Your calculus assumes that Iran will never start a war on its own, and that diplomacy has a snowball's chance in hell of working.
NK, Pakistan, and India have the bomb, but none of their leaders stand on a platform chanting "Death to America" on a daily basis. None of their leaders regularly deny historical acts of genocide or threaten to wipe out neighboring countries. The most hostile is NK, and the only reason Kim Jong Il is still in power is that he has the backing of the Chinese (who fear American military power and Korean democracy on their borders) and enough artillery to detroy Seoul and kill hundreds of thousands of people in any conflict. Basically, he is holding the South Koreans hostage, which is what the Iranians want to do to the Middle East and, by extension, the rest of the world via the oil supply. You think that is an acceptable scenario? BS. On 9/28/07, Gruss wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > How is this not getting through to you all- if Iran continues down the > path > > of developing nuclear weapons > > Here's the problem: if we attack Iran we could start a 100 year war of > cultures. > > So a true leader will put together a coalition to solve the issue > through diplomacy rather than force. In the, if Iran gets the bomb, > then they do. NK has it. Pakistan has it. India has it. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:243412 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
