"Herald Tribune's," Thomas L.
Friedman: "...
on a Nuclear Iran" [International Version April 20 2006] This article is refereeing to Thomas L.
Friedman's recent article in the Herald Tribune, as indicated above, a kind of counterbalance.
I told my wife I'd not get into the political scene again, but every so often I find such garish, unintelligent articles, like this one, I can't pass it up: "Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?" Let me put it first, in a nutshell, and weed it out as I go along, what he proposes: a Nuclear Iran, vs.
America dismantling their capability to nuke Israel, as they said they would as soon as they had the capability.
This man is either out of his head, or he does not know whom he is talking about or to, or he is an anti-Semitic.
He is asking for WWIII sooner than later, does he think Israel will allow this to happen (look at the big picture)?The answers and questions here are not as simple as he'd like them to be.
A Nuclear Iran may not harm America, but it will black mail every Middle East oil producing country (driving oil prices to $300 a barrow +), and sell their nuclear knowledge and mechanisms to (guess who): the kind hearted Hamas, the PLO, misunderstood Palestine's, whom have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map, as the UN would like to can cant; and perhaps Friedman, could careless about this, I noticed he left them out of the equation--purposely.
We are not playing anymore with paper tigers.
He says: "I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran," but did he ask the Jews, those who will be obliterated if they have to?I could live with a Nuclear Iran, just buy an ass, or donkey or horse, and put the shit-bag on the back of the saddle and move on down the road.
He talks about diplomatic aftershocks:let Israel do the work, they've done it before to Iran: but of course we got China and Russia doing contracts after contracts with them, do we not (so do it quickly).
In five years we will have to let them have a Nuclear Bomb like it or not, if we do not stop them today, because China and Russia are combining their forces to halt the US's motivation in the Middle East, so it is simply buying time, one way or the other, and I think we have a little more time with Iran, not being Nuclear.
While Thomas is having his tea in New York, what does he think Iran will be doing with their nukes in the Middle East? Polishing them like their Mercedes? Are we playing dice here?They will be aiming them, as they said they would; I've learned believe what they say, and not forget it.
Why doesn't China and Russia care?They do, for contracts, plus, and this is a big plus, Iran will be part of the future deck of cards against the US; they play a big role in this big picture, and it would do Russia and China well, if Iran did have nukes, it would neutralize the Middle East, Israel would not be the only one with an ace in their back pocket, and they know this; but Israel has proven to be trustworthy, for not using that ace, they could have many of times over.
Friedman may be putting Israel in the corner, should he keep his misshapen mind-set in place.
Friedman believes America should trust Iran would be a good boy, and have proper behavior; I'm not sure what he is on, but it is not a reality pill; you may not keep revenge for someone doing you wrong, you must forgive them, but you don't trust them with your piggyback again, especially when they have proven to be untustful, lest you be gullible (and I'm sure they'd like that).
Wake up, by god, what does he think these people are, saints.
He says, "It may be the learning to live with a nuclear Iran is the wisest thing under any circumstances.
" He adds, "(Rumsfeld)...
No one in their right mind would follow this man...
" he might be right, I don't know, but anyone who would take Mr.
Friedman's foolishness as wisdom, or even seriously, is also out of their minds.
Friedman: "...
on a Nuclear Iran" [International Version April 20 2006] This article is refereeing to Thomas L.
Friedman's recent article in the Herald Tribune, as indicated above, a kind of counterbalance.
I told my wife I'd not get into the political scene again, but every so often I find such garish, unintelligent articles, like this one, I can't pass it up: "Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?" Let me put it first, in a nutshell, and weed it out as I go along, what he proposes: a Nuclear Iran, vs.
America dismantling their capability to nuke Israel, as they said they would as soon as they had the capability.
This man is either out of his head, or he does not know whom he is talking about or to, or he is an anti-Semitic.
He is asking for WWIII sooner than later, does he think Israel will allow this to happen (look at the big picture)?The answers and questions here are not as simple as he'd like them to be.
A Nuclear Iran may not harm America, but it will black mail every Middle East oil producing country (driving oil prices to $300 a barrow +), and sell their nuclear knowledge and mechanisms to (guess who): the kind hearted Hamas, the PLO, misunderstood Palestine's, whom have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map, as the UN would like to can cant; and perhaps Friedman, could careless about this, I noticed he left them out of the equation--purposely.
We are not playing anymore with paper tigers.
He says: "I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran," but did he ask the Jews, those who will be obliterated if they have to?I could live with a Nuclear Iran, just buy an ass, or donkey or horse, and put the shit-bag on the back of the saddle and move on down the road.
He talks about diplomatic aftershocks:let Israel do the work, they've done it before to Iran: but of course we got China and Russia doing contracts after contracts with them, do we not (so do it quickly).
In five years we will have to let them have a Nuclear Bomb like it or not, if we do not stop them today, because China and Russia are combining their forces to halt the US's motivation in the Middle East, so it is simply buying time, one way or the other, and I think we have a little more time with Iran, not being Nuclear.
While Thomas is having his tea in New York, what does he think Iran will be doing with their nukes in the Middle East? Polishing them like their Mercedes? Are we playing dice here?They will be aiming them, as they said they would; I've learned believe what they say, and not forget it.
Why doesn't China and Russia care?They do, for contracts, plus, and this is a big plus, Iran will be part of the future deck of cards against the US; they play a big role in this big picture, and it would do Russia and China well, if Iran did have nukes, it would neutralize the Middle East, Israel would not be the only one with an ace in their back pocket, and they know this; but Israel has proven to be trustworthy, for not using that ace, they could have many of times over.
Friedman may be putting Israel in the corner, should he keep his misshapen mind-set in place.
Friedman believes America should trust Iran would be a good boy, and have proper behavior; I'm not sure what he is on, but it is not a reality pill; you may not keep revenge for someone doing you wrong, you must forgive them, but you don't trust them with your piggyback again, especially when they have proven to be untustful, lest you be gullible (and I'm sure they'd like that).
Wake up, by god, what does he think these people are, saints.
He says, "It may be the learning to live with a nuclear Iran is the wisest thing under any circumstances.
" He adds, "(Rumsfeld)...
No one in their right mind would follow this man...
" he might be right, I don't know, but anyone who would take Mr.
Friedman's foolishness as wisdom, or even seriously, is also out of their minds.
Source...