Critics of military action in the USA could, and perhaps should, consider Sherman's antics in Georgia.

Not only is that obviously untrue in the case we're looking at, if our military (or Israel's) struck a reactor used to develop nuclear weapons (i.e., it is obviously a military target, no question about legitimacy).

That's even true with a vicious example you actually can truthfully consider, such as the threats by the Pakistanis not only to attack truly military targets, but other, civilian objects of interest merely to be vicious toward (as well as spiteful, if they expected to lose a war with) India: the Pakistanis at least once have threatened to use missiles or aircraft to strike Indian nuclear reactors, including civilian or research reactors (not military weapons production reactors, only), deliberately, to subject the surrounding and the downwind population to a deliberate release of some of the worst possible radioactive materials.

It actually isn't terrorism (as was actually true about the closest historical analogy that has happened before, Hussein's setting the Kuwaiti oil fields afire; “environmental terrorism” is specious — it merely was something especially spiteful and vicious, and differs from attacks on Trombay or similar targets only to the extent that people rather than wealth would really be the objects of the attacks).

A military strike is not terrorism — obviously. There is no question whatsoever about the obvious.

Striking a reactor and causing a release of activity is a similar problem to attacks on chemical or on biological weapons facilities — there is a related risk of release of the agents in question. If we were to use nuclear weapons on these and other merited targets (hard or deeply buried targets of high value), there is a chance of release of radioactivity, as well. With nuclear reactors, the ideal is to be able to conduct a strike before the reactor has become active (“gone hot”). This addresses the risk of exposing the environment and civilians to radioactivity were the strike to be delayed. (In fact, this was one thing the evil Israelis did, with their great respect for life and humanity, that isn't shared by Israel's enemies, when the Isralis attacked the Iraqi reactor in 1981, the attack the chatterers and others, too, condemned at the time, but were relieved after Iraq invaded Kuwait several years later.)

That is why, in addition to the liability conferred by insane anti-nuclear and anti-Western politics on our use of nuclear weapons, that we have sought to develop non-nuclear highly-destructive weapons that can defeat nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, to destroy them while avoiding or minimizing any kind of associated release of the agents (if not completely destroyed).

Party Breakdown
In the 108th Congress, the current party breakdown in the House is 227 Republicans,
210 Democrats (including five Delegates), and one Independent who is aligned with the
Democrats. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and one Independent who is
aligned with the Democrats.
…
Military Service14
There are 153 Members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military
service, some 14 fewer than in the 107th Congress. The House has 117 veterans: 69
Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. In the
Senate, 35 Members are veterans: 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
…
14 Some information here is from the Military Officers Association of Americans Office
[http://www.moaa.org/Legislative/Handbook/FactSheets/LegisTips/legislative_tips_5.asp],
visited June 29, 2004.

<strike>19%</strike> 22.9% of all House Democrats ever served in the military.
<del>40%</del> 30.4% of all House Republicans ever served in the military.

You and JD have both framed Iran's actions in OUR terms. Regardless of how nutty we think they are, developing nuclear energy is certainly their right, and developing nuclear arms, though no one wants them to, is a logical defensive position (again looking from their vantage point) in a world that keeps threatening them with “unprovoked” aggression. Remember, to date no one has launched, or even threatened as Russia did, nuclear weapons.

Do you guys think North Korea is less nutty? Why no talk of taking their facilities out?

You may have missed my comments on another thread, but we're never going to hold back the tide of nuclear arms through threats or bombs. Middle East experts say if we blew it all up today, Iran would rebuild within 2-3 years. That simply is not worth the considerable cost to US. We can't stop anyone from acquiring technology. The pace of science and technology has proven time and again that it will become easier with each passing year.

Our belief that we can threaten or bomb away the ability of any nation to acquire technology is about as rational as their belief in those 72 virgins waiting for them (besides which I really doubt many of them believe that any more than we believe the fantasy image of angels with harps in the clouds). Our comic book image of their religion is probably matched by their comic book image of ours.

If a foreign military blew up a US nuclear power plant, it would not be terrorism. It would be an act of war. Yes, it would affect civilians, but that has never been the critiria for terrorism in the past. Terrorism is the targetting of civilians for the sake of targetting civilians. So if a military action causes civilian casualties, even a large number of them, that doesn't make it terrorism. Taking out a nuclear facilities, communication facilities, bridges, etc. are all military actions designed for stategic ends. They may involve, to varying degrees, the killing of civilians. And to the extent that they do it is tragic. But unless we're ready to redefine pretty much every war in history as acts of terrorism, those actions aren't terrorism.

“Just as Russia always knew it would cease to exist if it unleashed warheads on the West, Iran also knows its history is over if it attacks Israel or the US.”

So you'd be OK with starting up another nuclear arms race, this time with the added spice of non-state actors (terrorists) that would try to get into the game? We will assure peace by ensuring that every nation (and non-state) has the power to destroy the entire world as we know it before they could be stopped. It could work (as you point out, the cold war didn't end in nuclear armageddon, thank heavens), but I think maintaining the status quo (which it seems to me is what the NNPT is intended to do) would be little less risky.

