See my other post, we don't need overcome them militarily. They have to fight us and their own population. They can't do it.
Do you seriously think there is any chance Iran is telling the truth? The odds are zero and zero. They must have the bomb, they see it as the only way to preserve their crumbling internal power structure and stave off regime change. We have been down the road of supervision, it doesn't work. I heard from an Indian diplomat in DC that the day after India tested a nuke, the entire Indian diplomatic staff in DC got called to the State Department and the big cheeses just sat them in a room and stared at them in stony silence for twenty minutes. After that day, relations with India basically went to zero for two years, and only recently have they started to warm up again. At least India is a democracy. As for Pakistan, we have just faced the reality that they have the bomb. But they are not so stable, and because of that, the US military has plans in place to stage commando raids on their nuclear weapons facilities if there is a coup by fundamentalists. On Dubai, I realize a huge majority opposes the deal, but Dubai is home to the largest presence of US military ships in the world. They are our friends. I respect Michael's disagreement with the policy on the grounds of their support for the Israeli boycott, but for most of the US population, this just seems like a knee-jerk reaction that has no basis in sound thinking. And come on, the Bushes don't have anything riding on the Dubai deal, that's just Oliver Stone-esque paranoia. On 3/11/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks to previous indulgence in testosterone on the part of our fearless > leader, we cannot begin to hope to overcome Iran militarily, though. > > I believe their version is that they are working on nuclear power, not > weapons, correct? The only solution I see is very heavy UN supervision. If > they are telling the truth this should be acceptable. If they are not this > becomes more clear as they object. > > Speaking of which, I was quite taken aback at Bush's recent actions in > India and Pakistan. Since nobody commented here, I suppose everyone agree > with this, but here we have a foreign leader who has put himself in some > jeopardy to support the US, and not only is he told not to develop weapons, > his historic enemy is told that they *can.* Now, I grant you that Pakistan > is not the most stable place, but in a context of "we must allow Arab > governments to run our ports because to do otherwise is discrimination" this > does not seem to make much sense. My best guess is that the Bushes had > something riding on the Dubai deal. > > What would I have done otherwise? Well, I am not particularly a student of > the region or of foreign policy, but it would seem to me good policy to > avoid kicking our supporters in the face... and if the region is really all > that unstable, perhaps India shouldn't have nuclear weapons either. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199642 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
