The above should incite much comment.

A surgical stirke done by the USAF has a very good chance of success, but I don't believe it ould be our first action unless we have solid proof they are giving nukes to terrorists. I realy doubt IRan will overtly strike the US or Israel, it would invite sure and harsh retaliation. I have no doubt that IRan having supported Hizbollah for so long, would not give them a nuke to use against Israel or the US. That OK, though ,because we are imperialists, and We deserve a good whavking by the folloers of the religion of peace.

Merely confirms my hunch RJ doesn't only wack off to kiddie porn, unlimited global war does the trick too.

His postings remind me of junkies who shit and piss in the stairwell of apartment buildings because they figure if they are miserable, everybody else should be too.

Yup, Jim. Doesn't need much comment at all. Someone should get this callow youth a date, either straight, or as increasingly seems more applicable, gay, before he does himself real harm. Sublimation through fantasies of murding thousands of people is not adequate.

Oops! 'Murdering.' Ski's spelling problem may be contagious.

I'm getting sick of that Pakistan, myself. They could use a little pre-emptive. And as long as we're there, may as well take on India while we still can. They're easy, and they're used to it. Just makes our neighborhood all the larger.

Say what you want about RJ, he has a talent for posing questions that are difficult NOT to respond to.

And I always thought he and Diva would make a nice couple.

I think we should bomb India and China... mostly because they are little brown and yellow people with slanty eyes who speak like this:

"Ching, chang, chang, chinky, wang, wang, Stalin".

I also think we should apply pressure to those gays and their chocolate starfish parties. You know how them gays rape little boys while wearing strange leather outfits. I also think the congress with the devil but I am not entirely sure on that yet.

I think we should also bomb Egypt because its there and they are brown people too.

I also hate the French and because they can't do what we tell them to and they have nukes, I think we should bomb them first... but not before we rape and pillage their women, cheese, and wine cellars.

The Germans should be bombed next just because their women are ugly and they make all the deviant pooper porn that is popular wit dem ho-mo-sek-uals who rape little boys while smoking dope and having spontaneous abortions just because its "in". They also don't shave their armpits and smell almost as bad as the French.

Then we would bomb Canada because they like Michael Moore followed by actually bombin Michael Moore who is so fat he will requite two bombs.

Then we should bomb the United Kingdom because of the bad teeth and they have a lot of muslims there who we all know are either brown, yellow, speak funny, and are evil. They may also possibly be closeted homos- just like them Scots... I mean why else would the men wear dresses or skirts.

And we better bomb the ghettos too... them blacks are getting too uppity with their talk of reparations and its about time for them to have another silly little riot because it has been awhile.

Interesting responses. I post information about the terrorist state Iran's nuclear ambitions, and I'm called a queer, a warmonger, a junkie, and a pedophile.

I'm more than happy to be judged by my enemies: An anti-American communist Canuck, and an angry, anti-White black nationalist with delusions of grandeur.

Aww RJ

I'm called a queer, a warmonger, a junkie, and a pedophile.

Those are really nice things to be called in comparison to what people are probably calling you in their mind. I could think of a lot worse things to call you... Hell I already have! =)

"It's Time for RJ to Volunteer to Serve In The Military!"

I think we should stage an international version of "American Idol"

Take all the world's leaders, let each one do a song, and the one Simon and Co. (along with a nationwide phone vote) pick DOESN'T get bombed. The rest either get nuked or have William Hung piped into their countries 24/7 via the Voice of America.

FOX, gimmee a call!


BTW: I'll be announcing my candidacy for President of the US shortly.

The pinkos display perfectly their essential childishness and irresponsibility here: Iranian mullahs, probably THE biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, appear to be on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons.

How do we respond to this obvious grave danger? Call a blogger bad names. There. NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III. Problem solved the liberal way.

Hmm, don't see how you can lose on election day with THIS platform. Sheer genius.

"The pinkos display perfectly their essential childishness and irresponsibility here: Iranian mullahs, probably THE biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, appear to be on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons.

"How do we respond to this obvious grave danger? Call a blogger bad names. There. NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III. Problem solved the liberal way."

LOL!

