Thursday, December 24, 2009

Here we go again

From Think Progress, last week:
Kristol: Obama’s Nobel Speech ‘Lays The Predicate For The Legitimate Use Of Force’ Against Iran
From ThinkProgress, yesterday:
Bolton: Strike On Iran Is No Problem As Long As It’s Accompanied By A ‘Campaign Of Public Diplomacy’
From NYT Op-Ed today:
There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran
... Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work.
But history suggests that military strikes could work.
The war-drums are beating.

With every opinion piece advocating military action against Iran, the idea becomes less abhorrent, more palatable.

What is it about the Right that makes 'em cherish war?

Mutual belligerence hasn't been working all that well, and the Right's continuing threats against Iran provide a very convenient justification to Iran for its own continued belligerence.
Maybe it's time to try something different.

I note that Kuperman's op-ed presents a nice example of a false dichotomy, as if 'acquiescence' or military action were the only two alternatives... and the use of the word 'acquiescence' is loaded with wimpy connotations! - sort of like 'appeasement'.
How 'bout an alternative along the lines of 'ignore Iran'... provide the Iranian regime with no plausible justification for belligerence towards the West. We neither offer carrots nor threaten sticks.

The war-mongers must be silenced now!

No comments:

Post a Comment