| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sean C" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2007 05:49:00 PM |
| Object: |
Nuclear military option on the Republican table |
Nuclear military option on the Republican table
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=867722&contra
ssID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
The third Republican debate was still no more than a prelude to the
real show - the one including not just Thompson the governor, but also
Thompson the actor. Nevertheless, It provided for some interesting
moments related to issues of concern to this blog. My notes from the
second Democratic debate, earlier this week ("Mr. Baker, your services
no longer needed"), can be read here.
Iran
Rudi Giuliani questioned the strange declaration by Joe Biden in the
Democratic debate about the number of years before Iran has a useable
nuclear device ready. Biden said there's still a decade before Iran has
the lethal capability, Giuliani begged to differ.
Other than that, the tough rhetoric from the first Republican debate
repeated itself with even more zeal. The candidates, well, some of
them, are not just leaving the military option on the table - but
rather the tactical-nuclear option. Four of the ten candidates were
asked, all four said yes. Hunter, Gilmore, Giuliani, Romney will
consider using tactical nuclear weapons, or so they say. Republicans,
generally speaking and in theory only until proved otherwise, are ready
to talk to Iran but also ready to bomb it.
Israel 1
My beloved country was first mentioned less than ten minutes into the
debate. The Middle East, explained former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore
is an important region the US should take care of because of "our
interest in Israel, our interest in energy". What's that supposed to
mean? I don't exactly know (to be fair, here's the full quote: I think
the true business is this: The interests of the United States is in
creating as much stability as possible in the Middle East. There is a
very great danger to this country: our interests in Israel, our
interests in energy and in other ways. There is a giant danger of the
Middle East becoming an unstable place). Two minutes following Gilmore
it was Senator McCain mentioning Israel by way of explaining why the US
should not abandon Iraq. Five minutes later, it was Senator Brownback
reminding the viewers that Israel was the country threatened by Iran
(Ahmadinejad just this past week called for the destruction of Israel).
Bottom line: too much, too soon. As I already wrote, Israel gains
nothing by being mentioned constantly in this race."
Neither does the United States.
--Sean C
.
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear military option on the Republican table |
18 Jun 2007 05:01:34 PM |
|
|
In article <160620071849005547%
redhawk@burnspammersalive.com>, Sean C said...
Other than that, the tough rhetoric from the first Republican debate
repeated itself with even more zeal. The candidates, well, some of
them, are not just leaving the military option on the table - but
rather the tactical-nuclear option.
Great: America's slimiest politicians jostling
one another to see who can sound most like a war
criminal.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
