Redstate

No relation.

...or you are completely ignorant of any concept of nuclear nonproliferation, international norms, history, and facts.

Either way, you're not worth the time it would take to correct.

Bombthrower? Factually correct is more like it. The Mullahs are on their way to get the bomb and I have yet to see someone put forth a workable scenario to take them out, like the Israelis successfully did when they took out Iraq's reactors.

What's the plan? And, your "I can't be bothered" statement- that avoids the fact that the Mullahs are going to get the bomb at this rate and we need workable options.

that pretty much sums up your post.

Why the need for to take them out, they have a right to have nukes to deter us.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

1. We need to stop Iran from getting the bomb
2. We have no way to do it right now
a. Army overtaxed
b. Air campaign won't stop them
3. We need a solution. What is it?
a. Get Russia, China, and others to cut them off?
b. Other idea?

And, by the way, any name calling just shows who is a wus.

is thought out logically and how much is just autopilot ?

I am being serious here. It may very well be you are writing in a condensed manner and assuming others are on the same wavelength, but from where I am sitting there are challenges to everyone of your points.

Have you worked them out ? If so why do you think they should stand ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I read your post. I suggest you do the same in the future so at least two people get a migraine from dealing with the nincompoopery instead of me suffering alone.

1. We need to stop Iran from getting the bomb

You didn't say that.

2. We have no way to do it right now

You didn't say that.

a. Army overtaxed

You didn't say that.

b. Air campaign won't stop them

You didn't say that.

3. We need a solution. What is it?

You didn't say that.

a. Get Russia, China, and others to cut them off?

You didn't say that.

b. Other idea?

You didn't say that.

What you did say is this.

Come on, folks, it is totally rational for them to want a bomb when we have Carrier Battle Groups off of their coastlines. North Korea is totally safe because of the bomb from any regime change effort by the USA. Iraq is now occupied. Duh, what is the lesson for the Mullahs?

I'll put it this way. If anyone tried to intimidate the USA like we try to intimidate Iran, we would not stand for it. Hence Afghanistan's Taliban. Just wish we had _more_ troops there now to combat them. Too bad they are elsewhere.

Just this once, Sparky, you get to take a shot and walk away. Next time read your own post before telling me to read it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I will make allowances that you are unable to read all of the posts in a thread and keep the pertinent points straight. Before I make a summary laying out the points, I will warn you that you have to read the entire thread.

1. We need to stop Iran from getting the bomb
God, do I have to make it that explicit? Evidently.

"The Mullahs are on their way to get the bomb and I have yet to see someone put forth a workable scenario to take them out, like the Israelis successfully did when they took out Iraq's reactors." Perhaps you didn't catch that I called the Israeli strikes an example of a "workable scenario" for controlling proliferation.

2. We have no way to do it right now
What's the plan? And, your "I can't be bothered" statement- that avoids the fact that the Mullahs are going to get the bomb at this rate and we need workable options.

a. Army overtaxed
So, how the heck is the overtaxed Army going to put boots on the ground?
We don't have the troops strength anymore for an invasion, and it will take years to rebuild an effective Army that can handle another big excursion.

b. Air campaign won't stop them
Starting a war with Iran seems impractical to me. They can put their factories inside mountains. Bombing them will create even more terrorists, and like Germany in WWII, it is hard to stop production with bombs.

3. We need a solution. What is it?
a. Get Russia, China, and others to cut them off?
The only way to stop them I can see is to get Russia, China, and any other supplier to interdict all technology going to Iran. That means, unfortunately, making deals with these dictatorships.

b. Other idea?

So, name calling wusses can kiss my sparky nincompoop

Please put this guy out of his misery.

when people have nothing factual to say. I also like how any dissent is threatened with censorship- how American of you to remove anything you don't agree with or don't like. "Billy beat me in basketball, so I'm not going to let him play anymore" -- what do you call a kid who says that? Or do you only tolerate opinions that don't bother you, in true grit fashion?

