|
and did what they'd really like to do, finding the sites wouldn't be so difficult... after all, if you're not sure where they are, just be sure that we cover all the possibilities. One can assume that all their nuclear sites would have a roadway nearby or have a building on the premesis? It's easy, just vaporize every sign of human activity across the whole of Iran... and like Israel flattened Lebanon, not to harm the inhabitants, but to hit Hizbullah and their missiles, so too we aren't seeking to harm Iranians, merely their nuclear program--if a few people just happened to get hurt when we turned the entire surface of the country to molten glass, well, that's unfortunate (though it might help reduce Iran's involvment in terrorism). :sarcasm:
Of course, if the U.S. ever cut loose on a country in such a ways as to entirely depopulate it... the consequences would be unimaginable. But unimaginable might be tolerable to Republicans. I don't know, maybe I'm misjudging them--perhaps they'd settle for only causing a few million dead civilians or "collateral damage". One think I do know--we could never, ever invade and occupy Iran without completely and totally expending every resource we have and thereby perfectly destroying any hope for a bright future in America. Unfortunately, it really is within the realm of possibility that Bush & Co, are just foolish enough to do it anyway.
Iran is an up and coming power in both the region and the world, whether we like it or not. They have immense oil wealth--which is going to be continuing to increase in value for the forseeable future. That means other major world powers will be happy to make any kind of deal Iran wants--and they won't hesitate a moment just because it will screw U.S. plans. We might have a chance to delay their pursuit of nukes, but we won't stop them--and we can't stop them--not by ourselves anyway. The only military option that will stop them is against International Law and Convention as well as being as totally unacceptable morally as it's possible to be. However, reality can force the taking of otherwise immoral acts--but it should, no, it must be the absolute last resort (and not even then unless it's truly catastrophic otherwise). Nothing short of incontrovertible evidence the Iran provided nuclear bombs to terrorists who then detonated those weapons against a major population center would begin to justify the kind of military response that would be sufficient.
It's a case of dealing with another that won't stop and cannot be stopped short of an overwhelming response--approaching genocide. Partial action will just aggravate the situation and require further action. It (a military approach) is just not a viable possibility... Yet our current leaders cannot seem to consider the words "negotiation" or "diplomacy". Meanwhile, we have a lunatic who actually has nuclear bombs, who is developing an ICBM (something we cannot hope to stop--missile defense is an unfortunate joke, and will be for a long, long time). This guy is probably even more likely to be willing to attack us that way. Ahmadinejad is crazy, but crazy like a fox too--and knows he represents millions of people; he'll think twice before using a nuke against us because he knows what we would do in retalliation. Dear Leader (Kim Jong-il, not Dumbya) has only himself to stop him--and he's a loon--he couldn't care less about his 'people' (they are his to do with as he pleases). I know which one would worry me more--and Iran doesn't have any weapons yet. No, we can't ignore them and we can't waste any opportunity to prevent them from continuing to move up this path... but we cannot do it alone.
Mr. Bush, for the sake of all Americans and the future--find some allied acquaintences who will help--don't try doing it by yourself! We know you want to be a "Transitional" President--who presides over a sea-change in America, but this isn't the kind of legacy you want. It won't work the way you think. It won't work the way you've been told. Stop, think, don't act aggressively (repeat). If you won't do it for us, do it for "the Twins"...
|