When was the last time Iran ever attacked another nation? Granted that in the mist of the Iranian Revolution the leadership foolishly provoked the United States by allowing students to attack our embassy and take hostages, presently, Iran is in no position to be militaristic. Relative to Russia, China, India, the U.S. and Israel, Iran is economically and militarily weak. History shows numerous examples of nations making bad choices after revolutions, i.e. American War of 1812, French Revolution, Cuban missile crisis. Iran?s war with Iraq would have been real ugly had the Iranians used chemical and biological weapons during their war between the cities in the 1980's. Thinking of their own national survival, both nations exercised restraint.

A few nuclear bombs make a nation a target. A nuclear arsenal capable of delivery makes a nation a power. Israel has a vast nuclear arsenal only exceeded by American forces that surround Iran from sunrise to sunset. Although Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be idiotic, his idiocy doesn?t transfer to the Iranian leadership because he isn?t the leader of Iran and the Iranian leadership is not stupid. The Revolutionary Guards aren?t the Taliban. Iran is run by the presidency, the Revolutionary Guards, the Guardian Council and the Parliament all under the watchful eye of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. I don?t fear the Iranian people because, sad to say, the average Iranian is educated and much more knowledgeable of world affairs than the average American. I no more believe that the Iranian leadership wants to nuke Israel than I believe that most educated Iranians believe that the Jewish holocaust didn?t happen.

Iranians are naturally concerned by the huge American military presence on their doorsteps, any nation would be. No doubt seeing what happened to Iraq has prompted their desire for a clandestine nuclear program, however ineffective, to keep the Americans wary of escalating matters. The Iranian leadership wants the world to believe that they have the ability to strike by nuclear and non-nuclear means if attacked, so they put up with Ahmadinejad?s nonsense, only occasionally yanking his chain when his comments become too ridiculous or provocative. Iranian desire to independently develop peaceful nuclear power is understandable, but Iranian nuclear brinkmanship is a very dangerous game?especially when you can?t control the players you know and don?t know all the players hiding behind in the woodwork.

If you think the Iranians are the most dangerous threat to world peace in the region you?re dead wrong. Disaffected Pakistani military officers are ripe for exploitation, corruption and indoctrination. If you knew how the Pakistanis account for their nuclear materials you?d move to New Zealand. Personally, I?d rather live in ignorance. It?s worked pretty well since 1945. We may bum rush the Iranians only to wake up and realize that the Taliban has taken over Pakistan and set up a ‟cyber bazaar? to discount poorly maintained nuclear devices for sale to the highest bidder.

 

Agreed Rudy, I like our President, I really do, however things like this are just plain stupid. Dare I say I agree with the French? The announcement should have been made at the UN and Iran should have been confronted there, in the general assembly.

 

We must keep in mind that the Iranian people are not bad people, especially in terms of the uber-conservative middle east. I ran is actually a pretty cosmopolitan country - particularly Tehran. The vast majority of the young and sensible there do not agree with what the government is doing which is why they were voted out (prompting strong demonstrations and stronger retaliation by the government). It would be a difficult choice for Isreal to have to make if they needed to act preemptively, there is a huge Jewish population in Tehran.

I do not agree that Russia and China would be averse to act with military force, remember, Iran just tested missles capable of reaching Moscow - if that's not a threat I don't know what one is.

 

Well, that's just Fox News' take, a well-know, anti-democrat news organization. The real deal is that Obama has identified areas in the military where they are wasting money (yes, the military wastes money, like any other government organization), like the no-bid contracts that the previous administration was so fond of, and the fear mongers are using "the sky is falling" tactics to ensure that we elect another republican president. Personally, I couldn't care less. Our military is still a force to be reckoned with, second to none, and I don't see anything wrong with them trying to cut money where needed.

 

+1 very much agreed, however, based on the "kinder gentler" forum we are trying to build I was hoping to keep it to the topic of concern and away from political discussion.This is an issue that is completely bipartisan, since it can/will affect the lives of very many Americans. The very real possibility that we may have to put our troops in harms way yet again, including our friend Tonymac. Even as a veteran I am not keen on this option, but given the circumstances we may have no choice.

 

 

Agreed

 

Correction, Fox News: the only non anti-republican news organization.. somehow became the anti-democrat??

 

 

Can I just repeat: I was hoping to stick to the topic of a real crisis, not digress into political discussion that will be the death of the thread. Every time we discuss politics we get off track, let's keep to the subject, because politically we will never agree.