When Iraq stopped work on nbc weapons did that make their problems go away?

Valid point! The issue is when you talk about a country like Iraq with huge oil reserves it doesn't matter if you comply or dont'. The rest (human rights abuses by Saddam, gasing the kurds in the eighties, supply of arms by the US to Saddam in eighties to fight Iran) all become history. But once Saddam reached his 'expiry date' and West had no bargaining chip to keep him in power, it was time for him to go irrespective of whether he did stop working on those WMD or not.

So, because they didn't fnd WMDs in Iraq, the Iranian nuclear program is forcibly inexistant. Right?

Fine, Ahkanaten, don't permit anyone here to disagree (define forum in that please!).

However, I copied this (and I think this guy might have a reasonable view):

Bolton: US air strikes on Iran would be major step towards Iraq victory
May 7, 2008, 12:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

Former American UN ambassador John Bolton said that while a hostile Iranian response harming US interests existed, the damaged inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action. He was quoted by the UK Telegraph as urging therefore that Washington order air strikes against the Revolutionary Guards Corps camps training Iraqi insurgents.

A US spokesman last week confirmed earlier disclosure that the IRGC’s al Qods Brigades had drafted Hizballah personnel to support Iraq’s Shiite militias and train them at facilities in Iran.

Back to my opinion on the matter:

Since this is war - then we should be able to achieve military objectives without harrassment from the media's often unfocused perspective.
 

Thank you - a fairer analysis of my submissions.

At least you accept that I was in the military (though in my part of the Army we don't do 'squads' - and I was more senior that being in command of a troop (the cavalry's equivalent of a platoon) anyway). So my regiment's more senior officers diagreed with your comment of pitying my troops in having me with them.

We never have dropped anything on Iran ourselves, have we? And using Saddam as a proxy doesn't count.

Anyway, it really comes back to the point that it is now time to bomb the necessary Iranian bases/locations in order to win this war (and it was here that the former U.S. U.N. ambassador's opinion is a verification of my opinion).

There is a type of teenagers who like to get attention by saying extreme and violent slogans, some would stop being bastards if you ignore them and some will become more violent and extreme. In this case exteme violence can create even more destabilizied Middle East.
I think Iran need a therapist, i mean anti-Islamic therapy probably mixed with American democracy, like the one in Iraq.

Interesting video with all the usual suspects and the good old Bolton et al with his usual rants on Iran. Frankly doesn't surprise me a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDcmNJJi_k

To All:

Let's step back a second and try and break this down into a real world example. Lets look for a second at the Pakistan-Indian conflict.

We have two countries here who absolutely hate each other. No one can claim they hate each other less than Iran hates Israel. I mean they've actually had wars people...3 or 4 in since WWII....with scattered showers of heavy skirmishing through out. Further, they actually have a dispute. A real sincere honest dispute. Iran is only playing for itself and threatening with the Palestinian cause. They dont give a rats you-know about them and while they may not like Israel they're not right next door to one another like India and Pakistan...they dont really care. They don't really have a reason to care. They are spending double digit billions to keep drugs from coming through Afghanistan. They need to worry about Iraq now too. They're not about to start lobbing missiles at Israel   -- which they can already do --- just because...what? Just because they can?

Ajham-whatever-his-name-is has said or implied that he "wants to destroy Israel if blah blah blah". So what? If anyone's been paying attention the dude says a lot of crazy stuff. Pretty much anything he says is null, void of meaning. 100% propaganda. No need to get crazy yourself every time he does or you're just his monkey.


Now I think it was '74 that India got it's first nuclear weapon test and Pakistan began their program only few years later but so much secrecy surrounds their development that we're only now certain of their nukes as of the late '90's. Even so that's us. You and me. Indian intel as well as most others were quite aware they had them much earlier than that.

So why, rationally, are we more worried about an Iran/Israel conflict, than India/Pakistan? Why are the former chances considered so high? You listen to some and you'd think it's a lock: as soon as get them they're going to use them. It doesnt really have a basis besides the getting of them. When was Iran's last war? Were they the aggressors? No, they were the defenders right?

So take a breath and think about it. What are you rationally going to do that isnt going to give blow-back? Its not that we  should ignore Iran or can afford to ignore Iran, it's the only thing that will actually attain your goals. Attacking them in any manner for simply acquiring what is their right by nationhood to acquire and what is by all means everywhere, even in the hottest parts of the world, a purely retaliatory and defensive weapon will only provoke the opposite or your reasoning for using force: a dis-stabilized middle east, a threatened Israel and a long war rather than the vision of a surgical strike. In the end they're going to get 'em anyhow.



India/Pakistan are easily more crazy than Israel/Iran and their nukes are both real and retaliatory. These days it would seem that nuclear weapons almost deters their skirmishes from into turning into the Third Kashmir war.

Ahk