To bomb or not to bomb

6 Comments / 6 Comments

1. Thanks for pulling the hoax post, Ted: You’ve made commenting simpler by removing the meaningless verbage, whatever it was, and stripping things down to the title:

   To bomb or not to bomb

   ANS: Bomb.

   By the way, the things David Chase wrote were correct, regardless of whatever article he was responding to.

2. i GOOGLED CERTAIN SENTENCES AND FOUND THEM IN OTHER ARTICLES NOT WRITTEN BY PIPES.

3. My last comment on this post is just that I’m very glad to hear it’s a hoax.

4. This does not sound like Daniel Pipes. Ted, what is your source for this article? Someone is playing you.

5. I want to make another point. The author seems to be justifying the proliferation of nuclear weapons starting with Iran based on some imagined need stemming from an imagined existential threat to Iran coming from, he said, Israel and Pakistan. Israel has no inherent interest in annihilating Iran for sure and should Pakistan be taken over by Iran hostile Shi’ite forces doesn’t mean there would be no deterrence. That Iran “needs” nukes is a very lame excuse for starting what would then be seen, based on the same logic, a justifiable nuclear arms race by other Middle East countries on the grounds that Iran had nukes. That’s a real good scenario.

6. Is this guy for real. I’ll make one point. Iran doesn’t need nukes for deterrence and the only deterrence against Iran is that they not have nuclear weapons. That’s a sure fire solution. Apparently, the author doesn’t believe that Iran believes that just shutting down the Gulf to oil traffic is enough otherwise this whole issue would be moot. I also would like to ask the writer “who is threatening Iran” Does Iran hear rhetoric coming out of other nations– especially Israel calling for its destruction. It’s not enough just to think that Iran thinks it needs deterrence. Once they possess the weapons, their rhetoric indicates that they could or might use it. How can the world accept that and how can the writer deny that contingency.