Posts
13 hours ago
Sunday, January 15, 2006
4 comments:
Please keep it clean. Comments do not reflect the opinion of this blog and are the sole opinion of the commenter. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Of course, opposing views are welcomed.
Auto-flagged and monitored IP addresses:
Teksavvy - IP 76.10.141, Onterio, Canada.
Charter Communications - IP 68.188.68. Ballwin, Missouri
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have also misspelled: "William BENNETT" -- "Ann COULTER" -- "Charles KRAUTHAMMER"
ReplyDeleteTaumarunui presents a good counter analysis.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your hard hitting analysis and keeping me up to date with multiple sourced info!
Daily Telegraph, Professor Niall Ferguson's analysis is a myopic fairy tale symptomatic of academic fairly land where arguements are all too often taken out of context in all assuming steams of stupidity, such as, assuming thier are clear victories in a nuclear exchange and that Iran's Shehab-3 will be easily shot down by anti-balistic systems. Even Orbital, makers of US missles defense technology has not developed a system that is 100%....and when you are talking about a narrrow 12 mile-wide strip of land that is easily hit by katuysha missles from the North and Kassam rocket from the South and potential of delievery from the the Meditarnean has not even been considered--let's not be so confident. It only takes one. Professor Ferguson you get an F.
Iranian journalists in exile can be read at http://www.roozonline.com/
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteGood counter-thoughts. I don't think Professor Ferguson's piece was meant to be anything other than a thought provoking essay. He certainly didn't mean it as a statement of fact. It is true that Israel's anti-missile system is probably imperfect, but the Israeli-made Arrow system is likely superior and more tested than anything Orbital makes (did Orbital participate in that program? I’m not sure). I found Professor Ferguson's piece an interesting read. Of course it was all hypothetical, but meant to illustrate from history's perspective that in-action can sometimes lead to far more devastating results than early intervention.
Joe