I find it amusing (and all-too typical) that the Leftists who responded had absolutely nothing of value to add.

Should we attack Iran with airstrikes that take out their nuclear capability? Or should we do nothing and hope for the best?

I support the former. I have explained, in my post, my reasons for this.

What do you all think? Yea or nea? If yea, why? If nea, why not?

That is how serious people discuss serious topics. Unortunately, there seems to be a dearth of serious posters on the Left here at BCs...

I wouldn't bomb Canada. Alex Trebek is from Canada. In fact, he is the 14th most important Canucklehead in history. And that's saying something.

Al Barger: ...NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III.

Sorry, but Bush already has nuclear weapons.

And Al, haven't you heard: history won't judge us: WE'LL ALL BE DEAD.

Elliot: "...I find it amusing (and all-too typical) that the Leftists who responded had absolutely nothing of value to add."

That's because it doesn't matter WHAT WE SAY. You and your neo-con buddies are determined to stick your dicks in the sand of Iran looking for more oil, um, I mean weapons of mass destruction, and nothing any sane or insane 'leftist' says is going to dissuade you.

We can only make jokes in the face of your rush to Armageddon. We're whistlin' in the dark.

PS: And if it's so fucking serious, when are you enlisting, Elliot? Curious minds want to know. You and Al should be over there fighting for what's right instead of tossing little toy hand grenades onto a message board filled with liberal pinkos.

Walk the walk, soldier boy.

Curt, I don't change diapers. So, neither RJ Elliott or Shark would do.

'Nothing of value to add'? There's nothing of value in the entry. RJ Elliott got just the kind of response he deserved.

This is a very important topic handled well - a real issue of concern - and how we deal with it will have direct repercussions for every one of us.

One does not have to agree with RJ's proposed solution to take the topic seriously. Nor does it address the subject to suggest that only those currently serving in the military have the right to address potentially military matters - does it then follow that only musicians can talk about music, authors books, academy members films, AFTRA members TV? Does one have to be on the 40-man roster to discuss baseball? Should the fact that RJ consistently brings up important and/or uncomfortable topics automatically render him the object of ridicule?

I don't have an answer for this topic yet, but we sure as hell better think about it because inaction is a form of action.

Iran's nuclear capabilities should be of concern, however this post should make us all aware of the dangers of allowing this type of thought process in the White House. If Bush is reelected, he just may continue this philosophy.

We can't just go bomb everybody because we are afraid they might hurt us. This is not a good strategy to defeating terror and it's amazing to me how many Americans including those in power, believe that it is.

What kind of strategy is 'cripple the world until we are safe'?

There isn't a conservative around who can dispute that terroristic activities and terror group memberships are on the rise. Even the government in the last few days, has had to acknowledge that it is so, contrary to what they have been saying up to this point.

Is a nuclear bomb our only threat? Is it all that we are afraid of? If we are absolutely immune to ANY other kind of terror threat (9/11 says we're not), then yea, just bomb the hell out of anybody that has nuclear capabilities and we're done. We're safe. So this is the neo-con strategy?

Please folks, get this kind of thinking out of the White House or we are all doomed. It makes no sense. We felt the need to take Saddam down, because we thought he might have the capability of harming thousands with WMD. Now, we're trying to rationalize taking down Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon capable of harming thousands?

Has everybody forgotten that a plane into a building has no WMD, no nukes, and can still kill thousands? Should we start bombing countries that have airline travel? After all, we can't be the ones to secure their airports, can we? What about a hijacked airplane that crashes in the U.S. but not with a nuclear weapon, but with a biological agent readily made with ingredients/instructions found on the internet? What if Al Queda made that toxin in New Zealand? The Phillipines? Britian? Montana or Oregon? What good does bombing Iran do then?

One country, one man, with nuclear capability is no more deadly, than millions of people who hate us but don't happen to have a big bomb at the ready. They will find other ways.

Increasing the ranks of those who hate us is not a sound foreign policy. And it's scary that around half of the country is okay with it.

I'm with Eric on this one....I don't know what the right course of action is, but we can't completely rule out military action right from the get-go.

I favor diplomacy first. But what if it doesn't work? Lots to think about....

