The concern is that some of the mullahs and their puppet harbor an escatalogical strain of Islam that wishes to bring about the End Times. In this context, logic serves little purpose in trying to predict what is up the clerical sleeves. It may (may, I said) be that war with Israel is seen in certain Iranian quarters as a EZPass to paradise.

To me, re the Brits, it’s much more important that the whole area did not descend into the chaos of warfare.
Iraq seems to have taught you nothing. There would be no chance to draw nice battle lines with formal rules of engagement. Al Qaeda would have been on the spot in no time. And I doubt Israel would have been left alone to watch calmly from the sidelines.

You make these nice imaginary plans with battle ships and all, but these plans, count on Iran and the rest of the ME to react as per your plan. Why would you expect that? And do you really think we have the capability to take on a broad new war?

OH, I forgot. No war.

I want retractions of your posts calling anyone anti-semitic, or apologies in cases where it is obviously unwarranted. You shouldn’t get special treatment here since others don’t.

I meant… what I wrote. It’s not more difficult than that. I believe that the Brits should have, with the Americans, set up a naval blockade. Pressure should have been put on Iran. The West should have united, threatening using force if necessary. If Iran would refuse to give in, I believe that force should have been used, indeed.

Nice of you to bring that episode, one of the most humiliating in modern British history, up by the way: it’s a great example of how not to deal with Iran.

The Iranians thought that the Brits would give in to their demands, that the Brits were willing to be humiliated, etc.

And they were right.

Wrong choice.

In this scenario, blame for the war should be put on Iran since Iran kidnapped the British, and then refused to release them.

Would the West have been forced to use force? Perhaps, on the other hand, perhaps Iran would have given in to the demands, because carefully planned and executed airstrikes would have completely destroyed the already weak Iranian economy.

In the end, I choose confrontation over giving in to thugs like the Mullahs. Yes. Also in the case of the weapons of mass destruction. If necessary, force should be used to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. If this results in a bigger war – which is possible – that is terrible, but the alternative, Iran with WMDs, is even more terrible.

That is and remains my position.

The goal should not be to avoid war, the goal should be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We had an argument on your site concerning the British hostages. You were berating Blair for being a wimp, and the fact that the crises passed without major warfare seemed to matter not al all.
It’s true, you never used the word ‘war’, but you did go on about standing up to Iran and using ultimatums. So, what does standing up to Iran and issuuing ultimatums add up to?
There is no reason from past history to believe that threats would work with Iran.
I asked you then: If we say ‘or else’ and Iran chooses “else’, what then? You didn;t answer, handily avoiding the word ‘war’.
Avoiding the word, does not erase the implication, however.

Everybody has a last ditch war scenario up their sleeve, but it matters a great deal what it would take to trigger it. From your earlier posts, even though faithfully avoiding the ‘war’ word, you made it very clear that avoiding war the British way was not to your liking. How is the alternative not confrontation and war?

Now you are adding new layers, I’m happy to see, about inspections and such. So, perhaps you’ve moved the goalposts back.

BTW, “you’d better back that claim up with some good old facts.” sounds too much like the tone Bush would use with Iran.
The tone doesn’t sit well with me, either, but I’ve given my basis, nevertheless, just because I’m a reasonable person.

Go right ahead. You say that I am “eager for war,” you’d better back that claim up with some good old facts.

To borrow a line from you, I suppose we could just say you’re “irrational” and that’s why you’re “eager for war.”

Michael, how does it feel to be subject to your own burden of proof?

Well, in the end, we are not too far apart. Nothing appeals to me more than Teddy Roosevelt’s foreign policy saying.

However, politicians are going to be pushed (with some logical justification) to articulate positions, so the “non-quiet” is likely to get a little unavoidably worse in this regard for the next year.

I See.
What I think is, however, that all this public talk of irritiation and possible retaliation is, in itself, driving up the stakes in the game.
If Iran fears an attack, it’s more likely to do something crazy.

Tough talk has just about ruined our chances on a diplomatic level with Iran. Iran reacts negatively to put-downs and threats, and we get the opposite of what we want.

Every time we speculate about Israel trying to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, we increase the chances that Iran would try to do the same to Israel.

In other words, quiet please.

I wish people in the public eye would just stop talking about who’s going to attack whom, or at least use very, very careful words.

You can look it all up. Go right ahead. You say that I am “eager for war,” you’d better back that claim up with some good old facts.

Pyst, I am not thinking about apologizing for that.

I am also not getting back into that argument. This is a different thread. If anyone wishes to communicate about yesterday, I suggest sending an e-mail.

I think this is a fair cherrypick of Fred Thompson’s message….”If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.”

Nowhere does he say “attack Iran for Israel”, much less suggest a unilateral US action.

Rather, he IS only saying (IMO), if you were on the receiving end of 1300 missile strikes from the East and the guy on the West is blatantly avoiding non-proliferation compliance inspections, we shouldn’t be surprised if you start acting a little more irritated.

That “substance” is identical to Hillary Clinton’s “substance”. Indeed, it is not a partisan issue…..my point exactly.

Forget the translation of your nic……it was small talk.

AIPAC’s hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC’s hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

I really like the title.
Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
by Joshua Frank

I would defend Israel to the death. But just so you or others don’t think that I am a slavish Israel supporter, it is not fine with me that it has built settlements on land that does not belong to it, as well as other transgressions that also are off topic.

The point is that insofar as nukes are concerned, Israel and Iran are judged differently.

True. That’s because “I am 100% that Israel will only use it if absolutely necessary and in self defense.

Iran might use it offensively.”

So, in essence they are not held to different standards at all. The question is, does one believe that it is possible that a country will use nukes offensively? If so: big nono.

Doma: I’d appreciate you not referring to me as someone eager for war. I encourage you to take that back immediately.

The consequences of a pre-emptive war on Iran would not be so good for Israel

Indeed, it could be horrible for the entire region.

You hear talk about the possibility of the violence in Iraq spreading throughout the region if the US pulls out.

That would pale in comparison in my opinion to the consequences of a “pre-emptive” strike on Iran.

Not to mention that the odds of such a strike actually eliminating Iran’s nuclear program are nill.