I'd feel awful because my government would have let me down. But I don't have to feel that way, do I?

A few bombs and blockades just might cause a revolution there.



>How would you feel if the US was subject to a military blockade and a few "surgical military strikes" (we can take that as only a few innocent civilians blown to bits) would it make you think "gosh we had better change our foreign policy" or would it make you think "we've got enemies lets arm ourselves"
>
>As you say the Iranian regime is weakly supported at home and you couldn't do more to strengthen their cause than follow a macho military posturing course of action.
>
>Nick
>
>
>>I think Lieberman is on to something that should be obvious. BTW, what's "opportunistic" about his stance?
>>

>>What I mean by should be obvious is that Iran is a major player in disruption in the Middle East. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda in Iraq, and others all receive huge funding and material support from Iran.
>>
>>We're not going to talk our way into a settlement with these folks because they are prone to not doing what they say they will and ME diplomacy is different than it is here. It's an advantage game there.
>>
>>The current regime in Iran has incredibly weak popular support. I think a naval blockade with a few surgical but highly visible military strikes may cause a rethinking and/or democratic revolution.
>>
>>Doing nothing is the far more dangerous option, I think, at this time.
>>
>>
>>>>http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=070610&cat=news&st=newsd8pm2fug0&src=ap
>>>
>>>
>>>One thing the opportunistic Sen. Lieberman doesn't mention is that according to our best intelligence, whatever nefarious nuclear activity Iran has going on is buried so deep underground that even cluster bombs and daisy cutters won't penetrate to it. To take that stuff out would require another messy ground campaign. (Oh, we need troops? Minor detail!) We really have to lose this illusion that we can achieve major military objectives from the sky, deus ex machina style.