Quote Originally Posted by WW View Post
JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.
Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.

Containment is the course of action requiring the least amount of courage.

We have had scares in the past over the possible use of nuclear weapons and surely we need no more? The situation we have at the moment with Pakistan is bad enough without adding two countries with certifiably insane leadership to the nuclear club (who will be quite likely to share there knowledge and possibly the bombs themselves with other equally insane organsiations and national leaderships.)

No more nukes should be the unwavering position. And as far as the deterrent against attempting to develop nuclear weapons it should be the clearly understood threat that if all else fails a military preemptive strike will be used. The US and Israel should make it very clear that they hope that negotiations and sanctions would prove successful and thus avert the need for a preemptive strike.

What negotiating position does the US administration think it has when the policy is "oh well if we can't stop them then the next administration will have to make sure they can contain the threat". Some legacy huh? Stupid strategy.