Ugens citat: Steyn om "kooks with nukes", Iran, DK, etc.

Når det er svært at finde noget velformuleret at citere, kan vi bare gøre, som vi plejer: Stoppe hos Steyn.  Her er fra dagens kronik i Wall Street Journal:

“The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?” You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared.

If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Iran’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.

8 Kommentarer

  1. Andreas Nylandsted Benediktson

    19. april 2006 at 04:58

    Ja det _er_ skræmmende perspektiver.

  2. Tyler Cowen har her forsøgt at analysere Iran-problemstillingen ud fra en spilteoretisk tilgangsvinkel, samt at samle lidt op på, hvad andre mener:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/04/will_we_attack_.htmlHans konklusion?”We will not win this game”

  3. Mere Steyn:”Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, “I’ve got a bomb!” Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, “It’s OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn’t got a bomb.” And then the second marshal would say, “And even if he did have a bomb it’s highly unlikely he’d ever use it.” And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, “Relax, everyone. That’s just a harmless rhetorical flourish.” And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, “Yes, but it’s entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew.”..Læs det hele:http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn16.htmlHvorfor har Berlingske Tidende ikke Steyn tilknyttet ??

  4. “The question is not whether Iran, being a sovereign nation, has the right to pursue a nuclear program, the question seems to be “give me an excuse to nuke their ass!”The US has a grudge against Iran which it carried for quite a bit longer than the hostage situation at the American Embassy in Tehran, or even before Mossadegh.. it started in the 20s of the last century and the colour of that relationship has never been rosy.That too doesn’t concern me. The questions I’m asking is simply this: Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear programs regardless of what we think. The US or anyone else in the world has absolutely no excuse to attack Iran taking this as a pretence”.This is what Bahraini blogger Mahmood’s den writes about the scary prospect of Iranian nuclear armament. – And scary it is. No doubt about that. But as Mahmood says, noone can deny the Iranians the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.The UN Security Council and the IAEA have had to admit that there is no proof that Iran is going to produce nuclear weapons. So, who’s rattling with nuclear weapons and war threats? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. But what the WSJ remarks boils down to is a kind of racism and Western superiority. And as a leading business journal they ought to be wiser than that!Am I worried that the Iranians are embarking on this rather dangerous journey? Of course I am

  5. Giv den iranske ungdom en chance. Give war a chance. Semper Fi.

  6. “When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption.”Ok, så hvis Iran har bomben så kan man ikke angribe dem ligesom Argentina angreb UK? Virkelig ærgeligt, det var ellers et ædelt projekt de Argentinere havde fat i der.

  7. Steyn: “The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption.”Felix: “Ok, så hvis Iran har bomben så kan man ikke angribe dem ligesom Argentina angreb UK?”Det falder mig naturligt at skrive noget om Fanden og Bibelen her – men det vil jeg undlade.I stedet vil jeg blot konstatere, at du tilsyneladende ikke har forstået meningen med Steyns tekst. Det kan måske hjælpe at genlæse nedenstående:”If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Iran’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet.”Så kan du forhåbentlig se, at han taler om at Iran efter hans mening vil udnytte atomvåben til at gennemtrumfe præstestyrets politik generelt overfor og i andre stater og ikke kun anvende dem som en sidste udvej.

  8. Andreas Nylandsted Benediktson

    21. april 2006 at 01:59

    Øh. Nej. Der er ikke tale om ædle projekter her. Tillid er nøgleordet her.”Contretemps” betyder kedeligt eller pinligt uheld. Ikke noget man bør stræbe efter.Paralellen er angreb på atommagter. Argentina kunne gøre det, fordi UK alligevel ikke ville bruge sine våben. Men hvis en situation opstår, hvor det kan være nødvendigt at angribe Iran, måske fordi det truer eller angriber andre lande, så findes den mulighed ikke, hvis de har atomvåben, fordi vi ikke kan stole på, at de ikke vil bruge dem.Problemet er basalt set, at vi ikke kan stole på iranerne. Når vi ikke kan stole på dem nu, så kan vi heller ikke stole på dem, hvis de får atomvåben, og så står verden i en træls situation.

Skriv et svar til US Annuller svar

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2019 Punditokraterne

Tema af Anders NorenOp ↑