[MD] Barbarians & Hippies

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Iran at the moment poses the larger threat.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Why? I thought OUR nuclear weapons served as a deterrent?

Deterrents mean nothing to crazies who want to die.

> If not, who
> exactly are our nuclear weapons deterring?

A first strike by reasonably sane people.

> Besides, North Korea could
> hit American soil with a missile. Iran is still years away from even
> being able to launch one (despite our providing their dictator with
> decades worth of nuclear technology under Nixon and Ford). I fail to see
> how Iran is more of a threat.

Have you been reading or hearing the news lately? Iran has announced a 
policy to destroy Israel and its Western allies. Ever hear of suitcase 
bombs?  

> [Platt]
> I favor what the U.S. is doing about it now, working through the U.N.
> and keeping the military option open. From what you say above, do I
> conclude you favor unilateral disarmament? If not, what's your plan?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I've said countless times, its too late for a plan. There is too much
> moral egotism in this pissing contest. We'll invade Iran, because we are
> Moral Knights of the Pirsigian Order, and they are "germs", and the war
> will unfold like described in the article Khaled sent around. And there
> will be a nuclear exchange. And hopefully some of us will survive, and
> those of you who preferred wagging your righteous dicks will maybe learn
> a thing or two. If not, round and round we go.
> 
> On the other hand, if both sides decided peace was more important than
> their own self-righteousness, maybe this could be averted, maybe it
> could be worked out in the UN. But given what I see here, I see no
> evidence of that happening anywhere.

A colorful scenario, indicating to Iran and other nations that we no 
longer have the will to defend human rights from assaults by 
barbarians.  

Platt