"The International Atomic Energy Agency has indicated its board of governors will ask Iran to rescind its decision to resume its uranium enrichment program." And I'm sure they will. Those Iranians are always doing what they're asked, as long as they're asked nicely. Just like Saddam. Such a nice young man, pity about that whole US invasion thing. He really did have a good heart, he was just misunderstood. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about in Iran, they're very reasonable people there -- why would they want enriched uranium anyway? Its not like they have state sponsored suicide bombing camps and a desire to kill Jews and/or Americans or anything like that. Right?
Alright, enough with the old lady routine. The real question here is how long before someone does something real. The so called 'EU-3' -- France, Britain, and Germany -- did some with their incentives offers. Russia has always been counter productive in this regard, helping Iran further their ambitions. The US is being hounded by the UN and others to 'stay calm'. And the IAEA is trying what no one else thought worth trying -- asking nicely. So... how many days is Iran going to be allowed to continue with uranium enrichment before someone does something that will actually stop them? How long is it going to take for the UN to set a deadline, extend the deadline, pass a resolution saying that military force will be used if the deadline isn't met, ask everyone not to actually use military force after the missed deadline, pass sanctions, make a new deadline, and then give Iran money for oil? Because that's pretty much the scenario I see playing out if everyone waits for the UN. So then the question becomes, how many nuclear weapons can Iran make in the time it takes the UN to do all that? A more important question is how likely is it that a suicide bomber will nuke the UN (not their building in the US, but in Switzerland or Austria or some other country "urging restraint" and hindering progress) rather than the US or Israel? Because if its pretty likely then I say we let the UN take their time and see what inaction really reaps. However, the reality is that the US or Israel will be the prime target, so we have to do something before they hit us. So the final question is, how long do we have to wait until we can bomb Iran's facility without the world branding us warmongers and can we afford to wait that long? I'm afraid the answers are 'too long' and 'no way,' respectively.
In other news, Venezuela is holding a socialist youth camp attracting 15,000 youths from around the world. They have collectively decried the US as the worst evil Imperialist empire ever. Furthermore, the Venezuelan president has assured the world that if the US ever invades his country he will make us "bite the dust." I took a poll of all Americans and collectively we're pretty scared.*
*To poll all Americans I asked myself the question. Since I consider my views to be fairly universal I figured I could then extrapolate that they must be the same for all Americans. From what I understand this is pretty typical polling procedure with good scientific backing. I give myself a margin of error of +/- 3, since I'm just making numbers up randomly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Nice work with the polling- but was that the actual tallied results or just the projections from the exit poll?
So here is what I don’t get: why are our panties all in a bunch over Iran? The best estimates we have indicate that Iran is 10 YEARS from having sufficient quantities of fissile material to build a bomb (say nothing of a delivery device). Meanwhile, North Korea is led by a complete psychopath
and, in all probability, ALREADY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DELIVERY DEVICES!!! Plus, North Korea is way more strapped for cash that Iran, upping the likelihood that they would be willing to sell a device to a terrorist. So, why is the Texan blabbering about Iran all the time and not doing a damn thing about DPRK?
Your point is well taken. However, there are some legitimate differences. For one, we are involved with talks with NK with other countries -- something Iran won't do. Also, we can't attack NK without China getting involved, sparking WWIII. NK already has the bomb, so its too late to stop them from developing it, we have to contain them instead. And Bush did include them in the Axis of Evil way back when. Finally, Iran is involved in state-sponsored suicide efforts against the West, NK is not. Iran does not need to develop a delivery vehicle, they have hundreds of thousands waiting for warheads. Iran is at the point politically and develpomentally where we have the power to stop them from ever becoming a nuclear power. NK is past that point and untouchable because of politics, unless war with China -- aka MAD, since they've already claimed to have many nukes aimed at the US at all times -- sounds like a good idea.
One reason might be that retaliating against North Korea is significantly easier than against the Middle East- making that psychopath a little more hesitant against using said warhead. If you don't believe that- I'm all ears for a reasonable course of action from the United States against Iran after use of a nuke, one that won't irrepairably harm our standing in the Muslim world.
Plus, Iran (ten years from now you say) will most surely use that nuclear capibility to destroy Israel- whereas KimJong has less of a deployment agenda and more of a "I'm Crazy! Somebody in the Global Community pay attention to me!" complex. I believe that Kim John is using is nuclear capibility as a bargaining chip to gain more power/prestige/concessions from the rest of the world, whereas Iran's agenda is much simpler... and scary.
I'm much more worried about NK than Iran.
I am with redhurt: I think the rest of you are forgetting one unbelievably scary thing: Kim is totally insane! He is also poor, power-hungry, militant, self-deified, and paranoid.
I'm not saying that NK is not more of an immeadiate threat. But what can we do about NK? Try to talk them out of it. We can't attack them because it will get China involved and we don't want that. I'm sure the US has plans for what we'll do if they attack, we just don't have idiots like Tancredo broadcasting them to the world because every rational person knows that they could set Kim off.
Iran, on the other hand, we can stop from every getting to be as great a threat -- or greater -- than NK. We can use diplomacy (though I doubt it will work) and military force, once the world is satisfied that they're not giving up. I think that both threats are being addressed, by the US, anyway, the best way that they can be. For now.
Post a Comment