![]() |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I have to say I'm neutral on this. On one hand, I think Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq was, although I believe they can still be deterred. They aren't under UN sanctions like Iraq was, they don't have weapon inspectors crawling up their butt, and they are much bigger on supporting terrorism than Saddam was. Throw on there that we're talking about a bombing campaign and blockade that is much easier than an invasion and an occupation and there are advantages. On the other hand, we have the Bush Administration, whose spectacular incompetence in both intel gathering and execution has left me to doubt whether Iran actually has a serious nuclear weapons program and whether bombing them will do any good. A good opinion piece on this subject was written by Charles Krauthammer where he lays out the disadvantages and advantages. Plus, there is the whole "make love, not war" argument. I don't know, I just don't know. But one thing I have learned from Iraq is, if we're not sure, we can't go. One more thing about Krauthammer is that he is a pretty reliable indicator of what the neo-cons in the White House are thinking. He is speaking of a bombing campaign as though it was inevitable. The fact that he is willing to make arguments against a campaign that he favors proves this. Based on this, I would be willing to take 2-1 or 3-1 that the bombs will fall within Bush's term. [/ QUOTE ] If they are going to fall, they will before the election. A rescue issue is needed. At least that's how I would play a wager. |
|
|