Right wing sites are jumping up and down that we've found evidence of Saddam's WMD. Evidence folks. That means we aren't holding his WMD in our hands. They're still out there somewhere. Along with millions more Muslims who hate us.

We bomb Iran. Who's to say we won't find 'evidence' that they had a nuclear bomb? Maybe we will. By then, the nuke could be in Jordan, Syria, anywhere in the world. Finding 'evidence' is not what makes us safer. Finding the actual device is more likely to, don't you think?

Are you going to find the device by bombing the shit out of the place, or by infiltration? Oh God this country is just going to hell in a handbasket. How can people be so naive?

I totally agree that infiltration and "human intelligence" in general are the absolute core of success in the war on terror, and something we have had a very spotty record on, as 9/11 horribly and amply demonstrates.

BUT success with infiltration and human intelligence is rarely a final answer, more like a means to an end. Something has to be done with that intelligence and sometimes military action is the appropriate action.

Boomcrash...

Don't give up yet. I was feeling very down about it all but lately, I have been seeing signs that perhaps Americans might be willing to think independently and for themselves again. They are starting to see that "the guns don't work". At least in this case.

Now, if only we can get some better education about the culture of the Middle East and the history of Islam in the hands of more Americans (Perhaps we can make it into some sort of reality TV show), more people will understand what we are dealing with and what will and will not work.

As far as RJ and Barger joining the Military, there are some weight/age restrictions. You must have a certain level of physical fitness. The Navy will take you into your early 30's but the rest will not unless you are a Doctor, Lawyer, or Clergy.

Yeah, but I think a good sound strategy would be to do the human intelligence part accurately and before the military part, and not as an afterthought, which seems to be the preference here.

I agree with that as well, but that still doesn't mean that military action in Iraq was inappropriate, although certainly HOW it was conducted has not been close to perfect.

I can quote as well as the next guy...
The song was released in 1972. Foresight, hindsight or just insight?

Randy Newman: Political Science

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they Grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Eric, whether action in Iraq was appropriate or not is moot now, as it is history and cannot be undone. It just is, and we all have to live with it forever.

There are thousands of ways to win in chess, it's pointless to decide which way is better, as long as the end objective is achieved. That of victory.

Sometimes you HAVE to sacrifice your queen in order to save your king. In many instances though, you're only ending up delaying the inevitable. Did we HAVE to make such a sacrifice to take down Saddam?

Saddam would be what in the war on terror? A Knight? A bishop, rook or even just a pawn? We have sacrificed so much for that piece. Meanwhile, nobody is noticing that several of the opponents pawns have made it to the other end of the board and are being exchanged for new pieces...

Whether military action in Iraq is inappropriate or not, is irrelevant unless you consider the HOW. It is all about the HOW.

Given the Iranians' current dissatisfaction with their government, maybe inaction is the best course. They may be about ready to solve the problem for us. Whereas dropping bombs on civilians would probably strengthen the position of the ruling clerics and only make matters worse. That would be kinda dumb, wouldn't it?

And unless we have comprehensive intelligence, there are probably too many potential sites to bomb - a raid like that is all or nothing. Isreal had better intelligence, Iraq was a smaller country, and it was more politically isolated at the time. On top of that, we would no doubt kill some Russians in the bombing, and we're supposed to be trying to get them to help us in the "War on Terror".

Now, I might not complain if RJ Elliott, Ted Nugent and G. Gordon Liddy want to lead a band of mercs financed by soon-to-be-private-citizen Dick Cheney on a mission to whack the Leadership Council; but in the interest of plausible deniability, please keep your hairbrained schemes to yourself.

And maybe after you've actually been there you can pontificate on what shithole that country is.

I'd like to clarify that I never called RJ a podiatrist, he is a worse kind of monster, somebody who fantasizes about war crimes and genocide in hope somebody else will carry them out. He is a weak coward who is determined to make the world a worse place.

He is just a grasping fool in dragging us all own into his own shit and adding to the growing reputation of the USA as a rogue nation highjacked by ignorant liars, torturers and thieves only too eager to bring Year Zero to the world.

"We can't just go bomb everybody because we are afraid they might hurt us."

Strawman.

