Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Florya
This from the BBC interview with Hersh:
"Hersh himself downplayed the prospect. In an interview with the BBC, he said the Pentagon had told the Bush administration initially that a nuclear attack was the only way of guaranteeing success: "Nobody was advocating it, they were just saying a 100% guarantee. Where it becomes interesting, the joint chiefs, in one of its subsequent papers, wanted to withdraw that option because of course it's madness, a nuclear weapon in the Middle East to an Arab [sic] Muslim country, my God. And the White House won't withdraw. "
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wo...st/4895212.stm
Where is the logic in threatening a country with nuclear strikes if you are trying to encourage that country to step back from building its own nuclear deterrent? |
I think it's wrong and certainly won't win any friends this way around the world.
It's exactly how we handled N. Korea and Iran isn't even close to the power that N. Korea is. The logic is this: Iran knows it cannot defend itself if the US attacked. So, if they don't want to be attacked, they should abide by the UN rules.
Like I said, nothing's going to happen. Iran KNOWS they can't defend themselves in a war with the US. It's just Iran's way of getting the world to take notice of sanctions put on them that is killing their country.