The Case for Bombing Iran

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn

See All Reviews »

Review

Greg Kopczynski
1.0
by Greg Kopczynski - Oct. 1, 2008

This is pure neocon trash. $1 trillion, thousands of American lives, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives later, the author tries to write off this abysmal war as merely a front in a larger World War. Clue for Norm: the World doesn't want America creating a global conflict out of this failed debacle. But even worse, the article makes clear that the author doesn't even understand the American psyche, much less the Iranian one. The only people who will benefit from our bombing of Iran are the terrorists. It would be yet another present from our clueless president to that mass murderer bin Ladin and his followers. Favorite (as in pathetic) quote: "Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it." Yeah right. This is the same guy who looked into Putin's "soul" and said what a wonderful man he was. (snicker, snicker) And what are Norms credentials: apparently only that he is writing a book for release on Sept 11, 2007. When are these neocons going to realize they've milked 9/11 for all it's worth already.

See All Reviews »

Greg's Rating

Overall
1.0

Bad
from 6 answers
Quality
1.1
Fairness
1.0
Information
1.0
Sourcing
2.0
Context
1.0
Popularity
1.0
Recommendation
1.0
More How our ratings work »