"What kind of strategy is 'cripple the world until we are safe'?"

Strawman.

"Is a nuclear bomb our only threat?"

No. And no one said it was.

But nuclear weapons in the hands of the world's number-one anti-American Islamicist terrorist state sure as hell is a MAJOR threat, wouldn't you agree? A threat that perhaps we should do something about?

"Is it all that we are afraid of? If we are absolutely immune to ANY other kind of terror threat (9/11 says we're not), then yea, just bomb the hell out of anybody that has nuclear capabilities and we're done. We're safe."

Red Herring.

I'm not talking about the 57 billion other possible threats that we must all deal with on a daily basis. I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Iran poses.

"So this is the neo-con strategy?"

Strawman.

"Please folks, get this kind of thinking out of the White House or we are all doomed. It makes no sense."

Not the way you intentionally misrepresent it, no. (And last I checked, it wasn't the White House that proposed bombing Iran's nuclear facilities; it was ME.)

"We felt the need to take Saddam down, because we thought he might have the capability of harming thousands with WMD."

Yep. And your point is...?

"Now, we're trying to rationalize taking down Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon capable of harming thousands?"

Er, try millions. And it's not that "they might" have them. Again you misrepresent the facts. They DON'T have them YET. They WILL have them SOON.

We have a brief window of opportunity we can either choose to take advantage of, or choose to ignore and hope for the best. I choose the former. You, apparently, prefer the latter.

"Has everybody forgotten that a plane into a building has no WMD, no nukes, and can still kill thousands?"

So can an earthquake. Is your argument that, because taking out Iran's nuclear facilities won't prevent a future earthquake in California, that it's pointless?

"Should we start bombing countries that have airline travel? After all, we can't be the ones to secure their airports, can we?"

Now you're just bein' silly...

"What about a hijacked airplane that crashes in the U.S. but not with a nuclear weapon, but with a biological agent readily made with ingredients/instructions found on the internet? What if Al Queda made that toxin in New Zealand? The Phillipines? Britian? Montana or Oregon? What good does bombing Iran do then?"

Not a lot. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities only does one thing: It eliminates Iran's nuclear facilities.

It won't find Osama, or cure AIDs, or make pigs fly. But it sure as shit will prevent DROOLING ANTI-AMERICAN ISLAMICIST FANATICS who want to KILL ALL OF US (and that includes liberals like you) from getting ahold of ATOMIC WEAPONS in the VERY NEAR FUTURE.

Get it now?

Increasing the ranks of those who hate us is not a sound foreign policy. And it's scary that around half of the country is okay with it.

I know that listening to the ideas of people with a different worldview can be a very scary thing indeed, Mr. Baby. But the more you try it, the less frightening it becomes.

I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Afghanistan poses.
I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Iraq poses.
I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Iran poses.

Get it now?

Yeah, I do.

And last I checked, it wasn't the White House that proposed bombing Iran's nuclear facilities; it was ME.

I've heard the concept discussed on cable news. It's not your original idea.

I know that listening to the ideas of people with a different worldview can be a very scary thing indeed, Mr. Baby. But the more you try it, the less frightening it becomes

Unless that point of view is aligned with destroying mankind.

"I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Afghanistan poses."

What else would you call a country that gave Osama a safe-haven that he used to launch terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans?

"I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Iraq poses."

Something like 400,000 mass graves have been dug up there. The person responsible for them was still in power prior to invasion, and WOULD still be in power if people like you had their way...

"I'm talking about JUST THIS ONE HUGE FUCKING THREAT that Iran poses."

Crazy Mullahs with nuclear weapons is what most people would consider a major threat, yes.

"I've heard the concept discussed on cable news. It's not your original idea."

I didn't claim it was my "original idea." I pointed out that the White House had not proposed it (as you suggested) and that I was the one who brought the topic up on this Website.

" Unless that point of view is aligned with destroying mankind."

Strawman.

You Lefties forget that the Hawks are trying to SAVE the world, NOT end it.

My intentions are pure. (As our yours, I'm sure.)

You think "my way" will lead to Armageddon. I think YOUR way will lead to Armageddon.

[shrug]

One of us is wrong. (Or maybe both of us...)

