Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:06:47 -0500
In article <clund-53DBAC.10554917012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <znu-D309CE.17192916012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In article <clund-0ACDBD.10200916012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > In article <1h98492.x17k2s138llngN%ajbrehm@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > > ajbrehm@xxxxxxxxx (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > > Israel did that to Iraq in the 1980s. And it did not cause the region to
> > > > blow up.
> > > Did Iraq retaliate by firing missiles back at Israel and various US
> > > military bases in the Middle East back then? Iran can do that.
> > If Iran doesn't change course, bombing nuclear facilities, while not a
> > particularly good course of action, would seem to be superior to the
> > alternatives.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. Iraq was a pushover because it was a weakened
> country run by a hated dictator. Iran has 70(?) million people who
> aren't that unhappy with their lives - even though they are probably a
> bit fed up with the clergy.
>
> Any attacks from Israel (or the US) is likely to spark a surge of
> Iranian patriotism. The US will be facing 70 million angry Iranians
> instead of a few thousand Al Qaeda activists.
Mind you, I'm not saying this wouldn't get really messy. I'm just saying
it's probably better than letting the Iranians get nuclear weapons. If
there are enough nukes floating around in that area of the world,
someone is going to use them sooner or later. It's bad enough Pakistan
has them already. (It's probably a bad thing Israel has them as well,
though that's arguable; it's possible Israel would feel even less secure
if it didn't have a nuclear deterrent, and as a result would behave
*more* aggressively.)
> How do you think Israel will react if Tel Aviv gets hit by Chinese
> missiles from Iran (in retaliation for the Israeli bombing)? While
> they won't be carrying nukes, they'll still do a lot more damage than
> those stupid scuds Iraq sent over their borders.
Yes, but my impression is, Israel would be willing to risk it, rather
than let the Iranians get nukes. On account of the little fact that
they're target #1 if, though government instability or runaway
brinksmanship, somebody gets nuked.
> > Maybe Israel will do it again. They don't seem to mind taking the heat
> > for that sort of thing. (Of course, even if Israel does it, the US will
> > still get blamed. And vice versa.)
>
> As far as the ME is concerned, Israel and the US are joined at the hip.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: C Lund
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- References:
- OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: OldCSMAer
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: Ralph
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: C Lund
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: John C . Randolph
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: C Lund
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: Andrew J. Brehm
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: C Lund
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: ZnU
- Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- From: C Lund
- OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- Prev by Date: Re: Shock!
- Next by Date: Re: OMYGODITSFASTER
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|