Autonemesis

Neither one sounds very effective. So-called rogue states already have nukes, despite reputed efforts to stop them. N. Korea looks as if it has carte blanche to sell to any takers, with nothing more than grumbling acquiescence from Washington. Is invading Iran going to do anything about that?

What about the nuclear material lost as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq? Who is disseminating that material, and to whom? Is an invasion of Iran likely to produce the same dispersion of nuclear materials that resulted from the Iraq invasion? It seems reasonable to think so.

Loren Pechtel

Is not counterfeiting *US* currency to the tune of billions a year a form of attacking us?

Loren Pechtel

Too late. If they had actually done so--and not merely to some Islamic country that wouldn't dare do anything to him--Bush probably would have stopped the bombing.

ex-idaho

Only if that currency is introduced into our economy otherwise it is an attack on the person taking it as a form of payment.

If people want to circulate monopoly money around it dosen't hurt us one bit until it is introduced into our economy.

RLV

You forget that nuclear weapons are not the only WMD. Remember 11-S? There the WMD were commercial planes.
Biological and cheamical weapons are easier to make than nuclear weapons. Dirty nuclear bombs (a conventional bomb with nuclear debris for increasing its lethality) are not as lethal as fission bombs, but still they could kill thousands.

Besides that, there are already a good number of nuclear weapons around. Russia and some other ex-USSR republics have many. There are a few unaccounted for, they say. India has nuclear bombs. Pakistan has nuclear bombs. North Korea is said to have nuclear bombs. Maybe others.

Who knows, maybe invading Iran would be the straw that turned Pakistan into a fanatical muslim country... armed with nuclear weapons. Is that a safer scenario for your country?

Why don't you try another option?
C)- Diminish the hate than islamic and third-world countries harbor against the US through a judicious and benefical use of your resources, rather than going around killng islamic people and invading islamic countries.

Yes, I know, it's harder to do, and it's less prone to winning reelections to the president who follows this path. But, imho, is the only option that has a chance to work in the long term.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

RLV

Like the expected revolt from the Iraqi people against Saddam Hussein?

Shocking, indeed.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

Syphor

Since when did pro-democracy = pro-American?

Godbert

Certainly, especially compared to the perfectly sane approach of the US to carpet bomb a country in response to a terrorist attack (i could stop here, but ...) without providing even a hint of evidence that the terrorists are actually in that country and killing ten-thousands of people (including more civilians than the terrorists killed) just to catch a grand total of 0 proven terrorists.

peacenik

Well, I wish you were correct about the U.S. not being able to stomach an average of 5 dead soldiers every day for seven years, but the Vietnam War proved that that wasn't the case. Yes, there were lots of protests and we did eventually leave the region, but not before approx. 55,000 (I believe this is correct) troops were killed over a period of several years. We're already seeing about 1 soldier killed every day in Iraq and no-one seems to care. In fact most Americans don't even know that we still have soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. Most Americans believe we have "liberated" the Iraqi people when in fact we haven't. See this thread to see that myth debunked: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=55854
Hell, many Americans believe that we have found WMD's in Iraq. Unfortunately, this administration will typically be able to do whatever it wants to do militarily as long as it is in office.