Again, I pose the question, what would Iran have to do to make some of you guys (ronnierocket, Lilo) believe war was the only solution left? Launching a nuclear strike against Israel? Supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group? Is there anything?
First off, calm down. I don't want you to get upset and accuse me or Lilo of being Chamberlain.
Second, why do you assume Israel doesn't have nukes? Why do you assume it's not covered under a nuclear shield? (Obama announced it, but I'm certain Dubya offered privately the same promise.)
Third, what happened to Deterrence? Did it fail us somewhere or something, because it's become unsexy all of a sudden. You know the whole goddamn idea of deterrence was that the risk for going to war against you wouldn't be worth it (i.e. you probably die.) Why would that fail with Iran if it did go nuclear? They may make all their bullshit speeches, but in the end they're just bureaucrats who don't want to die. Which is what would happen if we have invasion.
Fourth, why not ring the alarm bell on Syria? The State Department just today sent out warnings to our allied states in that region about the possible dispersal of WMDs if the Syrian regime falls and that country gets emboiled in civil war. Better yet, why not Pakistan? They've been busted in their collaboration with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, knew where Bin Laden was hiding...
and they have nukes for real. Fifth,
what military action do you have in mind for Iran? Do you disagree with my belief that mere throwing bombs won't solve the nuclear problem? Do you instead favor invasion? I mean Iran won't be fucking Libya. Just you can understand that if you believe mere strikes will do the job.
Sixth, just for your joy and benefit: PEACE IN OUR TIME!
In your opinion, war was rushed into against Iraq. So does that mean the "international community" should drag it's feet in dealing with Iran?
War wasn't "rushed," the post-war occupation was poorly planned, and we paid dearly for it. Then there is the idea that maybe we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Saddam was contained, quarantined. His only friend was Syria and terrorist groups, but otherwise nobody in that region wanted to help piss on him if he was on fire. (Invading your neighbors tends to do that.)
America fights wars if it's the absolute last option forced upon us. (In theory at least.) Just because we can fight wars (or hell), doesn't mean you go to war. I say give the sanctions time. Notice how the government has taken this entire term to set up sanctions, to get a diplomatic consensus, let Iran possibly hang itself. In the end, if you believe a nuclear Iran is ultimately unacceptable, we will have war.
Thankfully for your sake IvyLeague, you're getting that war. It's going to happen. Why? Because them going nuclear would be the only regime security against invasion. So we're fucked in one regard: why
wouldn't they go nuclear? The Supreme Ayatollah don't wanna die and get sodomized on tape by his own people like ole Gaddafi.
And would you be so content if you were living in Israel or one Iran's other neighbors?
Knowing them and the last few decades: they'll plead to us in private, but then outside closed doors spit on our faces. Even the one who respects us the most of those "aliies" in Tel Aviv, they don't publicly respect us. It's remarkable how little they hold us in gratitude. I mean we made that state possible and helped them when everybody in that region wanted to destroy it.
I think it's remarkable how little respect Tel Aviv pays us, and how much we tolerate...no love...being disrespected by a relative piss-ant state. Imagined if Portugal pulled this shit on us. Thankfully Jesus never went there. Or worse, imagined if he lived in
France.
Come to think of it, their contempt of their savior really does remind me of the Paris government.
