Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.
The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?
-spence
|
Fear mongering and not likely?????
If you really think that, you have your head in the sand.
Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could
destroy their growing nuclear program. You don't think Israel would hesitate to
use nuclear weapons if attacked with chemical weapons? Once nuclear weapons are in play, it's any body's guess. Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.
As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.
BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.