> Problem is you can’t just invade over small things like this.

What!! small? If it were your wife, brother, or son would it be small? That is such a disturbing statment that kidnaping people is just no big deal in international politics.

No one believed they were working. So we invaded Iraq thinking surely hes up to his eyeballs in WMDS. Come to find out the country was destitute from the sanctions imposed upon them.

Iran is way more fragile then Iraq. They will hand the Mullahs heads to them on a platter if we just turn the screws on them for 2 or 3 years. Iraq is doing that. We just need to be in Iraq for about 2 or 3 more years and Iran will fold along with Syria and Terror funding.

George Bush said it would be a long war. He just forgot that we live in the age of microwaves. We want it in 60 seconds not 60 minutes.

> Problem is you can’t just invade over small things like this.

Invasiion for any reasons, discouraged — Iran is larger than Iraq and has tougher terrain. Forceful action, of course should be considered (including destruction of various targets throughout Iran, in particular related to aggression Iran commits against us in Iraq).

> We go into Iran over a few captured sailors,
> then we end up making a similar mess as
> Israel did in Lebanon.

if Iran started rocketing us in Iraq, (which is what Israel also was subjected to, if you recall the entire situation), of course we should respond in some forceful way.

Another Lebanon is not inevitable (typical hostile anti-Western dishonest propaganda aside). The big problem is that we are now preoccupied in Iraq and this constrains what we could or should be willing to do as much as or more than what more forceful aggressive and destructive acts Iran may choose to commit.

For Saddam we were doing just fine. He was contained, every once and a while he would try something, and we would send him a few cruise missiles to show we were watching and that there are consequences. And it wasn’t the antiwar crowd that kept our government back from invading Iraq earlier, it was thoughtful people who actually looked ahead to the possible consequences of such an invasion and saw that the mess we are in now was the most likely outcome. Just because someone doesn’t support the Iraq mess, doesn’t make them antiwar.

We go into Iran over a few captured sailors, then we end up making a similar mess as Israel did in Lebanon. Support for the Iranian regime is waning among its citizens, but go and bomb their infrastructure and they’ll be behind the regime as strongly as this country was behind Bush after 9/11.

So whats new here? Nothing. Its actually very old. The North Koreans have perfected the technique and the Iranians are just using it and looking for ways to make it even more effective.

Remember a guy named Saddam Hussein. He did it over and over for years and years. His problem was he was banking on the usual antiwar crowd to help him out and there basically was none in 2002. His bad. It got him hanged.