Perhaps because they’re both sovereign nations that feel entitled to dictate their own energy policy.
I would not support an invasion and occupation a la Iraq. I might, however, support a strike with conventional or nuclear weapons (or both) against Iran’s nuclear and military facilities.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
By continuing with what they’re doing?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know BG…do YOU think they are on the optimal path to keep on keeping on? Do YOU believe that having increasingly harsh sanctions that are going to put additional pressures on their government due to the increasing difficulties faced by an already dissatisfied populace is the way to go?
From where I’m looking, the obvious answer to your question is ‘no’, or perhaps ‘are you kidding?!?’.
-XT
No, that fact doesn’t make them equivalent. From Iran’s support of civilian-targeted terrorism to the fact that Iran is almost certainly violating the NPT, the equivalency is fallacious.
Yes! ALL NATIONS desirous of having independence shall henceforth start the production of a nuclear weapons program, regardless of the stability of their government…the world will be a safer place!
Good idea!
I hope you’re not suggesting we nuke India and Pakistan.
Hmmm…think of the US hegemony if we accomplished the trifecta though! Iran…gone. India (although we’d have to keep the Microsoft tech support)…gone. Pakistan…gone.
I like the cut of your jib, lavatory linksman.
Oh, the non sequitor game, I love that game!
Okay, my turn: every year several South Koreans die from eating live octopi which strangle them from the inside of their throats.
India, Israel and Pakistan are not signatories of the NPT, and two of those don’t have clean hands when it comes to state sponsored terrorist support. If that’s all it takes to invade/nuke we have our work cut out for us FinnAgain.
I’ll take it they won’t need to draft you?
If only foreign affairs were solved so simply.
Well played.
Okay, my turn again: the Roman legions instituted a significant revision in their armor when the Dacian falxmen proved too devastating to resist with normal gear.
Your turn.
I hope you don’t think you’re clever.
Damn, you are a pro at the non sequitor game.
Here goes: force applied times meters in the direction of motion is equal to work done and is represented in joules.
Your turn.
It would be best if we were all resolved to fight nuclear weapons and other policies that are without conscious, but instead more aggressive military buildup in someone else’s territory again? Was anything learned from the invasion of Iraq over its maybe weapons of mass destruction? And if it is only big weapons that make big invaders back off, well then… And what will make the world a safer place at this point? Only certain bullies on the playground can tell everyone else what to do?
I would be against U.S involvement with war against Iran and think the U.S has been meddling in Middle East politics for far too long. I also think that every country ought to have the right to pursue an energy policy, in reason. It also strikes me as fruitless to try to prevent, in the year 2012, a country from pursuing a technology that’s been available for over 60 years. It is clear that people confuse Iran “arming itself” with “having nuclear power” - I just don’t see that equivalency. If we’re going to go comic book on the scenarios, I’d support (limited) strikes if Iran decided to carry its threats to choke the Strait of Hormuz. But they’re not that stupid.
Although, isn’t curious how these revolutions end with Islamic democracies not secular ones? Least with Iraq, Libya,Lebanon, and Egypt that’s the case. I’d bet that that regime change in Iran would not sweep in an era of pro-Western rulers, in fact, I’d wager that most would form a government that’s as Islamic as unWestern as the previous government.
We cheerfully slaughter civilians all the time, on a much larger scale. And the NPT is a joke; if we are willing to threaten the Iranians with nuclear attack - and we have - then national survival dictates that they ignore a treaty which has become a suicide pact. They have no moral obligation to keep to an agreement that apparently is designed to make them easy to mass murder.
As for the OP, nope. The Iranians have not come in second to the US in thirty years. They might actually win!
Ridiculous to even contemplate. Haven’t Americans had their fill of illegal wars for at least a couple of decades?
I would only support going to war if they attacked us first. I would not support another BS “preemptive strike.”