The media is, of course, currently attempting to make George Bush look like a madman for considering his options in the case of a military strike against Iran. In light of their horror that Bush would even consider an attack, Roger Simon questions where diplomacy could possibly lead in the first place:
What would a "diplomatic solution" to the Iranian nuclear question actually look like? Just give me a few concrete sentences... Not easy, is it? Not for anything tangible anyway.
Even if we got the Iranians to sign something, what would it mean? Hardly any countries acknowledge their nuclear weapons programs while engaged in initiating them. The US didn't in 1944. The Soviets didn't. The UK and the French didn't. The Israelis didn't. The Pakistanis and the Indians didn't.
What they said they were doing and what they were doing were rarely the same thing. And we expect the Iranian Mullahs, of all people, to behave differently? In order to know, we'd have to have a watcher, or maybe three, on every street corner of their vast country.
And even then I'm not sure we'd know.
Remember, back in the days of the Manhattan Project, Enrico Fermi and his colleagues split the atom in some made-over squash court under the University of Chicago football stadium. Its worth reviewing those times while recalling that was the early 1940s, over sixty years ago!
There are really only two options;
1) Attack Iran
or
2) Live with the Iranian bomb.
Uh, or, is that die with the Iranian bomb?
10 comments:
A little something to look over from Global Security Newswire.
U.S. Tests Unarmed ICBM
The U.S. Air Force conducted a successful test of an unarmed ICBM on Friday, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 17).
The Minuteman 3 was fired at 6 a.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and hit a target 5,100 miles away, near Guam, 30 minutes later, said Maj. Todd Fleming.
The test was primarily aimed at showing that the missile remains accurate at long distances, AP reported.
Vandenberg tests approximately five Minuteman missiles per year, Fleming said (Associated Press/ABCNews.com, April 7).
Anum,
"Why do you not instead decided to live in peace?"
It has a little something to do with the Muslim way of defining "peace."
Get it?
Why do you not instead decided to live in peace? Amum.
Why doesn't the muslim polutation in Pakistan decide to live in peace?
Last time I checked US courts's don't santion gang rape of a young woman as punishment for her younger brother speaking to a woman considered above his class...
The Islamic definition of "peace" is Dar al-Islam. Cubed knows. Lots of us do. All the whitewash has bled through--literally in some cases.
The very words are twisted by the jihadipsychos.
Give me a day or two, and I'll post my article about how these maniacs twist the meanings of words. I've already got the article cued up for IBA and was waiting for the right moment. I've got the opening now.
I just love it when the enemy plays right into my hand. LOL. As Patorius says, "Sometimes you gotta love your enemy." :)
What do these have in common? No peeking, now.
1. A hurricane
2. A wild bear guarding its cub
3. A paranoid schizophrenic hearing voices commanding him to kill you.
4. Iran
===========
Not a one can one "reason" with. Not a one places any value on reason. This means, you cannot engage in diplomacy with any of the four, for really obvious reasons.
For Iran, all the chatter about diplomacy is chickenshitspeak for not having the temerity to see the obvious and do what's right. The diplomacy will finally end from the chickenshipsprachern when the nukes start going off in America, long after we could have prevented them.
The mullahs have to know that any attack using atomic weapons will result in a response so overwhelming that when it is over they will only speak Farsi in Hell.
I would rather make a desert and call it Peace than live in Dar al-Islam.
George Mason,
I didn't have to peek to get the answer.
AOW,
"The very words are twisted by the jihadipsychos."
Beautifully said, and SO very important.
It was Aristotle who cracked the code on definitions (and followed that up with the invention of the dictionary), and it is a skill that we MUST teach our children; it's a subdivision of philosophy, and it is necessary for us to know how to do it so we won't be shmoozed by the Word Twisters.
Far too often, we just accept the twisted versions without any thought whatsoever, and that way, the beep-beeps can pull the wool over our eyes far too easily.
Wraith, I completely agree. Time for that Google Fill In the Blank Contest. The only thing that troubles me is the plight of all of the women imprisoned (as well as the men) wrongly and those up for execution. I would rather save every one of them and scoop them up and lead them to safety, especially the poor teenaged girls. But this must be done.
Anum--We're the ones provoking here? Which voice in your head told you that one? Ahmadenijad is no Gandhi and he wants the Mahdi back. Let's just say that a good portion of us would just as soon see the Mahdi stay in hell where he belongs. And otherwise, just get lost, troll.
Post a Comment