Bart, I don’t think we can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
You're probably right - the time to teach them a lesson was 12-18 months ago
but Obama, as always, chose to dither instead of taking action to make the world safer.
Hillary needs to sit him down and explain world polotics to him.
On Thursday you wrote:
> I'm talking about a 15-minute strategic strike on some ports/refineries/pipelines
> that would cripple their ability to export oil and bring them to the bargaining table.
That would not be an option if Iran had nuclear weapons. The Iranian leaders can look at
Iraq and know that if Saddam had the bomb (like North Korea) he would still be in power.
They know the only way to prevent a future W Bush from invading is to develop nuclear weapons.
They know their future history will be full of 15 min strategic strikes up until they develop nuclear weapons.
You play poker, let me ask you. What would it take to make you bargain that away?
N Korea didn't pursue nukes until Bush called them "the axis of evil."
Then they had no choice but to nuke up.
Bush made it clear to the world that the only way to avoid American interference is by having nuclear capacity.
You can still say that the US needs to prevent Iran from developing these weapons.
But it is going to take more than a few bombing runs.
Is the US willing to make that kind of commitment?
Do we have a choice? I'd rather see a 15-minute bombing run
every year than send 100,000 soldiers into another Middle East meat-grinder.
We are faced with bad options and worse options but closing our eyes and hoping
shit works out for the best seems like suicide - and being an atheist, I'm against suicide.