Some of us knew this a year ago, or more. What a farce. Very foreign policy, indeed.
- Publius On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Pete Theisen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > The New York Times printed what? > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html?_r=1 > > "Tehran’s rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that > Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary > concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. > Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be > foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes > against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition > of nuclear weapons." > > "Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to > military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is > tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes > are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s > acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely > provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear > facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, > the better." > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://pete-theisen.com/ > http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
