We are talking about two different things. You are talking about a symbolic show of strength. I was talking about actually taking out the nukes. One is a limited engagement which probably wouldn't do much harm, although as always there is the threat of unintended or unforeseen consequences. The other would be a serious military campaign with no easy solution. How are we supposed to do that, being so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan already?

PS -- What is Datamaxx? I don't remember seeing that in your profile before.


>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.