"We Must Bomb Iran" - Joshua Muravchik at the AEI
I can add nothing to this article, as it speaks my mind exactly, therefore I'll simply bring it to your attention.
Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.
By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
November 19, 2006
WE MUST bomb Iran.
It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.
First, we agreed to our allies' requests that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned. Then, Britain, France and Germany wanted to impose a batch of extremely weak sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to be involved in nuclear activities would have been barred from foreign travel — except for humanitarian or religious reasons — and outside countries would have been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian nuclear projects.
Read the entire article here.....
posted by HinzSight Team
at 6:06 AM
4 Comments:
Do you know any Persians or Iranians? My god. I don't think you realize what you're saying.
Nowhere in the article did it even mention "targeting only facilities." You just want to "bomb Iran." Unbelieveable. And crazy.
A cold war is better than a hot war any day. Or are you too young to know that?
mudkitty,
You’re completely wrong here, from the article linked in the OP:
"The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.
News flash: there can not be a cold war as you put it or mutual deturrant scenario with a regime who want to bring about "the end times" and view death as martyrdom.
Crazy is your incredibly naive understanding of the situation!
Yes I do know some Iranians. Mudkitty, those are not my words, but those of a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, as Steve pointed out.
A cold war is better than a hot war any day. Or are you too young to know that?
At 59 years old, I have seen both types of war and participated in both as well, and as any sane being I wish there were neither.
Realistically, there will ALWAYS be a war somewhere. As a major power in the world, we are more likely to get involved then not.
If left unchecked, Ahmadinejad would plunge the entire world into chaos in the name of religion. While bombing isn't a popular answer, it may be the only correct one, IMHO.
Nobody said to leave crazy Ami unchecked. But there's a difference between bombing Iraq and keeping a nutbag in check. He's no Hitler. Hitler had the worlds most efficient army (at the time) marching across Europe.
And Seth, you refer to the article linked. But what we're talking about is the op-ed itself. Don't play haley's comet.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home