>I have read in an article by Seymour Hersh that Iran's nuclear facilities are so far underground that bombs wouldn't reach them, even the so-called bunker busters.
>
>It's just hard for me to believe Iran would nuke either Israel or the U.S. They have to know they would be nuked back. There is a reason no one has attacked with one in over 60 years.

Yeah, attacking like that when they know they would be attacked in return would be ... well,suicide! and what culture would do something like that ?

They'd have to believe they were in the end times and the 12th Imam was still alive and waiting to return ...

But hey, not to worry. All educated, civilized people know all people are really the same everywhere and deep down inside want the same things and can be reasoned with if we just become vegans and our Department of Peace offers warm hugs instead of macho nastiness. I say let the UN handle it. What could go wrong?




>
>I agree with you that it would be foolish to take the military option(s) off the table. So far it doesn't seem to be deterring them, but if they thought an attack was imminent they might blink. And this crazy guy I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket won't be in power forever.
>
>>Or one could start from the position: A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable unless not accepting it would require stopping it, in which case ... oh well.
>>
>>Obviously, if one does not think a nuclear armed Iran is a problem then there is no reason to try to prevent it. If one decides it must be prevented, then options must be broad - especially if the goal is to prevent it through negotiations. A CINC who publicly takes the military option completely out of the equation - especially where the issue is a military one - is not negotiating seriously but simply putting on a show.
>>
>>I am not a believer in invasions as a preferred tool, and I'd have to be pretty convinced bombing would do it before that looked good. I would prefer more focused efforts.
>>
>>Once upon a time Iraq was going to build a very very very big gun to point at Israel ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Krauthammer is a man among boys, when it comes to clarity, understanding and the ability to cut to the heart of the matter. Read his take on the election:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR200810
>>
>>aign's bogus claims about their candidate and his opponent, or should I say his opponent's acquaintances. And McCain as the seasoned, steady, wise foreign policy expert! -- oh, boy. The guy is a world war waiting to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Could you be more specific as to what 'bogus claims' you cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And whose fault is that ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How is 'A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation' a 'bogus-claim?'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Its not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But if you are supporting the republicans you have to acknowledge that they have done a lot to destablilise Pakistan and make the world a much more dangerous place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I was questioning Mike's statement that the article was a bogus claim on 'A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation' not about who was responsible, who shared responsibility, or to point blame. As to party responsibility (I don't doubt that although it is more an administration responsibility, not a party responsibility), let's not forget the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, not the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around and everyone in the House, Senate, and the administration shares it. That involves all parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, who is supporting the Republicans? Certainly not me. I am not Republican. There is far too much 'party blame' around here and it gets tiring. I see it constantly - the Dems blaming the Repubs and vice versa. Whenever I see it, I tend to play the devils advocate. Don't be confused into thinking those are my beliefs. I just like a good discussion on an even playing field. The parties did not do any of this. People in those parties did by acting or not acting when necessary. Sometimes they did it for political purpose. All parties are far far too guilty of that and does nothing but damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike made the 'bogus claim' statement and still hasn't responded himself what he saw as a 'bogus claim' or did I miss it? It's very likely I did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Pakistan's ISI became the mother of the Taliban on Clinton's watch (though not because of Clinton) Policy toward Pakistan since 9/11 has been a lot of making a less-than-best out of a bad situation. But I'm not sure there is any 'blame' for Pakistan other than whoever didn't send in people to kill key members of Pakistan's nuke program back when a group within CIA said they thought it would be a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If Pakistan did not have nukes there would be some much simply policy choices. When Obama's administration allows Iran to get nukes, we'll see just how complex it can become.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Please pass on my apologies to Tracy for not replying quickly enough on a Saturday ;-( --- I was refereeing soccer, going to an AA meeting, and doing stuff with my daughters. Sorry!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I agree with you that Pakistan is the world's most dangerous nation, with Afghanistan a close second. Islamic terrorists with their hands on launch codes is our worst nightmare. Also Israel's. Where I don't agree with you is Obama standing by idly. Where did you get that impression? He said he would talk to unfriendly nations, he didn't say he would appease them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe there is any chance Obama is willing to take the action that will be necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program. (though I do think there is a chance that he might covertly encourage the Israelis to do so, and keep his own fingerprints off of it.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't think he'll stand idly by, I just think his efforts will be well-meaning and ultimately futile. I hope I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If he does what will be necessary in foreign policy his harshest opposition will come from the left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Let me make sure I've got this straight. You want us to invade another Middle Eastern nation that poses no threat to us?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did I miss something? I don't see those words written by Charles or insinuated either... I must be sleepy this morning...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Boldfacing added in Charles's message. Sure doesn't sound like he is suggesting diplomacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not suggesting invasion either.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with Mike. When you take what Mike boldfaced and add the line about covertly encouraging the Israelis to do the necessary that Obama won't do, I have to believe that an invasion of some sort is exactly what he is suggesting.
>>>>
>>>>The problem I have with this is the same folks argue that you cannot 'read into' Obama's statements anything that is not explicitly stated. It is unfair to do the same to Charles when Charles did not state invasion. He may have indeed meant invasion, but I do not know that, and you cannot 'assume' it until he verifies that it was his implied meaning.
>>>
>>>I didn't assume anything. It was based on how I read his message. Presumably Charles will clarify what he meant.