🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bj98p3x...@loki.cmears.id.au>, but only after serious
contemplation, Luc The Perverse <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu>
put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>
>Well you didn't know that the US had threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

And I *still* don't know that.

"....a nuclear strike on Iran is still an option on the table. The
president has not publicly taken it off, after confirming on April 18
that it is among the options being considered".

Even from such a biassed source that can hardly be considered to be
evidence of an actual threat. Reading the rest of the material makes it
clear that the contents of planning discussions are being reported as
"facts" - as opposed to the options which they clearly are. It is the
job of such planners to consider *every* available option but I doubt
that anyone is reporting on the sessions where they talked about
withdrawing all support from the Israelis and waiting for the Arabs to
sort things out for themselves. 

>(Something which seems relevant when arguing that nuclear conflict is 
>definitely not on the horizon.)

Only if it were true. ;-}

Anyway, discussing politics is a sure way to lose friends - so I'll try
to restrict my future contributions in this thread to correcting errors.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".