Chuck Grimes wrote: >> ...it's apparent to me that no amount of verification, inspection, and >> documentation could satisfy the US requirement of `reassurance' that Iran's >> nuclear programs are devoted to `peaceful' use. There is something about >> proving a negative state that goes here... How can you prove you are not >> doing something, that you are no doing? >> >> So why are we constantly abused by this endless and contradictory blather >> over Iran's nuclear programs?
Marv Gandall wrote: > I'd say it's because the US does not want to engage in another reckless and > futile adventure which it can neither afford economically, militarily, or > politically, and is looking for a pretext for not doing so while not sounding > like it is not doing so.< there's also the matter of a conflict of goals between satisfying a major ally with a lot of political clout inside the U.S. (Likudnik Israel) and attaining other goals in the world (maintaining some legitimacy in the Islamic world, etc., etc.) -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
