Posted on 03/13/2006 9:22:01 AM PST by robowombat
The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006
ACCORDING TO A RECENT Gallup poll, most Americans now view Iran as our country's greatest national enemy. Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC News survey reports that 42 percent of Americans support a military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology. Online betting sites make the odds of a US or Israeli airstrike against Iran before March 2007 as 1 in 3.
As Senator John McCain has summed up the hard-line position, ''There is only one thing worse than the US exercising a military option, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
On the other hand, some commentators, even in the administration, now suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable. ''Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got the bomb," a ''senior official" told The New York Times, ''and they didn't have Iran's money or engineering expertise."
As citizens, we are watching a slow-mo Cuban missile crisis in which events are moving, seemingly inexorably, toward a crossroads at which President Bush will have to decide between McCain's options. Before we get there, however, Americans should vigorously debate the bottom-line question: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
"The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006"
Is there any indication that Iran has missiles that could reach here? That was the big thing about the Cuban crisis.. This is bad and disruptive but not the same.
That said, we have a better case for war with Iran than we had for Iraq.
"The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006"
Is there any indication that Iran has missiles that could reach here? That was the big thing about the Cuban crisis.. This is bad and disruptive but not the same.
That said, we have a better case for war with Iran than we had for Iraq.
If we can't, we'd better start mending fences with our Gulf allies pronto.
But if mending fences is anathema to to many folks here, then I recommend finding a way to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Yes. They can put a missile onto a ship and sail it off the American coast. And they're working on an ICBM that can reach the US from Iran.
Well, if Bush attacks Iran, the Boston Globe will be among the first to scream "Quagmire!"
And if Bush does nothing and the nukes begin to fly, the Boston globe will be among the first to scream "Bush's fault!"
After all, taking back congress and the White House for the Democrats is far more important than supporting our country's security and/or survival.
We do? I think we had a pretty good case with Iraq. They had WMD, they'd used WMD and they never accounted for what they had. Further, they spent many years locking their targeting radars on our aircraft and refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire. The case was pretty good in Iraq.
Yeah, a real rock-ribbed Republican that McCain.
At least he firmly grasps the obvious.
So, as Kos says, "Screw em'".
"Yes. They can put a missile onto a ship and sail it off the American coast. And they're working on an ICBM that can reach the US from Iran."
That is deadly serious but still not the same as being simulateoulsy able to obliterate all major U.S. cities.
A missle is certainly not necessary .....N.Y. can be leveled by a single privatly owned sailboat, entering the harbor from anywhere with muslim loonies at the helm and a nuke in the cabin.
Some reputable folks believe the TWA jet leaving JFK was downed by a missle launched from a boat with the launch mechisms cast overboard after the successful strike.
"A missle is certainly not necessary .....N.Y. can be leveled by a single privatly owned sailboat, entering the harbor from anywhere with muslim loonies at the helm and a nuke in the cabin."
That's a huge deal but not on the same scale as the Cuban missile crisis.
"We´re at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror;
it is a theater in the war on terror. And it´s essential we win this battle in the war on terror.
By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorists."
President George W Bush
I don't want to emphasize the Iraq part of that comparison - we are there now and we have to get a good outcome.
My point was that ever how strong one thinks the case for war with Iraq was, the case is stronger for Iran.
Within the twisted circular reasoning of a closed society, Iran might decide if Israel didn't exist there would be peace and prosperity in the ME. They are wrong in this assumption. Iran's problem is clinging to short sighted 14th century ideas that prop up corrupt Mullahs.
A good summary
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.