May 28, 2005
Going Nuclear?
Iran is going nuclear when everyone knows it shouldn't.
The Republicans aren't going nuclear when any right thinking person knows they should.
Any questions?
Posted by GM Roper at May 28, 2005 09:14 AM | TrackBackNot that I’ve lost focus of the point of your post, GM . . . but does it appear to anyone else that we are entering Cold War II? The adversaries, as I see it, are the USA, Britain and one or two other freedom loving EU nations, standing in opposition to China, N. Korea, and Iran; perhaps also Pakistan, depending on the personality or political ambition of the next non-elected president. CW The Sequel stands to be even more dangerous because, while the USSR was mostly governed by rational men, we cannot say that about three of the four new “enemies.â€ÂÂ
Given the imbecilic mindset of the Iranians, I suspect they would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in the cause of Jihad; I believe that China would use them as a retaliatory measure on behalf of Korea.
In many ways, the world is a much more dangerous place than it was during the Soviet era. What say you?
Posted by Mustang at May 28, 2005 12:38 PM
Iran? Finance and supply "insurgents"--there's certainly an adequate supply of the disaffected in Iran... But for heven's sake, keep such work out of the hands of the incompetents over at the CIA. *sigh* Give the job to some Rangers and sit back for the ride.
heh
Republicans? It's just The Stupid Party extending its record. Oh, and maybe it has something to do with no principled stance among Republican senators. As a rule, they seem eager to tag along like puppy dogs whenever they can identify a lead dog... and there apparently are no conservative lead dogs in the Seante.
R.L. Dabney's comment about a "...conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth" would seem to be applicable to Senate Republicans.
Posted by David at May 28, 2005 01:42 PM
Not too worried about Chinese, for the moment. They're pretty much dependant on trade for economic viability, to the extent that they will do all to keep N. Korea in line.
Iran is a much thornier issue. The very survival of the whacko mullahs in power depends on total repression of their populace...and by rallying nationalism by rattling swords with outside forces (namely, us).
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 28, 2005 03:54 PM