I don't mind discussing the potential pros and cons of taking a given course. (Maybe "my way" WOULD turn out to be a poor choice. How's about you try and convince me, without all the logical fallicies?)

The country which armed, trained and supported the muhjahadeen including Bin Laden in Afghanistan? The USA.

The country which armed and supplied chemical weapons to Hussain in the war against Iran during the 80s? The USA.
(that's where your "mass graves" came from, you ignorant jackass)

The country which supported a murderous regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot? The USA.

The country which aided South Africa's apartheid regime to obtain nuclear weapons? The USA.

The country, which still to this day runs a training facility for genocide and torture, formerly known as The School of the Americas? The USA.

The country which has been hijacked by apocalyptic cultists, steadily developing a reputation as an isolated, rogue nation? The USA.

So, in short, you are a war-mongering fool. Sort of like an arsonist who wonders why the Welcome Wagon doesn't visit when he moves into the neighbourhood.

Jim:

We all know you hate the US. This has been well-documented in the BC archives.

But what does your comment have to do with Iran? What should the Free World do about a their nuclear ambitions? Do you have anything of value and/or ON-TOPIC to add?

I didn't think so.

(And when did I ever suggest that I supported any of the things you listed? Answer: I didn't; you were engaging in the "Red Herring" logical fallacy.) So then how did you come to the conclusion that I'm a "warmonger"? Answer: Because I'm an American who doesn't hate my country.)

Love revisiting the lyrics of that song, Bernard.

I agree with Tek that the first thing we must do is get Bush out of office. Kerry may not be able to stop terrorism in its tracks, but he can curtail the overreaction to 9/11. The Zionists and their sympathizers will be furious that people aren't being murdered for having the 'wrong' religion. But, with education revealing just how inane their ideas about owning the Middle East are, I believe their share of public opinion will erode. So, first Bush, then the Zionists. The Christian fundamentalists? They are in bed with the Zionists (until Jews need to be sacrificed to bring about the Rapture, that is) so, achieving the first two goals will put them deservedly on the sidelines. The country can do this. I believe it will.

I need to convince you why bombing a country who hasn't directly attacked you is not a good idea?

source

The US is doing trade with Iran. Not something you do with a country you are at war with. So we are not at war. First, should be sanctions, then pressure from the international community, then pressure from the arab/muslim community, then......RJ, this is so ridiculous, I don't need to point out the 'cons' of bombing Iran. And there is NO 'PRO' towards bombing a country that currently has the relations it does with us and the rest of the world.

And for financing terrorism and harboring terrorists? Why the heck are you suggesting a preemptive strike of 'bombing' as the first step??

Even Bush acknowledged before the war in Iraq, that war was a LAST RESORT (even if most of us didn't buy it). Now we're just going to be blatant about it and just drop the 'last resort' cliche? Apparently it's now the FIRST resort. Just nicely relabeled 'preemptive strike'.

RJ, these words coming out of your mouth, are no surprise to me. That's not what's terrifying. It's the other commenters who are usually rational, who are saying 'well, let's not dismiss this so readily...'

Steve (Boom), you are cracking me up. Hammer the lil' mouse with his own words like a good criminal defense lawyer and boy does he squeak.

Tek, RJ Elliott is within the guidelines for military service. However, he says he is too valuable to the U.S. as a college student to enlist in the military. (Stop snickering.)

RJ, I don't hate the people of the USA. I do despise your government because they are the greatest threat to the rest of world as we enter the 21st century.

If the USA would engage in developing an effective nuclear proliferation agency instead of dropping out of international treaties and disarment efforts that would be start. Instead, in this century the USA has increased proliferation, engaged in brinksmanship, and behaves like a rogue state, trying to look more like North Korea every day.

You personally engage in war porn for your own fascist ends, and basically provide a degraded brand of the USA as a bunch of cowardly, bloodthirsty yobs.

You've hijacked your country, and if the rest of the world thinks you are murderous arseholes, isn't that your problem to solve?

"The US is doing trade with Iran. Not something you do with a country you are at war with."

The US was doing trade with Iraq as we bombed them in 1998. You know, when that sane, calm, rational Clinton feller was in office.

