"... Mullen's formulation of geostrategic equivalance ignores a massive difference between the two outcomes: Even assuming the degree and kind of "destabilization" would be the same in both the cases of attack and appeasement (which I don't think would be so), one scenario--attack--leaves Iran without nuclear weapons, at least for now; the other--appeasement--means Iran would have nuclear weapons going forward. Which unstable outcome is less damaging to U.S. interests? I think the answer is pretty clear: An attacked Iran that does not have nukes...."
"'America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way'" Benjamin Netanyahu
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Neoconneries: "Mullen is wrong!"
Kristol in the WeeklyStandard/ here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment