I'm not sure I'm following your logic. If the Syrians and the Iranians are fighting a proxy war by way of insurgents in Iraq, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were coming to some sort of agreement, the violence between the insurgent groups would be decreasing? Surely you're not agreeing with Mr. Cheney that things are wrapping up over there...Originally Posted by Idaho
Saber rattling? Yes, I suppose it is. I think we're nervous and our current administration appears ill-suited to tackle the problem of preventing a nuclear armed Iran. When you're a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail, but I'm curious how you personally, Idaho, would attempt to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
I personally think any sort of military action in Iran would be a terrible mistake. It really would bring about WW3. There's no way China and Russia would just sit back and let us control 30% of the world's oil supply, even if we truly had the best of intentions (and as we can't even convince 50% of our population that we really do have the best of intentions, it's foolish to assume that we could convince Russia and China).
But I also think it would be a terrible mistake to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. They've all but said they'll use them the first chance they get against Israel.
I'm curious what Idaho proposes for ensuring neither of these travesties comes to pass.
Bookmarks