You know how people whom certain people don't like wind up having unfortunate accidents? You've heard the stories, I'm sure.
Well, I think that should be our approach to Iran. Every day, there are new articles in the newspaper about how Iran is quite clearly building nuclear weapons. At the same time, various countries are thinking about talking about doing something to think about suggesting doing something about Iran, like telling them they're being bad and/or other harsh actions.
Bear in mind that this is a country whose president has said Israel should be "wiped off the map." This is a country whose "moderates" don't necessarily want all Americans dead today (but maybe next week).
So I think it's time for a little "black op" to sneak some high-yield nuclear weapons into Iran. Maybe half a dozen or so 20-megaton weapons. Place them strategically and then set them off.
"What? How did that happen? Well, I guess they had nuclear weapons after all! And so many accidents all at once? Well, that's what they get for being bad!"
"What's that? Their entire infrastructure destroyed and nearly everyone dead? Such a shame. I'll send the B'nai B'rith or UJA a little donation in their memory, the poor crispy things."
Really, people, do we want to live in a world where the Iranians have the bomb?
6 comments:
So, after all, you are not so different from Mr Bush as you want us to believe.
That's a pretty insulting response, Martijn. I'm very different from him, but perhaps your European point of view is just as Bush would have me believe.
While my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there really is a need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. Years of half-measures have let them get to the brink of actually having the bomb. So now we have a country with a history of aggression and leadership with a professed desire to annihilate a neighbor in position to have nuclear weapons.
What would you, as a non-American, propose? That we keep telling them they're bad until they wake up one day and their shame drives them to abandon the nuclear program? Or should we just wait until there are mushroom clouds over Israel? Or some other nation?
It may not be palatable, but there really are times when force is needed. Maybe not my facetious suggestion, but yes, attacking Iran may wind up being the only smart move.
One last thing--don't ever compare me to George Bush. That's simply insulting and unwarranted, and you have to know that that's exactly how it would be received.
Martijn, that was completely inappropriate. Clearly Iran is a threat to international security, and not just that of one or two countries. Unlike Iraq, who Mr. Bush went after for personal reasons having little more to do with anything more than the fact that Hussein "threatened his daddy," Iran's possesion of deadly materials has been documented from many sources, not just Condoleezza Rice's and Donald Rumsfeld's sources.
Like Jess, I don't agree with most anything George Bush says. I didn't vote for him and I do not support most of the initiatives in his platform. He is a puppet president lacking the intelligence to run the office, so he relies on the (so-called) intelligence of his cabinet to run this country, which is scary for those of us who live here.
You make this statement as a cheap shot to raise Jess' ire when it actually veils your feelings on the issue: you have made it well-known at other times that it would be no loss to the world if Israel were wiped off the map. So, using your short-sighted, simple-minded view, you are not so different from Hamas, the PLO, or Iran, right? I dare say that such a simple-minded evaluation would place you in the same intellectual camp as Mr. Bush.
I never said it would be 'no loss for the world' when Israel would be wiped off the earth.
Putting those words in my mouth is simply propaganda and something I'm not accepting at all. period.
And as far as my first comment goes: what difference does it make if a Democrat or a Republican makes a call to nuke the bastards? The outcome is the same. The devestating result also.
And unarming Iran? I think not attacking Iraq would have been a very good start to keep the war-mongers out of the Iranian government. Under previous governments the work of the Atomic Agency has done a great deal of good. Keeping the dialogue alive no matter what is the only way to get some release of the tension in the end.
Stop getting hung up on the nuclear cracks. As I mentioned already, that was facetious.
However, force may be needed to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Would things have been better if Iraq hadn't been invaded? Probably, but that's not at all what's behind Iran's radical leaders. In fact, recent years have seen some moderation in Iran, so that argument doesn't hold water. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the dangers in Iran.
As for keeping the dialogue alive "no matter what," I can't disagree more. Dialogue is good to a point, and usually it is sufficient. However, there comes a time when world safety won't be protected by talk. Ask Neville Chamberlain. He had a deal with another radical leader. You may recall how that turned out. After Western Europe was under German control, should we have kept a dialogue going with Hitler until he realized the error of his ways and left voluntarily?
There are people in Iran working to make nuclear weapons, people who want a neighbor annihilated. Just talking will allow them the time to accomplish that goal. At some point, the talk has to be ended and action has to be taken.
What really bothers me is that this mess is a threat to the whole world, but poor little Israel is probably going to be left to deal with it while other countries feign horror at whatever they have to do. For example, in 1981, Iraq was doing what Iran is doing now. Israel flew an air strike that stopped that program,and other countries condemned Israel for it. If they hadn't done that, the UN forces in the first Gulf War might have been met with nuclear blasts. Or maybe there wouldn't have been a first Gulf War, since we'd all have been afraid of risking a nuclear attack. So Saddam Hussein could have kept Kuwait after his unprovoked invasion.
Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If you think talk alone is all we should do, that's a lovely view you have of the world, but it's unrealistic.
Accidents happen - whoops!
Post a Comment