Simon W. Moon

I thought we were discussing proliferation not nuclear exchange.
Yes, you are right many things are not as bad as nuclear heck.
But, that's kind of an empty discussion as there's no guarantee that either nuclear heck will occur or will not occur anyway. What we can do is look at the actual proximal events. Because any number of things can be extrapolated as potential consequences - the only limit is your imagination.

Actually, the blocking of the Straight of Hormuz is a proximal result of attacking Iran - pretty much an assured event.

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

TacticalEvilDan

Is your position that:

• Congress isn't about to hand Bush an excuse to start a war with Iran, OR
• Even if handed such an excuse, Bush wouldn't start a war with Iran, OR
• The source which put me onto these Resolutions is crap, therefore the Resolutions are crap OR
• Something else I didn't consider

I scanned a couple of the OPs you linked me to, and you seem to be lumbing a worrysome act of Congress with blog this and blog that.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Objective Voice

Actually, yes it does. See the last paragraph right before you get to the proposed resolutions by Congress. It reads, "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force again Iran..."

Regardless, I see both resolutions as strong precursors to a possible invasion on Iran. The arguments used in both resolutions are nearly identical to those used to invade Iraq. Only this time, there is positive proof of Iran's nuclear enrichment/weapons manufacturing program(s), as well as their threat to use same against the U.S. and their foreign interests.

TacticalEvilDan

Son of a gun, you're right. Damn, I thought I'd been careful reading it, but I guess I wasn't careful enough.

Me, too. Additionally, as I sit here and think about it, I suppose that the Naval blockade play could be used despite the fact that neither Resolution specifically authorizes the use of force. Bush has us stopping ships going into and out of Iran, Iran defends its shipping, and then we "defend ourselves."

scourge99

you listed possible consequences of invasion, I'm listing possible consequences of ignoring Iran. Let's not have a double standard here.

There's no gurantee of food riots or massive economic collapse either.

What do you think the outcome will be when our enemy Iran has nuclear weapons or even nuclear technology?

Why do you think the Saudis are buying weapons from us in unprecedented quantities? Who do you think they are afraid of?

The status quo has been in our favor because we possess nuclear weapons and have the restraint NOT to use them (see korea, vietnam, iraq, cuba, russia, or any other conflict post WW2). Its in Irans best interest to upset this balance of power.

Where do you draw the line and start taking action? When the bombs are dropping? When the threats of "mass destruction" are made? When the threats of nuclear proliferation are made? When stateless militias magically acquire dirty bombs and/or nuclear weapons?

Nuclear technology is far too dangerous to be considered a right. It is a priviledge and if you can't convince the world powers you are capable and responsible with such power and your intentions you shouldn't have it. Its sickening how apathetic Europe is about this. This mentality of "let's wait and see" and petty sanctions is provably not working. Its sad but its going to take someone getting nuked or a massive loss of life for the Europe and other parts of the world to wakeup. Just like it took planes flying into our towers to get us to take stateless miltias seriously. Have we learned nothing?

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

Tashah

antiwar.com/blog? Certainly. Nowhere in either Resolution is this particularly flammable term articulated. It would have been far more forthright to ignore the blog title and just link to these Resolutions and allow folks to draw their own conclusions.

__________________

Simon W. Moon

Proximal means thing that happen closely or immediately. There's a difference between something that happens as an immediate result and things that may happen eventually.
I don't think they're itching to foul their nest. War is a losing proposition for Iran.
Having nuclear weapons changes things strategically by shifting the balance of power. I'm not in favor of it. However, I don't think it will mean that there will be a nuclear attack the day after they get The Bomb either.

Action should be take now. However the 'action' should not be a military attack.

Talk of 'should' is all fine and good, but pragmatic practicalities takes precedence.

TacticalEvilDan

Seeing as how I'm of the opinion that this kind of resolution is going to lead to armed conflict, I fail to see how I was dishonest.

Tashah

Either your conviction concerning your thesis is lacking a bit, or you have little faith in the critical thinking ability of readers and feel compelled to give them a virtual shove in your direction. It's not dishonest, but it is poor form.

scourge99

I understand. But what I am trying to point is that limiting nuclear proliferation should be paramount. The current mentality is to avoid a few bumps in the road (rising oil prices) while failing to realize the upcoming cliff (nuclear proliferation).

Who says THEY have to fight ANY of their wars? Outright conflict is the last thing Iran wants with us. They would much rather see us bleed ourselves dry like what happenend to the Russians in Afghan or to level the playing field by proliferating sophisticated/nuclear arms to its allies and/or our enemies.

I don't necessarily think it will either but that doesn't mean I enjoy the very real possibility. There's a reason you lock your front door at night and its not because you are afraid that everyday something bad will happen; your afraid it will just happen once. Let's not give the key away to nuclear arms and if we do let's make sure we know who has a key.

I disagree. Iran has failed to make its nuclear ambitions transparent; such is unforgiveable. This situation can be easily rectified by Iran by pursuing nuclear technology in an open hostile-free manner. But they are purposely being secretive; they are purposely hiding; they are purposely misrepresenting others concerns; they are purposely delivering as much propaganda as possible. One is forced to assume the worst.

N korea conflict is impractical. Same with China and India and Pakistan. Conflict with Iran is not.

Much more would be practical if our supposed "allies" would get their heads out of their ass. But that's too much to hope for. It takes a pearl harbor or a blitzkreig or some other event to occur before a finger is lifted. Everyone wants a knife in the back and a smoking gun before they even begin to question how and why it happened in the first place.

I suppose we should have waited to see if Castro would use the nukes he borrowed from the Russians before we blocked intervened with force.