"So we are not at war. First, should be sanctions, then pressure from the international community, then pressure from the arab/muslim community, then......"

Sanctions won't work at this late stage (if ever). And the Arab/Muslim community seems far more interested in Israel's nukes than Iran's.

And the International Community HAS been "pressuring" Iran for months now. And the response from Iran: Go Fuck Yourselves, We're building nukes anyway.

"RJ, this is so ridiculous, I don't need to point out the 'cons' of bombing Iran."

Then what are they, if they're so obvious? (I'm not saying they don;t exist, but it's rather hard to debate an unspoken argument...)

"And there is NO 'PRO' towards bombing a country that currently has the relations it does with us and the rest of the world."

Our relations with Iran have been absolute shit since 1979. And they've worsened since 9/11 and the whole "Axis Of Evil" speech.

There is one clear "pro": No Iranian nukes in the near-term. (Are you seriously suggesting this isn't a "pro" in your mind? Or didn't this, which would be the entire purpose of such a strike, even enter your mind?)

"And for financing terrorism and harboring terrorists? Why the heck are you suggesting a preemptive strike of 'bombing' as the first step??"

This is NOT a "first step." We've been engaging in diplomacy for months now, and we've gotten nowhere. This is a LAST step. It's now or never. They'll have nukes soon if we don't act.

"Even Bush acknowledged before the war in Iraq, that war was a LAST RESORT (even if most of us didn't buy it). Now we're just going to be blatant about it and just drop the 'last resort' cliche? Apparently it's now the FIRST resort."

Not at all. Read above.

There is one clear "pro": No Iranian nukes in the near-term. (Are you seriously suggesting this isn't a "pro" in your mind? Or didn't this, which would be the entire purpose of such a strike, even enter your mind?)

No nukes would be a pro. But you can't guarantee that would be achieved by blowing a country up.

There is no proof that the war in Iraq has removed WMD from enemy combatant hands. I don't buy that it's different the second, no third, time.

No. I don't think bombing is how to get rid of them. Hasn't worked the first time. And guess what? When we do find Saddam's WMD, if he has them, which was likely, we won't find them by a bomb. I'd bet on that.

So the one clear 'pro' - no Iranian explosive devices in the short term - You haven't convinced me that bombing will solve the problem.

"Tek, RJ Elliott is within the guidelines for military service."

How would you know? Been cyber-stalking people again?

"However, he says he is too valuable to the U.S. as a college student to enlist in the military."

Another lie. I never said that.

What I DID say, was that the US government's rationale for exempting college students during the draft was based upon simple economics: There are only so many people who are able to do important, high-skill jobs (the kind that college students perform after graduation). It is silly, from an economic standpoint, to remove these people from the domestic economy.

If you had a country with 1000 doctors and 100,000 janitors, and you needed 1000 troops ASAP, who would you draft? All the doctors? Just leave the civilian population dying in the streets from burst appendixes and compound fractures? Or would you draft the (economically-speaking) easily-replaceable janitors?

It's a damn cold utilitarian way to do things, but it makes perfect sense. And anyway, it's the government's position, not mine.

So, as usual Mac, you're lying.

wow, my text editor dumped all my changes. That post makes little sense. :-(

I'm not going to bother to rewrite it. The point is, I think no Iranian nukes is good. I think bombing the country is paranoia, as destructive to the US as a nuclear warhead itself, and is an absolutely WRONG solution.

If RJ is a college kid, then it's good to know Bush wants to bring the draft with no exemption for those punks.

In the words of Bart Simpson: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.

I don't know what part you don't understand, but, you don't make the world a better place by waging unprovoked unilateral war. That's what fascists do.

You make the world a better place by peace and prosperity.

You're saying Yugoslavia, and the rest of us are saying Czechoslovakia.

You are a hate-filled, shit-throwing little monkey. Who probably is hated by his neighbours.

What I DID say, was that the US government's rationale for exempting college students during the draft was based upon simple economics: There are only so many people who are able to do important, high-skill jobs (the kind that college students perform after graduation). It is silly, from an economic standpoint, to remove these people from the domestic economy.

Except that the government was perfectly willing to draft them after graduation.

