Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Perhaps instead of Iraq we should have gone into Iran, I think there may have been far more support.
But we didn't and now they are close to getting nukes and rattling sabres and making statements to incite hate and war. So much for Bush's "Triangle of Terror countries" and getting rid of the hateful regimes. Seems we have allowed Iran to get stronger and stronger and have not done a damned thing to prevent it.
|
gotta disagree w/you on that one, big time. the immediate fallout of Bush's "axis of evil" speech (as it concerns iran) was that their government was slowly warming to westernization... that such speech would only stunt that movement. invading iran in place of iraq would have been much more costly in lives and treasure and would have been greeted with even more domestic resistance.
i love it how we've "not done a damn thing" comes up when it serves a political end... in fact, we are doing exactly what many thought we should have continued to do in iraq despite 12 years of evasiveness on Saddam's part... leaving it to the UN. At this moment the much-vaunted IAEA has been trying to keep accountablilty with Iran's nuclear facilities despite being shut out of the process by a defiant theocracy. isn't that what the "international community" deems the acceptable approach? what else should be done?
it's really quite fascinating, to watch alternatives methodologies run their course. the spiteful part of me is curious to see how europe's "soft power" dorks this one up, but i am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of people in europe/israel. Iran will acquire nukes and Israel and Europe will soon be under its threat.
the problem with dealing with thugs in such a way (be they soviets or islamic fascists) is that it just doesn't work. i am concerned that politicians who take the easy way out will leave western democracy vulnerable to the blackmail that will arise with a nuclear powered ayatollah.