Tuesday, January 17, 2006

VodkaPundit on Iran

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Stephen Green. Who apparently isn't getting much sleep what with the babies and the diapers and the spectre of total nuclear annihilation.

Conclusion:
We have practical options far short of outright invasion or using nuclear weapons of our own. We're also about 27 years late in pursuing any of them. It's high time we did.
Yes. Bush has the stones; the question is whether his administration has the will. They'd better; that's why we hired them.

1 comment:

flint cordoroy said...

We hired them because we were willing to suspend disbelief. Tax cuts for the rich? Sure, we can pay for that later.

Iran with Nukes is no worse than Pakistan, China, India, or Israel with nukes. Furthermore, a nuclear weapon going off by our enemies would probably be good for U.S. Moral. It would have Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, and much of the rest of the world screaming for us to get involved.

Which war do Americans feel the best about? The most heroic about? WWII. the one we stayed out of for as long as possible. To compare Iran and North Korea to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Imperialist Japan is ridiculous. At most they'll use one or two nukes on areas that aren't particularly important to us in the long term: We don't really need Israel, South Korea, Japan, or other middle eastern areas bordering Iran.

If anything, a nuclear bomb being used maliciously will enable new documentaries to be made, and a longlasting moral lesson about the evils of nuclear proliferation. We didn't quite document Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as it could have been.