Iran: More gunboat diplomacy

Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

If pre-emptive attacks are justifiable for the US to do, does that mean it'd be OK for other countries to attack the US if we are getting ready to attack them?

Or is that one of those "good for the goose but not the gander" situations?

 

And Inky just gave Bush reason to invade Iran.
Thanks, man, thanks

 

This doesn't really need to be said, but of course Iran doesn't have the capability to attack us.

 

But Frum wrote Iranian agents already have.

 

Maybe he means the American embassy? Since that is American soil, it would be technically correct to say Iranian agents have done things, but it would be incredibly misleading.

 

Damn straight, all your fault, Inky. Now we HAVE TO pre-emptively attack them because we know they might be considering a pre-emptive attack on us because they know we might be considering a pre-emptive attack on them because we know they might soon have nuclear capabilities. That's the Bush preemption doctrine for you. A surefire recipe for lasting world peace.

 

IU90 is a now a leading candidate for the SportsJournalists.com Dr. Strangelove Emeritus Chair in Foreign Studies.

 

Neither did Iraq.

 

Holy crap on a crap stick
Someone please tell me that Asia Times isn't legit. That Pepe Escobar makes things up ...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html?=retrieve_rss

 

This has nothing to do with anything, but I wish my byline was as cool as "Pepe Escobar".

 

We're kicking ass!