2007-10-01 03:56:06 · 20 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece
2007-10-01 03:56:26 · update #1
Just roving...
2007-10-01 03:57:18 · update #2
Just another neocon who thinks the answer to our problems is to blow up everybody who doesn't like us and - most importantly who is any easy mark. (he never talks about attacking Russia or China....)
The fact is that sooner or later some Muslim country is going to buy or produce a nuclear weapon. The fact also is that the doctrinee of MAD (mutually assured destruction) served us well throughout the cold war and still serves us well. The same doctrin will protect Israel from a nuclear strike from which ever Muslim country ends up with nuclear capabilities. If Iran were to become a nuclear power and then also be dumb enough to lunch a strike at Israel the end result would be that Iran (and probably a good part of it's neighbors) would cease to exist.
2007-10-01 04:15:37 · answer #1 · answered by spay&neuter-all-republicans 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Trouble Maker makes an excellent point. In the aftermath of this war, will we realize just how badly we have damaged ourselves?
As to Penelope and the others who see nothing wrong with immolating the population of Iran--Jesus would no doubt be proud. We are the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another. We snuffed out some 200,000 japanese civilians. If Allah did not want us to erase 65 million persians, couldn't She prevent it?
If it is right and just and holy that we should scatter the ashes of the persians into the an ionized gas in earth's upper atmosphere, Allah will see fit to intervene if that is not so. Imagine Iranian schools, mosques, orphanages, hospitals--all slightly radioactive slag. I feel my spirit swell with divine righteousness at the thought.
Time to dust off some of those thermonuclear peace keepers we got sitting around and demonstrate to the rest of the world they still work just fine.
God bless America!
2007-10-01 04:47:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
mate he for sure basically had to grant you the D hes from holland what do you anticipate... you will desire to variety your head out and understand this or you would be screwed for something of your existence hes for sure basically maximum appropriate you on and your basically giving out... the longer this includes on the worst you will get after which you would be come a hoe as a results of fact of rebound finally end up with 5+ youngsters and existence would be ****** all as a results of fact of a few **** in holland you get me?
2016-10-10 02:39:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only two kinds of people stick in the word 'zionist' the way you have: idiots and bigots.
You are clearly both.
2007-10-01 04:26:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think he's more concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime than he is about having a "mess" in the middle east. Wasn't the middle east a "mess" 30 years ago before Camp David? Won't it likely be a "mess" 30 years from now? Does bombing Iran make it more of a mess? If so, how? I'm not necessarily sure that it's the right answer, but I don't want a nuclear-armed Iran, either.
My thoughts,
Dana
2007-10-01 04:00:23 · answer #5 · answered by Dana A 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
I would like to see us take the fight right into Iran. Iran has been a problem in the Middle East for quite some time. Now with Iran becoming nuclear, we need to stop this as soon as we can. There are already battle ready troops next door in Iraq. We have everything we need to put a stop to Iran.
2007-10-01 04:05:33 · answer #6 · answered by mustagme 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
This is what happens when a cognitively-disabled man leads a superpower. A really good Moderate blog is http://rlo62.wordpress.com
2007-10-01 05:59:05 · answer #7 · answered by Robert O 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
And you felt the need to put 'zionist' why, exactly?
You repeatedly bash Israel and Jewish people. I'm really fed up with you.
2007-10-01 04:34:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He said it this way, “I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.”
So my take on your question is that you would allow the extremist in Iran to acquiring the bomb..... Now that can not be good, can it? You might want to agree with that particular Neocon....
2007-10-01 04:03:25 · answer #9 · answered by libsticker 7 · 6⤊ 4⤋
What really gets me is how people like Podhoretz seem to think that the US is undefeatable or indestructible. Vietnam should have taught us that we're not undefeatable and Rome should have taught us that even the greatest empires eventually have their fall.
2007-10-01 04:01:43 · answer #10 · answered by tangerine 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