Comments on: Dealing With Iran’s Nukes: Choosing From Bad Options

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:33:57 +0000

Not exactly a strategy aimed at winning hearts and minds.

Perhaps because he senses, as do I, that one arts and minds isn't the issue. The Intel were seeing is that something on the order of 90% of Iranians want the current "government" removed. We see reports of entire stadiums of people chanting "USA, USA," so it would appear that mind changing and hard changing is not the issue. The issue is the removal of the current thugs from positions of power. With that then, the only remaining question is if we will wait until they chuck a nuclear bomb at us, before we respond.

By: blog.matthewstinson.net

blog.matthewstinson.net — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:08:23 +0000

More commentary on Iran

In a long and sober post, James Joyner at Outside the Beltway summarizes and excerpts a number of blog posts and articles on Iran, none of which seem sanguine on the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Read ‘em all.

...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:20:15 +0000

M1EK: The reason it hurts the Europeans and Japanese more than the U.S. is that we have a whole lot more indigenous oil (the Southwest and Alaska, most notably) plus we get a lot of our imported oil from Latin America, especially Mexico.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:06:26 +0000

This presu,ption that cutting off Iranian oil would hurt the Europeans more than us seems just stupid to me. The Europeans tax petroleum (and other oil products) so heavily that the relative rise in price for the end-use will be far less than it will be here in the U.S. (China, on the other hand, will be hurt at least as badly as the US by such a rise in oil prices, I think).

By: G A PHILLIPS

G A PHILLIPS — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:36:59 +0000

Let me just give a thought on the last option; The last time that we faced an enemy that thought murder and suicide would take them to heaven we had to nuke them to get them to stop what they where doing. So I say "no" to threats or reasoning. But then I do not think you're going to have to ponder this question much longer. I think that Israel is going to answer it for all of us pretty soon. Sorry, I think that was like four thoughts.

By: Herb

Herb — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:54:28 +0000

As I read this post, I can't help to wonder just what is the right thing to do with Iran. We have just read, in this piece, and we see several theories and ideas. We see all sorts of so called experts providing their "correct" ideas of what we should do. We also see all sorts of so called experts on TV news channels doing the same thing. I think what this all boils down to is that all these "experts" just confuse the issue. The "correct" action depends on you political view is and what way you lean in the US political spectrum, ie; Democrat or Republican. The only thing I really know is that we, are the most generous and powerful nation in the world and have been taking it from Iran for 25 years and I think enough is enough. If we do anything, there will always be someone who will condemn our actions, but, what the hell, they usually condemn everything we do anyway. With Iran rattling the sabres with their "tough talk", threats, and history of supporting terrorists activity that has killed thousands of innocents, something has to be done and quickly before its to late. Prior to WW11, we seen the same thing with the Nazis and Hitler and look what that got the entire world. Lets just Nuke their vital industries and let it go at that. I really don't care what the rest of the worlds nations think or anyone else for that matter.