Hating the Bomb NYTimes David Brooks

[applegrove]

Hating the Bomb
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 22, 2006

"The Iraq debate split the country into two partisan camps, but the Iran debate is much more complicated. It's opening up a rift between conservatives and the Bush administration. It's dividing Democrats into rival factions: those who can contemplate the eventual use of force against Iran and those who can't.


It's an anguished debate because all the options are terrible. But this will be the major foreign policy controversy of the 2008 presidential election, and you can already see four different schools emerging:

THE PRE-EMPTIONISTS John McCain and most American conservatives believe the situation reeks of Nazi Germany in 1933. An anti-Semitic demagogue is breaking treaties and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The madman means what he says and can't be restrained by normal economic or diplomatic incentives.

Therefore, Iran cannot be allowed to get the bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not immediately lob the big one onto Tel Aviv, but a psychotic, hegemonic Iran would unleash its terrorist vassals and strangle democratic efforts in the Middle East, and could set off a cataclysmic war.

Pre-emptors would work with Europe and the U.N. to step up pressure on Iran, while making it clear the world is willing to do what it takes to halt the nuclear program. As McCain said on "Face the Nation": "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

.... Snip"

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/opinion/22brooks.html

[ixion]

1. once again trying to legitimize the 'pre-emptors'

yeah, whatever. Nice try Herr Brooks.

[applegrove]

2. I just keep hoping it is all smoke and the Iranian PM just want all

the carrots that have been offered to the North Korean nutcase.

I hear that 30 years of sanctions on Iran have made their airplanes so dangerous (they cannot get parts) that they simply fall out of the sky.

I think I am too optimistic.

[quisp]

3. Could David Brooks actually be any LESS relevant?

I try to read his columns but it's all just a lot of blah blah blah

[applegrove]

4. Look at it as a "backgrounder". This Iran thing is coming up. I have

not read it yet - using it for background reading myself. My bad.

[shaniqua6392]

5. You are right.

I read and listen to everything, too. It is necessary to see what the "spin" will be on various topics. Even though the media is biased, it is necessary to pay attention to it in order to be on the defensive. They are trying to corrupt the country into believing everything bushco does is wonderful.

[applegrove]

6. I just read as much as I can - from a variety of sources. So I can

be discerning. I make up my own mind. So should all of us. Iran is a country I would not want to have the bomb. No - they are not inherently evil. I wish so much Jimmy Carter had been able to get the Shaw to democratize. I wish so much of what has happened in the middle east - did not happen. But we are where we are. And I'm doubtful that Iran should have the bomb. Just my feelings. Better Iran has the bomb than say North Korea. But too late for that.

I am worried about nuclear proliforation and don't see that Iran, once it joined the club, would stop proliforation.

That is my worry. That from Iran it goes to al Qaeda or something.