Well, looks like we already picked out our next target: IRAN

[DanS]

It's time for some serious journalism on the subject, not inane opinions from Polytubby riffraff.

http://www.onion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4028

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Pekka

---
And I'd say that fight we can't do, unless we're really prepared for, with strong alliance of our own, plus then it's up to many other questions too like what are the reasons, is this necessary etc.
---
Not worth it unless they are really threatning us and I think they're not threatning us.
---

and if it should be us who started the aggression.. that's just not good. We can say terrorism here terrorism there, but if there are casualties up to those numbers from their side, assuming mostly innocents or their soldiers, us starting it, well.. it's a question of one of ours means 1000 of yours, and that's just too ****ing biblical to make any sense. If we want to call them the Axis of Evil and what not, we better make sure we don't become the evil. And at the end, there would be more terrorists than in the beginning and as a bonus our own allied wouldn't be so strong anymore if there would be feelings we're not doing the right thing here anymore.

The bottom line is, we can't contain that war. I mean it's a possibility, but the cards are in the hands of Iran. And this wouldn't stabilize the area at all. Except if we think that sending our officials to be our puppets and we'd be the masters, that just won't work. It would be a plan, but I think that's just a bad plan. What I think we could do is to support some kind of resistance in there if there was one, or try diplomatic ways. Threatning wouldn't get us nowhere. Except to a factory with full of **** and we'd all need to swim in it.

I agree with your points and think it applies to Iraq as well, but the use of "We, us and our" make you a European traitor, Pekka! (not to mention that you wrote "soccer" in a post some weeks ago.

[Q Classic]

as long as it's not north korea, i fail to be sufficiently riled about the event to join any sort of loud argument.

[Pekka]

Chemical Ollie, I'm sorry about the soccer. Won't happen again .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, why would a moderate Iranian government not go for nukes itself? Iran has plenty of strategic reasons to go nuclear regardless of regime.

To a certain degree, we can;t do more about iran becoming nuclear than we have about NK getting there- as long as we allow for the NPT framework and do everything we can to keep our right to nukes, our ability to deny them to others is limited.

to your first question
1. Some would say that given that, we should hit Iran regardless, since its just as unacceptable for a moderate Iran to have nukes
2. Some, arguing on the same basis, would support a rapprochement with the current regime
3. Some would argue that a moderate Iran with nukes is less threatening than the current regime with nukes
4. Some would argue that in the case of a moderate regime it would be more possible to deal with the security concerns that would drive Iran towards nukes.

[Drake Tungsten]

"Remember the good old days when Iran and Iraq were always at war with each other, and nobody else gave a **** who won or lost?"

[Zevico]

The incompetence of Shrub has caused average Americans to lump moderates like Mohammad Khatami with radical fundamentalists like Ali Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the Iranian reform movement has actually done. Ever. Before Bush, after, at ALL.
For that matter, the moderates that you speak of are still quite extreme on the political scale. They're definitely on the same side of the fence.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Zevico

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the Iranian reform movement has actually done. Ever. Before Bush, after, at ALL.
For that matter, the moderates that you speak of are still quite extreme on the political scale. They're definitely on the same side of the fence.

78 or none.

[Ted Striker]

Leave the poor Iranians alone

[Vince278]

The world would be better off if Bush went for North Korea next. Best part is no occupation. We get the job done and leave. South Korea handles the unification details.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
to your first question
1. Some would say that given that, we should hit Iran regardless, since its just as unacceptable for a moderate Iran to have nukes

I fail to see why it would be unacceptable. I live in a country which has only its nukes to thank for its independence, and I think that most modern democracies should have nukes, to avoid being bullied.

Iran with nukes is only unacceptable if the regime remains a theocracy (= possibility of being unreasonable with the weapons), or if you see it from an American perspective: "damn this country that dares not obeying us".

[Spiffor]

While I support soft means for regime change in dictatorial countries, I am worried about what the Bush admin would consider "soft".

Striking on a Nuclear Plant is definitely not soft IMHO. So is the active support to armed opposition, which can easily use terrorist methods.

There's propaganda, trade and diplomatic restrictions, the (indirect and secret) funding of the opposition etc. These soft ways definitely don't pay in short term, and they must be used wisely to be useful at all. I don't think Bush has the patience nor the wisdom to make anything out of it.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Vince278
The world would be better off if Bush went for North Korea next. Best part is no occupation. We get the job done and leave. South Korea handles the unification details.

Please please don't. I'm within range of North Korean artillery Whatever else that can be said of North Korea, they've got plenty of guns and people who know how to shoot 'em.

[CerberusIV]

Why not just persuade a ME country with a previous successful record of destroying a nuclear plant before it went on line to do Iran as well. This time Iraq would not be hostile airspace (maybe even a clandestine mid air refuelling could be arranged).

There is a critical phase in the construction just before the nuclear fuel arrives when the maximum damage can be done so it is all about timing.

[Generalissimo]

dont even think about it