"No nukes would be a pro. But you can't guarantee that would be achieved by blowing a country up."

Again with the Strawmen! I never once said we should "blow the country up." I said we should take out (in a surgical fashion) ALL of their nuclear facilities.

If we take out ALL of these facilities (and we know where these facilities are, though of course we cannot know for sure where all the components are), they cannot develop a nuke anytime soon. (It's fine and dandy to have some nuclear materials laying around hidden, but it takes a large, obvious-to-spot facility to enrich the stuff into weapons-grade material.)

"There is no proof that the war in Iraq has removed WMD from enemy combatant hands. I don't buy that it's different the second, no third, time."

This isn't about taking out existing stockpiles in Iran. It's preventing the creation of future stockpiles.

"No. I don't think bombing is how to get rid of them. Hasn't worked the first time. And guess what? When we do find Saddam's WMD, if he has them, which was likely, we won't find them by a bomb. I'd bet on that."

No, we'll find them because we occupied his country with over 100,000 troops. But we can't do that with Iran right now. We can, however, bomb the shit out of the nuclear sites, and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons that they might otherwise use to kill innocent Americans. Or Brits. Or Australians. Or Israelis. Or whoever.

"So the one clear 'pro' - no Iranian explosive devices in the short term - You haven't convinced me that bombing will solve the problem."

Well, I cannot GUARANTEE anything. You may be right that a surprise bomb attack would some how go FUBAR and blow up in our face. I dunno. I'm sure our top-level military folks have thought about it, and maybe they've decided it's not doable. (Sadly, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Myers are unlikely to post any of their insights on BC.)

But, at any rate, I'm glad we are having a rational discussion now. :)

Hey, Eric, did blogcritics.org at least get the commission on RJ's purchase of "Rhetoric for Total and Absolute Tools" from Amazon?

"Except that the government was perfectly willing to draft them after graduation."

True. Unless, of course, they immediately entered a specialized field that was in high demand and was therefore deemed "off-limits" to the draft.

Does anyone believe that it is possible, in the long run, to prevent regimes like Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb? Probably Korea probably already has such a device. They have a fraction of the resources Iran has.

The Indians, Pakistanis, and (probably) North Koreans already possess the bomb. Iran, predictably, is either very close or already has a prototype.

Just some very depressing possibilities here.

Roland, good point. Frankly, I've never understood why only the United States is 'supposed' to have nuclear weapons. I don't see a way to separate that belief from imperialism. I am not saying I like the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, I don't see a defensible moral argument for 'good for us/bad for them.'

I have lied about nothing in regard to RJ Elliott. But, I think most people realize that. Carry on. I'm enjoying the conversation. Watching him melt down on various threads is entertaining.

How is responding to comments on my own post "melting down"?

As for your lying, you know you are. It's completely intentional. And the people who know anything about you know this as well. It's all too typical coming from you.

If you weren't lying, you'd back up your claims. But you can't do that, because you're completely full of shit.

So, what's the name of that Pulitzer Prize winning novel of yours, MD? Why won't ya let us know? We're quite curious... ;-)

If you were truly melting down, I'd imagine that you'd be deleting all your threads and threatening the site with legal action. Now THAT's a meltdown!

I didn't read any of the comments, but this is simply an example of the worst of internet commentary. Taking ridiculous, illogical, extreme positions no one else actually believes. It's almost folly to get into the reasons why this is just a horrible, horrible idea and lend it any credence.

That is all.

I beg to differ BABs. RJ's post is a perfect example of the knee-jerk reaction many Americans have to the present danger hovering above our society. It's an extreme stance, and I'm not sure RJ entirely believes in it. However, he does go out on a limb and should be applauded for doing so. This post (and others of RJ's) create interesting threads, heated conversation and spirited debate. To make such a post is brave, if a bit foolhardy. Anyone can make a generalized, offensive comment ridiculing all above.

To the actual subject: this isn't going to happen because we have shot our military wad for now and world politics simply won't stand for open hostility of this sort. That's the real reality. However, this doesn't mean covert action to disable their nuclear capability is out of the question and may be exactly the appropriate response. And it can be done by Iranians - we keep hearing about all of the dissent within the country - an action like this would certainly further the cause of those who seek a different kind of government.

