“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Here is what Netanyahu said in front of Congress.....not to mention. The Saud has already stated that they will have their Nuke. If Iran gets their.
He told the joint session that the emerging deal would allow Iran to retain too much of its existing nuclear infrastructure. And he warned that US and other Western powers are proposing to allow Iran to develop too many nuclear centrifuges, a key component to one day fielding an atomic weapon.
"If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.
"The alternative to this deal," Netanyahu said, his voice booming as he pounded the podium with his left hand, "is a much better deal. "A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and short breakout times," Netanyahu said. "A better deal that doesn't give Iran an easy path to the bomb.....snip~
Netanyahu: Iran Deal Could Lead to War
The answer *must* be "maybe" even for those (like me) who really, really, really don't want to see this happen. The need for a "maybe" is two fold - one, having the possibility on the table does help keeping the Iranians a bit better behaved, and two, in the very, very, very unlikely possibility that the Iranian regime will end up actually building a bomb and actually using it (again, I find this to be extremely unlikely because I don't see these ayatollahs as being plain suicidal), then yes, not only the US but other Western powers would have to attack them back.
I see the Iranians in a quest for regional influence and a lot of their tough posturing is for internal politics. I don't see them *really* set on nuking Israel or other Western interests. Yes, maybe they'll build a bomb, but probably won't use it. It would be a dangerous development for the Middle East (and also, one might worry about regime change in the future with some rogue group getting hold of this arsenal), but I don't think the current regime would translate into action their tough rhetoric. Still, one never knows what the future might hold.
So, I'm quite surprised with so many "no" and so few "maybe" answers, because one can not entirely discount the possibility of future conflict. Nothing is certain in the world, today. So, a straight "no" without leaving at least a very small possibility of action in case of real catastrophic escalation from the Iranians, seems to me to be a bit naive.
Last edited by GreatNews2night; 04-11-15 at 11:16 AM.
Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
Obama's legacy - National Debt / Credit Downgrade / Obamacare Failure / Economic Failure / Foreign Policy Failure / Liar of the Year Award / The Rise of ISIS
Republicans want to make Obama look bad. Also they want to keep US arms dealers to selling to Saudi Arabia & wealth countries in the ME.
Saudi Arabia & Israel want to be the main powers in the ME. They want to keep the sanctions on Iran or have them fighting a War. The Israeli military police has said that Iran is not making Nukes.
OK, an independent observer who has followed the debate in Canada's House of Commons about civilian casualties stemming from the war on terror especially Afghanistan, I have to make a value judgment of what you offer and what is offered in contrast.
What is offered in contrast is journalism, edited and fact checked in the journalistic traditions I practiced for 25 years plus. The Washington Post is a noted right leaning newspaper and is quoting two well known international civil rights organizations who have added their name to Doctors Without Borders in saying the US is less than honest in reporting the number of civilian casualties.
You offer a blog. A blog by a savagely right wing military geek with charts and graphs and nice colors, but doesn't appear to directly address the topic you are defending, that the US is really very efficient in killing.
What I do recall from the Commons debate, where our politicians lose their job if caught in a lie, is that in one drone attack, there were 19 attempts and they never did get the guy. Left unsaid was that each of those 19 attacks claimed lives of some kind and probably human.
We are dealing with a nation that has been waging war on terror for 14 years...and is losing. We began with one war, then two, now there are seven fronts and no sign of ever, ever leveling off let alone ending, a nation that had the criminal mastermind in its sights, but took ten years to assassinate him. A nation's whose intelligence community completely missed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 911 attacks, misread Arab Spring as friendly and claimed the assassination of a sitting diplomat and three marines was a "spontaneous demonstration" Yes I know that was Obama, but he is your commander in chief and represents the entire US military.
So, with that, you offer as dispute that there aren't too many civilians being slaughtered, an internet blog that doesn't appear to deal with civilian casualties, but reads like a boyscout endorsement of US war policy.
It is a matter of who is believable and it has been my experience in lifetime of research that NGO's like Doctor's Without Borders are far and away, no ****ing light years more believable the United States Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex that it supports.
I would say you are guilty of what you deny...you only read that which supports your opinion and it doesn't seem to matter what is the source material.
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt