Blog powered by Typepad

« Everyone should have a 'JK' | Main | Who turned the lights out all over Britain? »

Wednesday, 01 May 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David?

I knows it's hard to distinguish them thar Iranian Mullahs - maybe because they all sport beards - but there is one sure way that being "the act of breathing."

Khomeini > Not breathing!

Khamenei > Breathing!

Here I sends you to NightWatch School and all you does is look for the pictures!

Hmm, so Mr Oborne cheerfully admits that Iran has a well developed Nuclear programme and has enrichment as a goal/aim/intention, but they are all innocently wanting peace if we just give them a chance?

I might point out that rather than trying for Low Enriched Uranium (<20%) they appear (from the scuttlebutt) 'interested' only in Highly Enriched Uranium (>20%). LEU is used in reactors and whilst HEU can be used in reactors it is also the necessary ingredient for 'you know what'.

Then:

"Oborne's claim that Khomeini has stated that nuclear weapons are against Islamic creed"

Tell that to Pakistan! And 'peaceful intentions' just makes me wonder what someone has been smoking.

I can't face reading the book, but the article quoted, and who it was for (L & TUR) says a lot, does it not? I've had a number of 'discussions' with people who say similar things with regards to Stalin; "the fact that he killed many Russians is not in dispute", and then there's always either a silent, or rarely expressed, "BUT" that follows in which that uncomfortable and (don't they just wish they'd managed to keep it hidden) fact is glossed over, excused and ignored in their 'glorification' of their hero.

I may be doing a disservice to the gentleman, but I'll 'take a pass' on the book if you'll allow?

(I'll wait for the book where Bush gets blamed for premature baldness - as he's to blame for everything else apparently, almost as bad as Lady Thatcher over here)

JK, you say 'Khomeini', I say 'Khomeni, let's call the whole thing off!

Able, I wasn't trying to flog the book, honest. Anyway, as I said above, the Israelis will decide the matter.

Are we really bond to this notion that Israel has a nuclear bomb, therefore any other nation in the ME may have one also? Or the "hard" version, Israel has a nuclear bomb, therefore any other nation in the ME MUST have one, just to balance the terror? I don't really like "balance" when one side of the see-saw believes that the other side is a nation of pigs and monkeys that must be destroyed to allow the hidden imam to reappear.

The islamists already believe they can roam around the world setting off conventional bombs at a moment's notice. It might not be a good idea to let them do that when their mentors have a nuclear bomb.

Dom, here even I have a sneaking sympathy for Obama. I don't have a lot of it but I do have some. He is relying on various intelligence summaries from various agencies all of whom, in the snake pit that is Washington politics, have their own axe to grind. Remember, it Is only a few years back that virtually all of the intelligence agencies of the world were convinced Saddam had WMD. An American-led attack on Iran would be cataclysmic in all sorts of unforeseen areas, not least the world economy. That is not to say that he shouldn't do it. I think that provided the intelligence is as close to incontrovertible as it can be, then he should destroy the Iranian sites. On the other hand, doing that is maybe to set the bar too high. The Israelis will not work to such fine distinctions. If they are, say, 75% sure, then they will go in. No-one, least of all Oborne and Kamm, can be sure until the day after the Israeli strike.

The comments to this entry are closed.