions I take, and of those my government takes. I want to identify rationalizations, and avoid them, as an "easy way" out.

Do you think about them, in considering formation of political opinions, or, compared to what I "go through" ever since I can remember being politically aware, is it more like being on vacation, the way that it works for you?

Does the US, for example, because of it's military strength, ever have to pay for the "sins of our fathers", in Iran? Can we simply compel the Iranians to overlook the 1953 coup, the Shah, Savak, etc., is the only example that is paramount for us, is that we do not negotiate with those who use violent means to get our attention, even though we do....(see the Contra hearings in 1987....)

Is it possible to embrace US military spending, and the history of US overt and covert foreign policy, and be "alright with it", and yet assert that a component of your politics is consideration of what is just, and what isn't?

Do folks who disagree with me, go through any similar process to determine their political opinions, as I do? Is the US obligated to "bend over backwards" in pursuing "just political responses", by virtue of it's past policies and actions, and it's current mega overwhelming military superiority, or does it get to act "like anybody else", without trying harder than anyone else to set a high standard in it's diplomacy?

....or, do I seem like I'm from another planet?