"They aren't going to say to themselves, "Well, we're objectively in the wrong here, so we'll just wait for the U.S. to strike us first."
You do miss the point that blaming us for threatening our might to insist on verification in Iran when Iran has repeatedly stepped out on its own to attack us, is a very backwards way of thinking. If fact, an Iran which clearly made the choice not to war upon us, could wait a long long time and still never find itself being struck first. Yes, Mrs Lincoln, the enemy plans to attack regardless. Wesely Clark says we need Iran to understand that we WILL use the big stick if necessary. I most certainly agree. Again, yes, Mrs Lincoln, the enemy does plainly plan to attack regardless. Your plan amounts to pacifism in the face of direct threat, and nuclear threat at that.
Striking "first" is defense when the enemy avowedly plots to strike against us, while we would otherwise most certainly be willing to let them live in "peace (if reluctantly, given the many abhorrent to us ways - often bloodcurdling ways - of extremist Islamic governments)."
Dan B. |
