On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: > > > > Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would > > be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, > > and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really > > not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the > > control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is > > meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 > > doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away > > from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how > > emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) > > was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the > > diplomatic approach in Iran. > > I agree wholeheartedly.
Wow, the planets must have aligned or something. That never happens here ;) > > But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that > expects the diplomatic approach to actually work. > > So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work. I think its way too soon to tell if the diplomatic approach will work with Iran. There are still quite a few options open (some in the UN, some not). Just blindly assuming that they won't work is a convenient excuse to go to war, and certainly is easier for Bush. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
