What's for dinner? Nukes!

Skimming the articles on The National Review website, I came upon an article about nukes in Syria. I know what you’re thinking? Who else wants nukes because all a country has to do is literally put themselves in the waiting list? Well, Syria wants nuclear weapons for respect. Of course, it wasn’t the U.S. that took preemptive action; it was Israel, which is very logical. All the Islamic states in the Middle East want Israel “wiped off the map”. Thus, Israel secretly air raided facilities in Syria.

The tone of the article which is more disbelief than anything else. Quotes like this " Yes, that's right: a possible Syrian nuclear facility." in the article exemplify the author's view of astonishment. Even lowly Syria wants nukes. Words such as unmiffed and feverish give the article a feeling of anxiety and trepidation. With the mass arms influx in Lebanon and now a nuclear facility in Syria, Israel is looking to have more influence in the region. That's what I believe. Additionally, don't be surprised to see Baby Israel snitching to its mother (America). I'm sad to say that this article was rather boring and not fun to analyze. I felt like I was reading a brick wall. Oops, sorry Peter Brooks.

I'd still like to ask some questions to Peter Brooks on how Israel can do whatever the hell it wants. We all know that Israel is U.S.'s female dog or vice versa (its hard to tell the pitcher and catcher in this realtionship); but does that give Israel the right to be spying on another country and then attack that country because what it is doing is not in the best interest of Israel? Or what about the U.N. stepping up to the plate and saying you can't do that? Well, it's obvious since U.S. is the lone superpower it can do pretty much anything it wants.

My second article also has to do with nukes, except this country has a bit more experience toying with the world. Iran+Nukes=Trouble and add another variable (rest of the west-tern world); it pretty much equals one of my proof problems in my calc III class. The only difference is the calc problem has a solution. "Iran: War Can Wait" deals with how the Bush admin. is going to deal with Iran within the next 18 months while they are in power. There are two scenarios: 1) take no military action and use negotation or 2) go to war and screw over the next presidency.

Sarcasm and critical tones captures the author’s view of this is Bush's problem. "They don’t “trust” any potential successors to “deal with Iran decisively?” I can’t begin to tell you how offensive that idea is – not to mention its raw stupidity." I love the author's response to the question. It seems that the author actually thinks logically and systematically; he isn't awed by the b.s. out there. additonally, occasionally the author has closed in boxes of what the White House's opinion of the problem. What I'd like to know is what the U.S. should really do? I feel that unless you annoy an animal it won't attack you, but being stupid and aggravating the animal will just cause trouble. That's my stand to the Iran-Nuke issue. Even if they get which they will eventually, they won't do anything unless attacked upon.