The most basic (and indeed one of the few) principles that our founding fathers had for the Federal gov't was defense of our nation. There can be little doubt that Iran is a threat and indeed our principles require us to do everything we can to make sure they can never hurt us.
1. I seriously don't believe Iran is delusional enough to use nuclear terrorism. It's a possibility for sure, but their actions over the last decade has shown that they're playing a very deliberate game. 2. The only targets they can hit are places that aren't America. 3. Iran has no friends in the Middle East - the moment they use nuclear arms is the moment they seal their fate. It doesn't matter if it's Israel (which is supposed to belong to the Palestinians anyway according to the theory) ; Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, India, the Gulf States (EVERYONE) knows they could be a possible target. Don't get me wrong, I'd very much like Iran to not have the bomb, and I think openly admitting that military action is off the table seriously destroys whatever credibility you have, especially when you repeatedly reject any peaceful overtures from Tehran. I just think there's a huge difference between Al-Qaeda having the bomb and Iran.
I can't think of any that fell because they stuck to their honorable principles. When everything is on the line all that stuff goes out the window. If someone invaded the US and we had a choice between being conquered or putting the Constitution to the side and fighting like hell what do you think we would do?
Agreed. But they make me nervous. Too nervous. For now. As soon as Iran gets a nuke expect Egypt and Saudi Arabia to start nuclear programs. When Tehran makes a legitimate overture let us know. Absolutely. One of the stated reasons from Al Queda on why they haven't hit us again and why they supposedly pulled out of that posion gas attack on the NYC subway was because when they do hit us with WMD they want it to be massive. No doubt if they had nukes they'd be looking for ways to smuggle them into America and blow them up immediately.
Iran doesn't have to use the bomb, just give one or two to Hezbullah or al-quaeda and the world goes to shit in a large toilet.
No. The first principle they used for the federal government was limiting what it can do in executing any of its functions.
Actually, that was the second one, introduced mostly through the Bill of Rights at the insistence of the Anti-federalists. The original Constitution did not have all that many limits on what the federal government could do because the Federalists had had more influence in drafting it than the Anti-federalists. The first principle, which forms the basis of the Consitution itself, was making sure the federal government responded to the people, by carefully describing how elected officials could keep each other in balance. That way, if the people were unhappy with what someone was doing, they could either vote them out or, if an election was not forthcoming, vote others into the House (where an election was always forthcoming because of the 2-year term) to change the balance. The biggest problem in the system, of course, was that their working definition of "the people" was far too limited. But it was already broader than what other countries were using, so it was a good step in the right direction.
How do you define "a lot"? Three? More? Because I'd like you to name three or more countries that invaded another country and then refused to leave--that didn't wind up getting attacked by the rest of the world.
True. I should have said that the first principle was limiting what each part and each member of the federal government can do.
USA, Russia, Pakistan, India, China, Egypt, Syria, Israel... But that's not even the point. Iraq was NOT attacked for attacking Iran. It arguably was attacked for invading Kuwait, but it was not attacked for refusing to leave Kurdistan during the 90s and it was not attacked for any of the things you brough up during the 90s. All of those things were fine with the US. It was based on the shock of a terrorist attack hailing from other countries and a lie about WMDs that the US and their coalition of the distracted attacked this time around. That's what you're trying to paint as "credibility" and "consistency".
I don't think sanctions are going to work. Iran has an insane theocratic government that thinks that Mahdi is on the way to conquer the world for teh islamz. I don't think they're going to be deterred by a few civillians starving, and they don't care about not being able to afford the latest fashions from france. I think if(when at thes rate) they get nukes, they'll use 'em. Look up nuclear winter sometime and you'll get the idea of what our future will be like if we can't deal with a threat like a threat. We're playing touch football and they brought colt 45s. It's not gonna be pretty.
They've been making them for some time. They offered to help us in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, and were summarily rejected by the Bush administration. They're interested in working with us, but we want their regime to collapse first. That's not going to happen. Hezbollah is an unpredictable tool in the Iranian arsenal, and it would be blatantly obvious who gave them the materials if they ever used it. It doesn't serve their interests at all, especially because Hezbollah could use it against Tehran. There's a reason why the United States wouldn't help the UK develop their own atomic program. As for Al Qaeda, you must be ignorant. Those two groups hate each other with a passion, even to the point of Iran offering to help us fight them in Afghanistan and helping the Shi'a militias fight against AQ in Iraq. That'd be like Truman giving Stalin the bomb.
This is worth repeating. To me this has always seemed like an Israel/Europe problem more than a North American one.
It is, that's why we have the missile shield to protect Europe. Personally, I say let the Europeans work their own problems out, but we're over there regardless.
The religion that champions the martyr and 72 virgins for all who die in Allah's name are certaonly trustworthy in this regard. Tell me Dan how can a physically grown person be as blind and dumb as you.
Iran is a powderkeg waiting for the US to give the opposition a match. That said, do we go with the devil we know? Sometimes it's better to go with Koval over Cretak.
