Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: ausstu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Apr 2006 23:19:09 -0700
abracadabra wrote:
"J.C." <jccsplace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gCu%f.97341$ot5.40013@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"abracadabra" <abra@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ofu%f.6407$i41.2690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Leftists = traitors" <rander3127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144915655.891844.89420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's not enough to destroy their centerfuges in order to halt
production of enriched uranium.
The airstrike should be aimed at carpet bombing cities, army bases,
etc. After all, the goal
is not just to stop production, it's to dissuade them from EVER
starting production again.
You can't do that by just getting rid of the supply, you have to HURT
the people.
There are so many ways you're an idiot I don't have time to list them.
If the Iranians get nukes they will be just as responsible as we have
been with them - they have no desire to be bombed into blackened glass.
Is that a personal guarantee and would you also include North Korea in
that assertion?
The Iranians aren't crazy. They have been around for about 2500 years and
they aren't turning towards mass suicide now.
During the war with Iraq, the Ayatollah Khoemeni recruited young boys
to walk over Iraqi land mines promising them eternal heaven in return.
The current leader of Iran has said the holocaust never happened and
Israel should be wiped off the map. I think the religious leaders in
Iran are extremist nut cases.
If they get nukes they will
use them the same way everyone else uses them - to prevent aggression.
We can only hope so. Did it ever occurr to you that the greater the
number of countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is
that one of them will use them one day?
With
neighbors like Pakistan, Iraq and the USSR, can you blame them?
FFS - the Russian leadership boasted that they would bury the west, but in
the end not a single nuke was launched. At this time we have such an
advantage no nation would risk it's own destruction by attacking the USA
with nukes.
As for N. Korea - the cow is out of the barn and we can't do dink about it.
The N. Korean leadership seems mostly interested in keeping it's grip on
power (no matter what the cost to the country). The N. Koreans, for all they
spend on their military, have no hope of waging a war of aggression
successfully. If I liked to bet, I'd bet my money that N. Korea just stays
the way it is - a swaggering and threatening leadership while the N. Korean
people starve.
Oh - and since conservatives state that pre-emtpive war is justified if
you're being threatened, do conservatives think it's legal for Iran to nuke
the mainland USA at this point?
W Bush has already spent his political capital on Iraq and is probably
to weak to do anything in Iran which is probably trying to obtain
nuclear weapons which means they are more dangerous than Saddam Hussien.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: abracadabra
- Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- References:
- A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: Leftists = traitors
- Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: abracadabra
- Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: J.C.
- Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- From: abracadabra
- A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- Prev by Date: Re: If 2004 Election Held Today
- Next by Date: Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- Previous by thread: Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- Next by thread: Re: A surgical strike on Iran is not enough
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
