Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

I see the folly of your argument, and don't blame you a bit for wanting to move on to a different topic.

What about the "few well placed bombs" from Israel, and their effect upon Iraq's nuclear ambitions?

You obviously fear alienating the Persians more than you do their having nuclear weapons.

But if diplomacy fails, and Iran continues its quest for nukes, someone needs to take out their capability for doing so, and if that job falls to the US, so be it.

Your argument that doing so would "make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation," is ridiculous.

What certainly would demonstrate that would be to do nothing in the fact of Iran stepping up it's pursuit of nukes.

revel, Excellent point; China owns a good portion of US treasury notes now, and our government put us into this catch-22 situation.

Ticomaya wrote:

I see the folly of your argument, and don't blame you a bit for wanting to move on to a different topic.

I've not moved to a different topic. My point all along is that short of permanent military occupation, we cannot prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you assert that the people of the United States will accept that we must invade and permanently occupy any nation which threatens to produce nuclear weapons? Can you provide any irrefutable evidence that our Idiot in Chief's miliatry adventurism has stopped anyone from engaging in a nuclear weapons program? Does it not just slap you in the face that the Persians have been pursuing such a program while we've been enmired in Iraq, slowly bleeding? I despair for your powers of reasoning.

Quote:

What about the "few well placed bombs" from Israel, and their effect upon Iraq's nuclear ambitions?

That occured in 1978, if it were a definitive, then there would have been no reason to invade Iraq in 2003. You're making my argument for me, though. The Israelis bombed a breeder reactor near Baghdad in 1978 (whicih i believe the Germans has supplied them, although that is merely interesting detail). Nevertheless, the Iraqis continued to develop womd, the evidence for which was their use in the war with ther Persians. Of course, after the Isrealis bombed them, we had the spectacle of Rummy with the sh!t-eatin' grin shakin' Hussein's hand in Baghdad, and tellin' him just how much Ronny Ray-gun just loved his new look. So the evidence is bery good that "a few well-placed bombs" will not end a nation's ambitions to possess womd.

So, if the Isreali bombing in 1978 were definitive as you claim, then you must acknowledge that the yellow cake story which the Shrub trotted out in his casus belli was just horsie poop, eh? Refreshing honesty on your part.

Quote:

You obviously fear alienating the Persians more than you do their having nuclear weapons.

No, such a conention is not at all clear. What is clear, is taht you are attempting a playground insult suggesting that fear motivates those who have enough sense not to stir up hornet's nests. The Persians justifiably consider Israel a potential threat. Were there no American presence in the middle east, and you didn't have a dry drunk half-wit in the White House rattling a sabre, there is no reason to fear that the Persians have any plans to threaten us with nuclear weapons.

Quote:

But if diplomacy fails, and Iran continues its quest for nukes, someone needs to take out their capability for doing so, and if that job falls to the US, so be it.

There is no reason for me to assume that the Pesians should not have nuclear weapons when the Pakistanis do, when the Indians do, when the Israelis do, when the Ukrainians so, when the South Aricans do--when a host of small nations of dubious diplomatic morals and stablitiy possess such weapons. The contention that those nations and their nuclear weapons can be ignored, but that the Persians must not be allowed to possess them is completely unfounded. Why aren't you so concerned about North Korea? We know the have nukes and other womd, and they've been selling long-range ballistic missles to the rest of the world for decades--i read in 1988 for the first time about Iraq's purchase of North Korean Scuds, and that was in a war-gaming magazine fer chrissake.

Oh yeah, silly me--the Koreans don't have any petroleum, and they could really put up a fight. Forget i asked.

Quote:

Your argument that doing so would "make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation," is ridiculous.

That is not my argument--that is a strawman you attempting to erect. Look out ! ! ! It's wobbling, it's about to fall over.

My point is that the invasion of Iraq, and then necessity of turning over operations in Afghanistan to other nations, whle the civil stability in Iraq deteriorates on a daily basis, with that nation spiraling into civil war shows the United States to be incompetent to achieve such ends by military means. Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen. There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.

Quote:

What certainly would demonstrate that would be to do nothing in the fact of Iran stepping up it's pursuit of nukes.

You mean like we've been doing with regard to the North Koreans? Oh damn, i keep forgetting, they don't have vast lakes of petroleum just under the sun-blasted desert landscape . . .

Tico, You keep using the plural "we" like all Americans agree with your POV. WRONG! Thnk again, revise, and post again.

I don't need to, but you do. You just can't see the opposition to your position on Americans vs "we."

Pakistani Taliban take control of unruly tribal belt

A powerful new militia dubbed "the Pakistani Taliban" has effectively seized control of swaths of the country's northern tribal areas in recent months, triggering alarm in Islamabad and marking a big setback in America's "war on terror".

The militants are strongest in North and South Waziristan, two of seven tribal agencies on the border with Afghanistan. Strict social edicts have been handed down: shopkeepers may not sell music or films; barbers are instructed not to shave beards. Yesterday a bomb blew up a radio transmitter in Wana, taking the state radio off the air.

Militants collect taxes from passing vehicles at new checkpoints, and last week an Islamic court was established in Wana to replace the traditional jirga, or council of elders. [..]

The violent puritanism is spreading. On Sunday a remote-controlled bomb ripped through a police vehicle in Dera Ismail Khan, near South Waziristan, killing seven people. More than 100 pro-government elders and politicians have been killed in the past nine months, said a diplomat.

The Pakistani military deployed 70,000 troops to Waziristan two years ago to rein in the militants. But the campaign is faltering. An army assault against an alleged al-Qaida training camp outside Miran Shah on March 1 left more than 100 dead. [..]

Comparisons to the emergence of the Afghan Taliban in the early 1990s are increasing. Although they have distinct identities, the groups are strongly linked - both are ethnic Pashtun - and Afghans use Waziristan as a rear base.

Analysts say the Pakistani Taliban is a loose alliance of tribal militia operating under radical clerics such as Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq. Many are angered by heavy-handed Pakistani military attacks against suspected al-Qaida hideouts, which are thought to have killed hundreds of civilians over the last two years.

The tribesmen are allied with al-Qaida fugitives, mostly from Uzbekistan and Chechnya. The foreigners have blended into the tribal structures, buying loyalties and marrying local women.

Foreign reporters are banned from the area and most local journalists have fled. One, Hayatullah Khan, 32, was abducted in December and is still missing.

The US is impatient to catch more senior al-Qaida figures. Unmanned Predator drones, now armed with Hellfire missiles, sweep over the tribal areas on surveillance missions so often that villagers now recognise their engine noise.

In January American forces destroyed a house in Bajaur tribal agency where it thought al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was hiding. Thirteen villagers were killed. The US has carried out several strikes, said a well-placed diplomat, but it has let Pakistan claim responsibility.

Such attacks have won the militants much support. "These are not the proper Taliban," said the refugee Mr Khan. "They are the common people who have revolted against the [Pakistani] government and targeted killings by Americans." [..]

May I remind all of you that the former regime in Iraq had a history of actually using WMD.

I personally,was not willing to take the chance that they wouldnt use nukes if they got them.
If they didnt,fine.
But,the cost would have been enormous if they had.