[Preechr]

Well, since Ronnie's not gonna dew it...

Originally Posted by mburbank

1.) Who says they are trying to acquire nukes?

Well, without Colin Pole around the Administration will be lacking the last guy at their disposal with any sort of credibility. Well, I guess he played that card already, didn't he? Is anyone the Bushies go out and get to speak for them going to get ANY benefit of the doubt? If Michael Moore, Bill Clinton and Babs all got up in from the DC press corps pleeeeading for us to believe George W Bush when he says Iran has become a threat that must be dealt with through immediate force, who would buy it? Honestly?

Even the most flag-waving, wrestling-believing-in, deep-fried NASCAR dad would be a bit skeptical...

We live in a world where credibility is no longer required, buddy. Sorry...

Originally Posted by mburbank

2.) The last time Our administration said a middle eastern country had WMD, was it true?

Yes. Stockpiles? Undetermined at the moment. I'm not under any pressure to say Yes or No on the matter, so I have the option to wait until we know for sure before claiming indisputable fact. Too many things hint at more than just the willingness we know of now.

I still want to know what went into Syria and where that VX caught coming out of Syria originated. Enough VX to kill 100K Jordanians qualifies as WMD to me. Would we have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam had we had concrete proof of the existence of that sort of destructive ability? I dunno... I think the discussion we'd have had in that case would have been altogether different.

Maybe we spent to much time worrying about the proof of WMD and too little time hashing out appropriate reactions to their existence. When I say WE, I mean all of us, both for and against. Maybe some of us really did go to war based on the WMD existence question alone. Some were Ok with the possibility plus Saddam's unwillingness to offer proof to the contrary. Others said stuff like, "I don't see any difference between Iraq having WsMD and the USA or the UK having them," which is generally accepted to be a ridiculous load of disingenous shite.

I think the majority of the skeptics felt the preponderance of evidence offered by Mr. Pole marginalized their arguments against moving forward, so they stepped aside. I'm not sure their continued insistance on objection would have affected anything though, as it seems all that was needed was for Team Bush© to feel the point was proven beyond reasonable doubt once the Legislative Branch deferred it's responsibility...

I think Bush went to war to stop possiblities. When everyone didn't immediately jump on his war-wagon, he asked why. Someone... probably Colin Pole, informed our beloved little Bubba d'Arc that there were some questions as to the proof they had. Enter Capt. Slam-Dunk.

"Well, you heard the man, Colin! *spits tobacco* He said Slam-Dunk! *adjusts ten gallon hat* If they need proof the WMD threat exists, go get em all the proof we have!" *swaggers*

That would be a direct order to find proof of WMD existence, NOT prove that they exist. That's an important distinction. I'm pretty sure something nearly exactly like this happened. Call it tunnel-vision or groupthink, but the simple fact is that those that objected to the war in Iraq had a higher standard of proof over a broader range of questions than did the Bushies. After the milk was spilt, the doves held the administration to THEIR standards, not the hawk standard. Now, it's easy for Bush to think that those that object to his war long for Saddam's return.

Think Cowboy. I think it was as simple as Dubya was Mad Max to Saddam's MasterBlaster.

Originally Posted by mburbank

3.) As bad as Iran acquiring nukes is, what can the US do about it tht wouldn't be disasterous?

While our credibility among our peers is effectively nil at the moment, I think our threats carry weight among the various ne'er-do-wells of the world. We're well positioned to threaten Iraq effectively now that we have troops on most of her border miles. Look at it objectively: First, Bush proved he'd not flinch at the idea of bringing it without France. Then, he did the dirty work in Iraq pretty much without help anyway. Not to demean the dead of other countries, but take the soldiers of the UK and the US off the list of allies in Iraq and you'd have a hard time causing a traffic jam, much less a regime change... As swimmingly as things went to have our government calling this a blinding success, I think we could have done this without the very capable assistance of our friends from the Kingdom with equivalent results.

Long story short, in answer to your question, what we HAVE done might just prove to be enough. We showed "Them Moolahs" that they can no longer operate under the cover of the same rules they enjoyed previously.

