^^ I don't claim to have a solution to the problem. I don't have a cure for AIDS either, but I know better than to recommend bareback sex in a gay bathhouse and sharing dirty needles. Don't make shit worse. Oh, and Happy Birthday Ronald Nuclear Proliferatin' Reagan! Thanks for making the world all the more dangerous! The Soviet Union's gone, but the nukes floating around from the 80s arms build-up are who-knows-where around here on Earth will be your lasting legacy.
Meh. We were never going to stop anyone - Iran, North Korea, whoever - from getting Nukes. That ship has sailed. In the current geo-political atmosphere, threats are empty. We might as well resign ourselves to it. In the next century there will probably be more than one limited nuclear exchange (as in between India and Pakistan or between Israel and Iran) and the world will keep on turning.
1 out of 4 isn't bad. If this had been a multiple choice question, your 25% success rate would put you on par with chimpanzees and those chickens that they train to play tic-tac-toe.
The US lost any credibility or moral responsibility on this issue when it invaded Iraq for non-existent weapons, thereby spurring the likes of Iran into obtaining them as a deterrent. You reap what you sow.
If anything, we gained credibility from Iraq. Our enemies understand that, yes, we will fight and, yes, we will hang on until the job is done. You whining leftists, in a hurry to oppose anything viewed as an extension of U.S. power, are going to let the very worst of the worst obtain the most destructive weapons there are. We could've acted to prevent what's going to come. The tragedy will be that we didn't.
Indeed, Iran didn't even bother seeking nuclear technology until 2003. But the lack of US credibility or moral responsibility will be of enourmous comfort when the pulse lights up over the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
So, let's say that Obama and Co. were to listen to the armchair generals here at WF and invades and conquers Iran and thereby prevents them from obtaining nukes. Then...the another Middle Eastern country (or countries) gets nervous and starts looking into nukes for itself for what they see is more and more of the U.S. encroaching in their territory...and then what do we do? A 4th front in the War on Terror? A 5th? Long term thinking...
Not going to happen, even in the worst possible scenario. A nuclear Iran is dangerous and should be opposed, but this kind of paranoid doomsday nonsense does no favours in motivating people to do so. Despite their ideology, Irans rulers are not insane death-worshippers in the mould of Al Qaeda. They are pragmatic at least to the extent of self-preservation, and will not do anything if they believe it would result in the sort of response a nuclear attack on a European city would gaurantee.
Famous last words. Even if Iran's rulers have no intention of ever using nuclear weaponry offensively, I have no faith in their ability to secure such warheads from theft or corruption. This would make the former Soviet nuclear suitcase scenario look like a Girl Scout cookie warehouse burglary. Willing to bet your life on it? Again, even giving Iran's rulers the benefit of the doubt at present, who's to say what mindset those same rulers will have during a revolution? We've been told it's inevitable, after all.
I blame Carter. He should have dealt with Iran back in the 70s when we had the chance. An attack upon a US embassy is an attack upon America itself.
So you wish to pull out all troops and leave the rest of the world to its own devices, while we develop defensive measures? That's the one thing I would find ideal, though unfortunately not going to happen.
I'm not saying that our presence isn't needed, however, Bush made an erroneous assumption, and Americans have been paying for that mistake with their lives.
In regards to Iraq, Americans have been paying with their lives since the U.S. set up shop in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield under GHWB's term and left to fester during WJC's term. I fail to see how this has to do with Hezbollah potentially gaining access to a hydrogen bomb.
We should have never put boots on the ground. We could have taken care of saddam and his army from the air.
Libya says you are epic When they saw what W did to Iraq they surrendered their nuke program right quick and joined the world. When W left and Wimbama came in Khaddafi started up making trouble again. Bottom line is we WILL fight a war with Iran in the next 15 years or so. The only question is do we do it when they have no nukes and we hold overwhelming power or do we wait until they have nukes and millions more die. The Leftists always seem to favor mass death and destruction over saving of lives.
Even if you are correct and the evidence weighs heavily against your belief, do you think they will not give a suitcase nuke or such to terrorists, who will then attack a Western city with it? Blind hope against all evidence leads only to death and destruction for the masses. It was the same hope that Bubba had when he figured firing 4 or 5 Tomahawks at Al-Quaeda was enough. He was wrong and tens of thousands have died that need not have had he taken the strong action at the time.
Bottom line is we don't know what's going to happen in the next 15 years, unless we have some sort of fortune telling powers. This is the same international pants pissing that global warming pushers are accused of all the time. The difference is the GW people at least want to prevent something, rather than instigate a "destroy the village in order to save it" policy.
Let's say instead using B-2's B-1's, massive bunker buster bombs and other airborne munitions, in a 12 to 24 hour strike he destroys so much of Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure that they are set back 10 years at least. No US boots go into Iran, no further attacks are necessary. The goal in Iran is the same as the Israeli's had when they attacked Iraq's rector in 1981. I don't recall them needing to put boots on the ground or fight a long drawn out war.
If we learn from history we have a pretty good fortune teller. Some people just don't want to see what is right in front of their nose.
^^ While I disagree with you, you have been civil and refrained from namecalling--and I respect that.
Guaranteed by whom? The United States? The United Kingdom? France? Israel? All of the above? Nuclear deterrence only works when both sides are faced with total extinction. Lets say a nightmare scenario plays out and the majority of, say, the Boston metropolitan area is destroyed and irradiated by a nuclear device detonated aboard a ship in the harbor. It will take time, possibly months, to determine the specifics of the case and learn where the device actually came from. The President of the United States, whomever he/she is, will have no choice but to wait before he can respond appropriately. If he acted quickly, without facts, he could attack the wrong party and commit genocide that Hitler could only imagine. But, with every moment that passes, the threat of extinction diminishes and the public will to allow the use of strategic nuclear arms diminishes. Edit: The words finally came to me. I can assure you that his response will also be forced to be "proportional" and "reasonable." That will be the US public and the free world's public will. After months and months have passed, total nuclear devastation of, say, Iran just will not be politically acceptable. Now you and I both know nothing is "proportional" when nuclear weapons are used, so we'll be back to responding with conventional arms.
Possible threat aside, I'm still at a loss as to what gives us the right to tell a sovereign country what type of energy and technology they're allowed to develop within their own borders.