It's been a while since I've read up on this, but I don't believe Iran is particularly close to having the technical know-how or fissile materials to produce even the most rudimentary nuclear weapons. It has been fairly active in purchasing ancillary hardware like missile technology from Russia and China, but I don't believe that a "surgical strike" would work. I won't get into the multitude of reasons it'd have horrible consequences for the region and for our stability because that's too easy and too detailed.

Quite simply, we don't have the intelligence to know where to make such a strike since we don't have proof that they possess nuclear materials. Our actionable intelligence on the region outside of Iraq and Afghanistan is remarkably poor and unreliable even with our troops right next door. Much of the intelligence we do have comes from Israel and you'd better believe that the IDF (equipped with one of the world's great air forces AND nuclear strike capability) and Mossad would act far before we could go through the political wrangle needed to stomach yet more foreign aggression.

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030831161331.qq5hzw1y

"Israel has come to regard Iran as its chief military threat since the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."

The next war in the Middle East (God willing, it will be far off) will not be started by the United States. Most likely, it will be started by Israel as a response to what it views as unacceptable losses in some unfortunate event. Israel clearly does not currently believe that Iran will use nuclear weapons in the near future; in fact, it has received intelligence in the past indicating that they may have already had them for years:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9804/msg00215.html

A surgical strike, by the way, would not take out existing, stockpiled small warheads nearly as easily as it would a nuclear reactor or a facility complex.

Here's our actual strategy with regard to Iranian proliferation:

"U.S. wants defensive missile system in Europe against Iran; report OCTOBER 9, 2003 14:44:23

Munich (dpa) - The U.S. government is sounding out the possibility of bilateral agreements with European countries to allow stationing of a defensive missile system directed against Iran, a leading German newspaper reported in its Friday edition.

Countries accepting the missiles would be rewarded by the U.S. with economic assistance, according to the report in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung citing unnamed U.S. State Department officials.

One ranking U.S. diplomat told the newspaper a joint project with European participation would be preferable, creating a missile-defence system to guard against attacks on both Europe and North America. However chances of obtaining NATO approval for the project were slim, the official said."

More fun news from Iran

SHUX LETS JEST GO AHEAD AND NUKE TEHRAN IRAN AND WHILE WERE AT IT HIT SYRIA!!! SHIT THAT WOULD PISS EM OFF RIGHT PROPER LIKE..YEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAA...NUKE ALL THE RAGHEADS..REDNECK JIMM

I'd love to see Iran get nukes - and wipe Israel off the map. Due to their proximity, millions of Muslims would go down from blast and fallout. Meanwhile the Israeli air force will have scrambled with their own nukes and totally waste the rest of the Islamic world. This would end the threat of Islamic terrorism, and no more American youths would have to be slaughtered in the Middle East for the sake of the Zionist Jews.

ha! oh richard. you silly nit. high hopes for the fallout from nuclear war? no thoughts about innocent lives? here's a more likely scenario: iran nukes israel, israel nukes islamic world, islamic world nukes everyone else, everyone else nukes everyone else, life ends, game over.

here's a more likely scenario: iran nukes israel, israel nukes islamic world, islamic world nukes everyone else, everyone else nukes everyone else, life ends, game over.

No. The more likely scenario is that Israel eliminates all Islamic nukes and brings the technology and population levels of the Middle East more in line with the 7th Century Muslim mentality - thereby stopping your scenario at the third step. That's when the game would be over. Nobody else will need or want to get involved, and Islam will cease to be a threat to Western Civilization. To me that's well worth the price of all those "innocent" suicide bomber producing jihadist families.

zing: no thoughts about innocent lives?

Yes a lot of truly innocent people would perish. But the alternative is to let nukes be developed and proliferated within a primitive religion with factions having world dominating ambitions. In the not too distant future Muslim operatives would be setting off nukes in America, China, etc. Not knowing who was responsible, the attackees could well assume that it was some other source than Islam. And THAT'S where your scenario would go beyond the third step and proceed to the ultimate result you predicted.

Boy Richard,

You make me look like a humanitarian...