Iran now has the nukes it needs to wipe out Israel



And all the rest of us. I'm sure we can work this out diplomatically, though. There's no need for a backup plan in case that doesn't work. I'm sure any national leader who believes that the Holocaust did not exist won't actually plan to use these nukes on anyone, so we have no reason to worry. And now, I am removing my tongue from my cheek and engaging my brain.

Hugh Hewitt's site had an interview with Mark Steyn (that I can no longer FIND dammit but here's a link to an article describing the highlights of our relationship with Iran on Steyn's site ) said:
Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:
- contempt for the most basic international conventions;
- long-reach extraterritoriality;
- effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
- a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
- an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.
Yet the Europeans remain in denial. Iran was supposedly the Middle Eastern state they could work with. And the chancellors and foreign ministers jetted in to court the mullahs so assiduously that they’re reluctant to give up on the strategy just because a relatively peripheral figure like the, er, head of state is sounding off about Armageddon.

This country is clearly a threat to the rest of the world. What, legitimately, can be done with a leader who declares hatred for others? I could care less what others do in their own countries so long as they don't mess with me or harm their own citizens. Realistically, how many other countries actually fit into this description? How can the spread of democracy be a bad thing when the alternative is "government" such as Iran's? How many Churchills (Winston, not Ward) will we ignore while millions are killed in the meantime?

Posted: Tue - April 11, 2006 at 06:35 AM          

©