One thing that gets overlooked (especially with Father_Time's rants about right-wing nut job Christians praying for Armegeddon…….I admitted they do exist but they are in the fringe.

The Khomeini and his mullahs do that on a group/government scale. You said they would have already strapped on a bomb. I don't agree. They are more than prepared to “end the history of Iran”, if it will get them their virgins and a place beside Mohammed. So their thinking clearly is definitely in play here. You may be right about poking Israel in the eye. However, they may just want to bring about the end of humanity if they can get away with it. I cannot judge their hearts. I can only judge their actions. And their actions are not reassuring me of anything but their path to conflict.

As for Khrushchev, I didn't claim that talking did any good; just that no one needed to bomb anyone's facilities. Just as Russia always knew it would cease to exist if it unleashed warheads on the West, Iran also knows its history is over if it attacks Israel or the US. That's deterrent enough for me. I am not afraid. It isn't a matter of our adversaries thinking clearly. It's a matter of US doing so. If Khamenei was suicidal, he would already have strapped on a bomb. He's not going to let the history of Iran end because he wants to poke Israel in the eye.

You were the one who raised the specter of what Saddam did after the Gulf War, not me. We certainly did NOT 'support' Saddam, we certainly wanted more than UN sanctions for those 12 years (part of the reason we DID eventually act unilaterally).

As for the Kurdish uprising, you will never see me defend our lack of follow-through after encouraging them to rise up. It is indeed one of the blackest moments in US foreign and military history, and can only be called a disgrace.

Agreed. I haven't said that we need to be explicit about it. You're the one that was explicit that was should not bomb Iran under any circumstances except if they are about to attack us. But yet you have said that that is not the same as taking the military option off the table. I still don't understand how those two positions are reconciled. But that's OK. I think I'm just missing a nuance in there.

Regarding hypocrisy, you have a good point. But I do think there are some differences between what Iran is doing and the examples you sited.

In the case of 2 and 3, those are things that we are no longer doing and the new administration has officially renounced. So it's not comparable to something Iran continues to do and has not renounced. If Iran would renounce what it is doing and provide evidence that it is sincerely committed to stopping its nuclear program, things would be different.

In the case 1, it isn't good to just back out of a treaty like that, but at least we announced our intentions, rather than saying we were abiding by the treaty and then not doing it.

As for nuclear issues, as far as I understand Israel has not signed the NNPT, and the US also has not agreed to give up its nukes. (I understand we have agreed to reduce the number over time, which Obama says he's working on. But you may have a point that we haven't done a good job with that. I don't know the exact numbers).

I should also clarify that of course I don't believe that we should bomb every country that violates some treaty. In some cases the proper response is just to cut off whatever benefit that country was receiving under the treaty, and in all cases we should exhaust all other alternatives first. However, with the nuclear agreements it seems to me that the stability of the region, and also our own safety, is at risk which makes this particular agreement extremely important for the international community to enforce, even at great cost if necessary. Of course those costs, which would be great, need to be carefully considered.

http://clerk.house.gov/ (for numbers of D and R members.
http://www.navyleague.org/legislative_affairs/H… for numbers of each that are veterans.

So yes, Democrats are much bigger “chicken hawks” in terms of military service. They are less hawkish in foreign policy, but not based (in general) upon military experience. There are exceptions on both sides of the aisle, but the numbers above (19% versus 40%) speak volumes.

Someone owes me a Pepsi.

Well, adelinesdad, that's why I posed it as a question and used the word “suggested.” I got the impression that you were suggesting a link between our self-interest and bombing Iran, because you asked me if I didn't think that peace and stability in Iran's part of the world was in our national self-interest. Since the disagreement here is about whether or not it's a good idea to bomb Iran, and since you have sort of been on the “yes it's a good idea” side of that argument, I did assume that you were questioning me on the national self-interest thing because you thought if I didn't want to bomb Iran, maybe I didn't think we had any self-interest there.

Is that perfectly unclear now?

“First of all, I never said we should take the military option off the table. I said we should not bomb Iran.”

These two statements seem contradictory. If the only justification for war is if we are in imminent danger of attack, then by definition that is taking the military option off the table as far as enforcing international agreements is concerned.

They're not contradictory at all. You can have it in your mind that a military option still exists without explicitly announcing it to all and sundry, or using it as a threat in negotiations. Negotiations really don't have much of a chance to work unless you start out with a clean, empty slate. If you start blustering and drawing lines and saying don't cross this line or else, then negotiations are much more likely to fail.

Having said that, I was referring to the military option in a more general sense, not with specific regard to enforcing international agreements. I did go back and look at your original question about this and I see that you did use international agreements as a context, so I missed that. I do believe that the military option is the wrong one for the U.S. to use if the purpose is to enforce international agreements, for the reasons I've stated before — basically, the hypocrisy factor. That still does not mean that you have to *announce* publicly and out loud, that you are abandoning the military option. I mean, it's not my intention to get all esoteric and metaphysical here, but if you don't bring up the military option at all, either to threaten it or take it off the table, then by default it's still an option. Don't you think?

