No good solution
CJAD 800 : News
There's a crazy man running Iran. There's a crazy man running the United States. It feels like the Cold War all over again...but Iran doesn't (yet) have nukes.
Five-sevenths of the U.N. Security Council are willing (if not wanting) to levy sanctions against Iran if President Ahmejad...amjedab... President A doesn't start cooperating with the international community. The dissenters in the U.N. are China (for obvious reasons--they've locked in purchases of oil from Iran) and Russia (long-time ally). But all seven members of the Security Council are in agreement that Iran must not have nukes.
Okay...so no sanctions. Like that would help. Gas here in northern Maine has gone up ten cents...IN ONE DAY! The day before it was 6 cents, and the day before that another 3. Sanctions will bring the day of the $5 gallon of gas. Mark my words. That, and there's no way we could put sanctions on Iran anyway, not without Russia and China.
Invade? Yeah, there's a real genius idea. $7 per gallon of gas PLUS thousands (if not millions) of lives. And an even better reputation for the US in the Middle East. Not a good idea.
Let the baby have its nuclear bottle? Even stupider idea, considering all the bellicose ramblings of Iran's president. Wouldn't surprise me to see him giggle with glee when a nuclear bomb goes off--delivered by al-Qaeda Express--in New York City. Built, by the way, by Iran. There would be no stand-off like there was between the United States and the Soviet Union...both sides of the Cold War understood the consequences of mutually-assured destruction. The news can attest to the fact that a sizable number of Muslims (Iran is a Muslim country, in case you didn't know) could care less about the value of human life. If killing a person (or millions of people) is done in the name of Allah, then the person will be heralded as a true saint in heaven. This doesn't include ALL Muslims, or even most Muslims...but even just a couple hundred given a nuke by their old friend Ahmadinejad is enough to fuck the whole world over.
I hate to say it, but if it comes down to the wire, invasion may be the US's only option...if we can't get sanctions through (if that were to ever help).
What other options are there? Russia and China are against sanctions...everybody (except maybe the French and the US) are against invasion...what's the third option? Why doesn't China and/or Russia offer option #3?
Actually, Russia DID offer an option that Iran rejected--enriching uranium on Russian soil, under Russian observation. Now, riddle me this: if Iran isn't going to trust it's long-time ally to help them with their supposedly peaceful nuclear program, what should that tell the rest of us?
President Bush is up against a wall. His Iraq boondoggle has ruined his credibility; so a potentially necessary invasion of Iran would be a hard sell at best.
But, in the end, that may be what we'll have to do.
There's a crazy man running Iran. There's a crazy man running the United States. It feels like the Cold War all over again...but Iran doesn't (yet) have nukes.
Five-sevenths of the U.N. Security Council are willing (if not wanting) to levy sanctions against Iran if President Ahmejad...amjedab... President A doesn't start cooperating with the international community. The dissenters in the U.N. are China (for obvious reasons--they've locked in purchases of oil from Iran) and Russia (long-time ally). But all seven members of the Security Council are in agreement that Iran must not have nukes.
Okay...so no sanctions. Like that would help. Gas here in northern Maine has gone up ten cents...IN ONE DAY! The day before it was 6 cents, and the day before that another 3. Sanctions will bring the day of the $5 gallon of gas. Mark my words. That, and there's no way we could put sanctions on Iran anyway, not without Russia and China.
Invade? Yeah, there's a real genius idea. $7 per gallon of gas PLUS thousands (if not millions) of lives. And an even better reputation for the US in the Middle East. Not a good idea.
Let the baby have its nuclear bottle? Even stupider idea, considering all the bellicose ramblings of Iran's president. Wouldn't surprise me to see him giggle with glee when a nuclear bomb goes off--delivered by al-Qaeda Express--in New York City. Built, by the way, by Iran. There would be no stand-off like there was between the United States and the Soviet Union...both sides of the Cold War understood the consequences of mutually-assured destruction. The news can attest to the fact that a sizable number of Muslims (Iran is a Muslim country, in case you didn't know) could care less about the value of human life. If killing a person (or millions of people) is done in the name of Allah, then the person will be heralded as a true saint in heaven. This doesn't include ALL Muslims, or even most Muslims...but even just a couple hundred given a nuke by their old friend Ahmadinejad is enough to fuck the whole world over.
I hate to say it, but if it comes down to the wire, invasion may be the US's only option...if we can't get sanctions through (if that were to ever help).
What other options are there? Russia and China are against sanctions...everybody (except maybe the French and the US) are against invasion...what's the third option? Why doesn't China and/or Russia offer option #3?
Actually, Russia DID offer an option that Iran rejected--enriching uranium on Russian soil, under Russian observation. Now, riddle me this: if Iran isn't going to trust it's long-time ally to help them with their supposedly peaceful nuclear program, what should that tell the rest of us?
President Bush is up against a wall. His Iraq boondoggle has ruined his credibility; so a potentially necessary invasion of Iran would be a hard sell at best.
But, in the end, that may be what we'll have to do.
posted by xanadian at 2:09 PM
1 Comments:
"Five-sevenths of the U.N. Security Council ..."
I cannot do my math (or something). It's "three-fifths," not "five-sevenths." Duhhh...
Post a Comment
<< Home