Or so Iran would like us to believe. But they have exaggerated tehir claims before.

We would not have to completely destroy their program to cripple it.

The alternative is worse. We cannot allow them to develop nukes if we can prevent it.

I agree. Why not?

Cheaper than a land war. All bombs will cost us is money.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Says who?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

...'says' the US itself, by agreement with the community of sovereign nations.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

You haven't seen the spy satellite photos, and neither have I. Iran's rhetoric is probably only mostly rhetoric, but if it truly were so easy the US would not be waffling about threats of physical force.

You would delay it, they would reconstruct it again more carefully. And this would be in a perfect vacuum world...
I agree, a nuclear Iran is far more volatile than non-nuclear one. I just say bombing Iran is not the right answer.
Vacuum world. The US shares two land-borders with Iran. The Iranian military is strong enough to damage the US grip on either Afghanistan or Iraq, maybe both. Attacking Iran has consequences, like invading Iraq did.

Saying that it will be easy, painless, and quick is shortsighted at best, downright criminally negligible at worst.

The best chance the international community has in preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is the threat of economic/diplomatic sanctions. The Iranian public is not monolithic in its support, playing those differences is key. But the whole thing is entirely academic if Russia and China refuse to support it.

If thats true, why did we ignore Saddam's Sovereignty? It sounds to me like we only pay lip service to the idea that we dont have that "right"; obviously we think we do.

Considering Iran's exaggerations in other areas, I am unwilling to take their word for it.

Why? We have followed through with both the Taliban and Saddam...why would Iran think it is different? Especially if all we are doing is bombing...even Clinton didnt have a problem bombing.

And Clinton was a lot less trigger happy than the neo-cons that are in power now.

Until I am presented with evidence that they have technology sufficient to resist us, I am not going to assume that they do.

What is the alternative? They are not responding to diplomacy, and the consensus (even among liberals) is that they are unlikely to respond to diplomacy.

Which will require that it expend resources and potentially alieninate surrounding states (the "collateral damage" sword cuts both ways...especially when you do not have the technology for precision weapons).

It comes down to how badly does Iran really want nukes? The more painful we make the choice, the less likely they are to choose it. Threats of force make the choice more painful.

I agree. The alternatives are worse.

It would be painless in the sense that our own soldiers would be at little risk. They have no way of directly retaliating against us.

Which we will try those first of course. I do not expect they will do anything...it is an empty and pointless exercise IMO, but I am in the minority among neo-cons.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Tis you who say it...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Was Nazi Germany a sovereign state- or the Soviet Union under Stalin? There is a limit to what should be recognized as sovereign, and Iran has gone over that limit. So did Saddam Hussein, but I oppose the war in Iraq for other reasons.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Well, me and the majority of voting Americans...

Talk is cheap. We re-elected a man who blatently violated Saddam's sovereignty (and the Congress that allowed him to do it as well). That really should tell you all you need to know.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Hah! Says you!

Anyway, everyone already knows Odin can kick both their butts.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

In all seriousness, I don't see this as a religious issue at all but rather a foreign policy one. I am a Christian, and I believe that God opposes violence except in self-defense or the defense of others. Iran is a sponsor of terror and soon could be a sponsor of nuclear terror, so striking its facilities would be a legitimate defensive action. I am strongly opposed to the ultra-hawkish, theocratic mentality of certain people on the Christian Right, I should note.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)