The line in the sand, in my opinion, is that you can't violate international agreements that you've already agreed to. If you want to negotiate new terms, that's fine, but in the meantime you have to stick to what you've previously agreed to. As far as what international agreements the U.S. had agreed to and then not followed through with, I humbly plead ignorance, so you can fill me in if you want. I'm not interested in agreements that we didn't sign on to, whether for good reason or not.

Okay. One: The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The U.S. abrogated it unilaterally during the previous administration — meaning, Bush did not negotiate new terms. He just announced we were no longer going to abide by it.

Two: The Geneva Conventions. I assume I don't have to provide details about this one.

Three: The U.N. Charter: The U.S. has violated the requirements for launching a self-defensive war repeatedly.

In addition to outright violations, the U.S. has enforced (or tried to enforce) international agreements selectively — the most glaring example being Israel, whose nuclear program the U.S. politely ignores (not even acknowledging it exists) while threatening to attack countries like Iran for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Israel is just as much in violation as is Iran or any other country other than the six nations permitted to have nuclear weapons).

I'm glad you don't write history books, although someone with your view will probably revise it somehow.
You are correct about Vietnam. That's what we are trying to avoid in Afghanistan. An unclear strategy and goal will put us on the same path we were on with Vietnam.

You are totally incorrect about Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally remember Hillary Clinton and others revamping their support of those wars. But that's ok since Hillary served in the military. Oh wait. She didn't did she? I remember John Murtha (who DID serve) saying that we have lost the war in Iraq. (You see what military experience gets ya?). That statement put our troops at risk, and stood to lessen morale. I'm glad we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. But then, we stupidly invaded Iraq before securing Afghanistan. As Hitler found out, it's hard to fight a two-front war.

I understand the logic behind invading Iraq even if it was based on lies. If we had Iraq, then we surrounded Iran. And Iran has been our sworn enemy for 30 years. That statement is backed up by both parties' members in the Intelligence Committee. So with Afghanistan invaded because of 9/11, and Iraq invaded because of fabricated threat, we now have the enemy, Iran, surrounded. And when you corner a fox, they tend to do stupid things, like pursue nuclear weapons.

Always fun to throw a couple of jello cubes into the food fight. Don't worry too much. I was just doing a little rabble rousing. If anyone can figure out to how to stop Iran from going nuclear without starting some new and unpredictable conflagration, I'm all for it…just not sure it can be done without starting a new and unpredictable conflagration.

You got a Like from me for preferring Shannonlee's argument. Just my contrary nature.

g.c.

I am over 40 years old, bro. So I'm not a kid by any stretch of the imagination.

With that said, I NEVER advocated nuking Iran. I never mentioned that. Look at my other post to ShannonLee. I actually advocate getting rid of all nukes and THEN bombing the crap out of anyone who does not dismantle the program.

But since you brought up Kruschev….
Talking to him settled nothing. Likewise, talking to Ahmadenijad will settle nothing. It took a nuclear showdown in Cuba, with fingers nervously hovering over the “button”, to settle that one. Or did you forget that? These clowns (Kruschev, Ahmadenijad, Hitler, Kim Jong il) do not think like the rest of the nations in the world community. They are or were bent on world domination of some sort. You can't negotiate with that mentality. We have to be stewards of history here. If it didn't work in the past (and that includes bombing) then don't do it today.

“When did I say Iran was irrelevant to our national interests?”

You didn't. Father Time did by suggesting that Iran was Israel's problem.

“Are you suggesting that if a country is relevant to our self-interests, that means we have to bomb that country? “

I never said anything close to that. As someone who rightly pushes back when you feel people are misrepresenting your position, I'm surprised that you would say that.

“War is de-stabilizing, by definition. “

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the alternative isn't worse. (For the record, I wouldn't advocate attacking Iran right now. I would support strict sanctions, with the possibility of military action if Iran continues it's current course).

“First of all, I never said we should take the military option off the table. I said we should not bomb Iran.”

These two statements seem contradictory. If the only justification for war is if we are in imminent danger of attack, then by definition that is taking the military option off the table as far as enforcing international agreements is concerned. It seems your trying to argue that we can say that we won't bomb Iran, but as long as we don't tell Iran that, then technically the military option is not off the table. I give more credit to Iran to believe that they wouldn't call our bluff.

“You're talking about setting preconditions”

The line in the sand, in my opinion, is that you can't violate international agreements that you've already agreed to. If you want to negotiate new terms, that's fine, but in the meantime you have to stick to what you've previously agreed to. As far as what international agreements the U.S. had agreed to and then not followed through with, I humbly plead ignorance, so you can fill me in if you want. I'm not interested in agreements that we didn't sign on to, whether for good reason or not.