"Lissen, Pardner...*swagger, swagger, point* If ya'll figger we uns is a-scairt to open up some cans a whup ass, *P'Ching!* Then ya'll got sum more figgerin ta dew! *Hitches Giddy Up* Hell, we ain't answerin to NOBODY!"

...and they ain't neither...

Team Bush© has proven that it will act in the face of ANY sort of objections to accomplish it's goals once set. If Dubya starts another countdown to a smack-down on another country, who wants to bet he doesn't get what he wants? Whatever it is?

You need to be listening when John Kerry (during a contentious campaign even) says he'd give the President the authority to do the same thing AGAIN (in the FUTURE!!!) That means that when Dubya asks to get more authority to attack yet another country he will most definitely get it. Will we act if France says no? Yep. What if everybody in the world hates us? Umm... They already do.

In short: What's stopping us?

Originally Posted by mburbank

4.) If we try to do something about it on the grounds that whatever we do won't be as bad as Iran having nukes and exhaust our money and strecth our troops even thinner, what will we do when North Korea sees this and moves full steam ahead on it's nuclear program, which is already further ahead than Irans?

Again, we've proven that we will do whatever necessary to accomplish whatever goals we set. There's a reason Dubya prefers a multi-lateral (read Asian) solution to Kim Jong Il. Despite his objections, the first day of a Kerry (who?) administration ol' JFK would've been informed that his little plan to open uni-lateral talks with Korea was writing checks our military capability couldn't cash. Can you say "Draft" Mr. President? Yeah... "Nevermind." Good answer.

The timeline is set: Iraqi elections in January. Posturing in Iran's general direction will commence shortly... Well, since we're all talking about Iran in much the same way we were discussing Iraq's future just a minute ago, I'd say that ball's a-rollin already. Given the angst you and most of the rest of us have with regard to having even any semblance of say-so about who gets bombed the hell out of next, won't you be just a little relieved if the answer to the Iranian threat is as simple as a few 1,000 pound bombs dropped in the sand?

Who cares if we do it or Israel does? Problem? *BOOM* Problem solved. No muss, no fuss... Unlike Iraq, Iran has a more or less accepted revolutionary faction that could cause an internal re-alignment if the regime were to be immasculated by such off-handed treatment. The administration has yet to directly confront the Iranian issue. I'm betting that when we do, it will be a Clinton-esque things-go-boom-at-midnight type thing.

A side-question: How many actual Iranian people do you think are currently living near wherever this Iranian WMD facility is located?

The real question is this: What's Iran gonna do when their nuclear ambitions are reduced to so much toxic dust? Attack our troops in Iraq? They're already doing that, and it's not working. Increase their committment to the insurgency? That would look a lot more like traditional open war, which would be our home field. Attack our homeland? That would be just dumb as Hell. Maybe they'll wait for the negative reaction from the world. That MIGHT work this time... not...

And it's not exactly like all the rest of the Arab nations are openly defying the West with their boldly stated plans to develop nukes. Will the other regional despots back Iran with anything more substantial than indignation, or will they say "What did you expect to happen, guys?"

Back to your question, I think Korea is stalling to see what happens with Iran, and that Kim will lose some of his chutzpah once we establish a clear pattern of countering threats with actual and effective ass-kicking, 2X4 to the face style. China will say, "See? We to you so, Kim! Now stop being so foo-rish!"

Originally Posted by mburbank

It just seems ironic that the leader who's going to have to get us out of this mess is the Same guy who chose the LEAST THREATENING member of the 'Axis of Evil' to get bogged down in.

He picked the easiest fight first. Starting with Korea and encountering major diplomatic issues that would have dragged out for years, and then moving on into an even bigger quagmire with an emboldened Iran (which we'd have been looking at in about 2006, probably) would most likely have had us talking to nuclear Mullahs rather than potentially nuclear Mullahs. And what of Saddam, the least of our worries? Are we really supposed to believe that he would have eventually complied with his surrender terms? Would sanctions and inspections have EVER started to work?

I think we did it in the most responsible order. Iraq WAS the easiest threat to answer, and doing so despite how incredibly difficult the easy task was has proven that our words have weight when we talk to the next two guys on the pre-declared list of targets.