Which unfortunately is not much, sometimes what seems like dissent to the left is just simply drivel to most thinking people. Reading the thread it seems to me like you:

1) Insinuate that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the GWOT
2) Believe we should employ only diplomacy to talk the chubby mullahs out of the bomb (which worked really well in North Korea, by the way)
3) I would go on, but the left's talking points have become exhausting and boring and so incredibly predictable that it's driving me crazy and calling them "dissent" is like calling Bill Maher or Rosie O'Donnell or Mike Ware or Keith Olbermann or any left wing nutjob who is on TV "courageous" which goes to show that the real problem is that there are too many channels on TV pffft pffftt surrender monkey pfftttt Pelosi headscarf not allowed to drive aaaarrrghhhh IIIIII CANNNN'TTT TAAAAKE ITTTTT........

who insults his bloghosts is as brief as the flower of the plum tree, and he won't get any plums either."

considering you said absolutely none of those things earlier.

Oh, well. I guess we just can't handle your blinding intellect and penetrating analysis. You are just too, smart for us.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Apparently, you missed the last six decades of debates about nuclear non-proliferation. I won't rehash them here, but suffice it to say that the darn near universal opinion, on all sides of the question, is that it's a good thing. Game theory, MAD and all that. Just out of curiosity, should we be expecting a bunch of leftists over the next two years who are willing to support Iran's right to have a nuclear bomb? I mean, I just wanna know exactly the amount of fun I'm going to get to have.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

that a military option is preferable to the Mullahs getting the bomb. So, how the heck is the overtaxed Army going to put boots on the ground? As for "leftists supporting Iran's right to a bomb"- huh? First, show me any public figure in the USA who says that Iran should have the bomb. Any quote would be fine, and I'll eat my words.

Of course nuclear non-proliferation is the best solution. SALT I and II were good starts. But, now we have turned a blind eye to Pakistan and India getting the bomb, for whatever reason. We should pressure them like hell to get rid of the bombs, now. My point is that the climate is such that it is now practical for Iran to make the bomb, however horrible that is.

Congress needs to fund a substantial expansion in all the Armed Forces. Until then, we can get some of the troops needed for Iraq & Iran by withdrawing the rest of our troops from Germany & South Korea. That's long overdue anyway.

You are wrong because you don't read enough to know what's going on. Both your points are covered here on RS, even. Several times over.

A) the Army is Not overtaxed. It's current method of warfighting is, however, approaching being thus. We may have to go back to the old ways. That, however, would be incredibly unfortunate... For the bad guys.

B) Massive Army expansion is already underway. 20,000 net increase last year, projected 60,000 net increase This year (and we Are on track to hit that goal).

Try reading.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

--

At least according to Heisenberg who was head of their research program.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Germany didn't have hardened bunkers and technology they knew would work...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The technology certainly so. But haredened bunkers ? Who do you think builds them for the Middle East ? And in more historic times Germany had entire factory complexes, underground and bored into mountains.

The original bunkerbusters were the Tallboy and The earthquake bomb.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...if we're going to bomb Iran we'd be better off removing their refining capacity. Easier to hit, they can't easily replace it and losing it will cripple their country.

Mind you, I'd much rather see a reasonably popular revolution sweep the existing regime out of power, with the successor government promising to play nice with its neighbors. Less messy that way for everybody involved - except for the existing regime, but that's just a plus. Heck, they can even keep doing that entire Great/Little Satan thing if they'll just stop spending money on terror attacks.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

And any other oil production facilities they have.
That way they still lose it, but we gain it.

Also, we force Their troops to come to US, instead of the other way around. Better targets, donchaknow.

Also, we can hand the production facilities over to the new government if there Is a revolution...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

You don't need gasoline to make nukes. And what you do need for other things you can get if you have oil.

Shutting down Iran's refineries will cripple their economy and hurt their civilian (out of power) population.

The question though is will they crack the whip hard enough to get the nuke before the whole country comes apart ?

I'm a better safe than sorry guy. Take out the nuclear facilities. They have taken 20 years to build.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that a little of this, and a little of that, should be the standard of debate when negotiating with Iran regarding its nuclear weapon program.

The message could not be misinterpreted.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Congress took The other thing off the table.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

would survive a sustained tactical nuclear strike. Certainly the Iranian bunkers wouldn't, and it would make the point very clear for everybody else in the world too.

Man, using tactical nukes - talk about abandoning our moral compass. At least now we can credibly deter North Korea, Pakistan, and other unstable nuclear wingbats with the fact that no has employed tactical nukes, and the first one who does gets the whole world jumping down their throats.

--

in a counterforce scenario is losing our moral compass ?

As to the first one who does gets the whole world down their throats, The only example contradicts you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777