Letters to the Editor
-
@NotOrbitBoy
Your sarcastic comment sounds like an argument against your reliance on MAD.
My sarcastic comment says that bombing Iran will make them want nukes more. I can't use any smaller words than that.
I don't trust the current leadership of Iran, and I don't trust their hold on power.
This is a content-free assertion. I don't trust Iran with nukes, I don't trust Israel with nukes, I don't trust India with nukes, I don't trust Russia with nukes, I don't trust Pakistan with nukes, and I don't trust America with nukes.
If you do, you are stupid.
Look at Pakistan, they have nukes, do you trust Musharraf to keep them secure?...do you think there's much chance of a coup there?...then what? It's not as simple as "Iran won't launch because it would kill them."
I don't trust America to be all that stable either.
We gonna invade ourselves? Your "trust" issues have nothing to do with nuclear strategy, and everything to do with uninformed generalizations about entire nations.
Why the hell should ANY of us trust e.g. Israel with nukes?
You ready to invade (another word for kill a lot of civilians) to disarm them?
Then why Iran?
Your candidate: I shouldn't presume who that is. I hope it's Nader. In any case, it is not George Bush (as you suggest), but Hillary Clinton who has spoken about obliterating Iran.
I did not suggest Bush. But Bush, McCain and Clinton have all made enthusiastic noises about killing Iranians.
The fact is: invading Iran will not stop them from getting nukes if they want them. It will cost a lot and get a lot of people killed.
Some folks are just fine with Arab deaths, though, if it makes them "feel" more comfortable.