FTA: Conflict avoidance is not a strategy; it is institutionalized weakness.

* headdesk *

Ya see, THIS is why Spud can't take the Moonie Times seriously at all.

Be Well.

"Conflict avoidance is not a strategy; it is institutionalized weakness."

♫♫The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da♫♫

War Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.

FTFS&C

^_^

The idea that avoiding conflict wherever possible is A) Not a strategy and B) Not an effective strategy is looney tunes.

Somewhere off in the ether Sun Tzu is weep.

Be Well.

"Somewhere off in the ether Sun Tzu is weep."

Indeed.

FTA: Dore Gold, Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations, played the role of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu in the war game at Harvard. "The game made it clear to me that the U.S. is going from a policy designed to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons to an approach that accepts the possibility that it will have nuclear weapons and to deter it from using them," he observed. In fact, deterrence already is working, but America is the country being deterred.

Couple things here.

First, Dore fails to acknowledge the role Israel's undeclared nuclear stockpile has had on the region's race for the bomb.

Second, the unspoken assertion here is that Iran once armed with the bomb will shortly thereafter give a snuke to some terrorist organization who will use it on either the US or Israel. Spud points out that the same arguments were made when India and Pakistan got the bomb and so far they haven't done so.

Finally, in order to totally destroy Iran's nuclear capability one would need top use a series of nuclear tipped bunker buster type bombs in order to penetrate and destroy the multiple underground research facilities.

That way lies madness.

Starting an actual nuclear war in order to prevent a possible nuclear war is the very definition of insanity.

Be Well.

Second, the unspoken assertion here is that Iran once armed with the bomb will shortly thereafter give a snuke to some terrorist organization who will use it on either the US or Israel. Spud points out that the same arguments were made when India and Pakistan got the bomb and so far they haven't done so.

easy for a blogger to assert that from his cosy little closet.

it isn't that simple.

and you should know that.

easy for a blogger to assert that from his cosy little closet.

You think Spud blogs from inside a closet?

Sure you aint got Spud mixed up with Matt Drudge?

it isn't that simple.

and you should know that.

It's as simple as that and it's much more complicated than that.

Spud is dealing with the notoriously short attention spans here so the KISS principle is practically a given.

But do enlighten the rest of us with how complicated this question is, if you can.

Be Well.

You think Spud blogs from inside a closet?

I didn't mean that literally. Just that bloggers can insulate themselves from the real world at will.

But do enlighten the rest of us with how complicated this question is, if you can.

you are kidding right? What steps we take to keep Iran in check are extremely complicated.

what on earth qualifies you to say otherwise?

You are trying to simplify it to "well, since pakistan hasn't bombed anybody....why worry about Iran?"

Finally, in order to totally destroy Iran's nuclear capability one would need top use a series of nuclear tipped bunker buster type bombs in order to penetrate and destroy the multiple underground research facilities.

where did you cut and paste that from Spud? How in the hell would you know the first thing about any of that? seriously.

to be fair, there are some great discussions here and I will be the first to say that i have learned some things from many of you (including you spud).

But you are discussing "nuclear tipped bunker buster type bombs". you do realize that right?

what on earth qualifies you to say otherwise?

One doesn't need qualifications in order to express an opinion in blog-world. Pretty much just need an internet connection fer that.

where did you cut and paste that from Spud?

Didn't C&P that from anywhere. Spud is capable of writing his own stuff, ya now.

How in the hell would you know the first thing about any of that? seriously.

Um, cos Spud is a serious news-junkie who's been following this story for years.

to be fair, there are some great discussions here and I will be the first to say that i have learned some things from many of you (including you spud).

Back at ya, Eb. We may not agree on a lot of stuff but your posts are in the main on topic, on point, non-incendiary and coherent and Spud is appreciate this.

But you are discussing "nuclear tipped bunker buster type bombs". you do realize that right?

Yup.

Here's some C&P on that fer yas...

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.

Why is it the responsibility of the United States to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons???
I don't think anyone believes it will be good if Iran does but that still doesn't answer the question, why is it our responsiblity to deal with it??? Shouldn't we be more concerned about what happens in our own hemisphere?

Why is it the responsibility of the United States to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons???
I don't think anyone believes it will be good if Iran does but that still doesn't answer the question, why is it our responsiblity to deal with it??? Shouldn't we be more concerned about what happens in our own hemisphere?

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2010-03-12 12:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG

then let Israel take care of it, but don't turn around and bash them for it later.