>More - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39019768/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
>
>Obviously, any sane person hopes that nothing comes of this.
>
>But we are not dealing with sane people when we talk about the leaders of Iran.
>
>This was the ONE reason I voted for McCain in 2008. I knew that domestically he really wasn't much better than Obama, but would take a much stronger stance with Iran.
>
>I know I get all sorts of people who piss and moan about me saying this, but we have been morally justified in crushing the Iranian govt since 1979. One can debate the practicality in past years, but there really is little rational debate that they deserve it.
>
>Well, we are approaching a situation where it may be the most practical thing (and the only practical thing) to do. I would rather live with history judging the U.S. in way people judged the bombing of Japan, than the way people judged the U.S. for sitting back for too long when Hitler rose to power.
>
>Again, I hope nothing happens. We have too many problems in our own country to get involved in any more foreigh engagements. But if pushed to the brink, I hope Obama can prove his detractors wrong.

I think Iran is all talk. They know both the US and Isreal have the bomb, and they know isreal won't hesitate to strike back if attacked. While I do agree that the world would be better off without Iran, that's what people were saying about Iraq and Saddam Insane. The US got bogged down in a pointless war against someone who was ZERO real threat.

The same applies to Iran. If they want to stone and whip their people, that their business IMHO. It's not the job of the US to run off and stop Iran.

And remember, Iran has been beligerent since Reagan, and none of the presidents from him until now have done anything, so I would expect the same from Obama. Truth it, Reagan should have wiped them out the moment the last US hostage was out of there.