We have a deal!

[Plane]

  Acts of war that are not invasion are still acts of war.

    If we use strategic , or even just pinpoint bombing to wreck the Iranian a-bomb program, there will be drastic effects on the regular people in the vicinity.
   We could do that anyway, it might be judged by our leadership as better to face an angered Iran with a wrecked a-bomb program than to face an Iran that has working a-bombs.

    This is a difficult judgment, with what we know of Iran and its leaders, they might really try to parley a few bombs into control of the region by killing a few million people.

     Wrecking their a-bomb program might start a war that would last for many years and cost us very dear, but would leaving them alone have even worse results? The best choice is the best available choice not the best choice you can imagine.

      I think it possible that Iran could be persuaded to stop developing their bomb, but this does not seem likely  , these guys have very poor judgment and insufficient fear of us .  If they had rationality and good judgment, a deal with them would be so easy as to be almost unneeded, if they had a lot of fear of the US we could order them to quit or face the consequences.

       But they don't , I really think that what we will end up with is the judgment between fighting them before they have the a-bomb or fighting them after they have the a-bomb, all other choices having been rejected by them.
     

[sirs]

IIRC, Israel launched a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities; no boots on the ground, with little loss of life, yet set Iran's nuclear program back decades, nor did it start any global war......or even regional one for that matter

Something similar may not stop them from trying to build nuclear weapons, but could again set them back decades, if not longer.  Sounds far more rational, and more so, effective in the goal of an unacceptable nuclear Iran, than simply trusting Iran to adhere to some semblance of a preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement

[Xavier_Onassis]

From what I have read, the Iranians have their equipment set up in several places, and it would be hard to set them back years.

The Manhattan Project took the US less than five years from start to finish, and the Iranians surely know more about how to build a bomb than Oppenheimer & Co who had never build any bomb.

If there is one thing we know about Saddam Hussein it is that he was not any sort of genius or expert at anything technical. The Iranians are smarter than anything Saddam did.

[sirs]

From what I have read, the Iranians have their equipment set up in several places, and it would be hard to set them back years.

Hard doesn't mean impossible, or even impractical

The Manhattan Project took the US less than five years from start to finish, and the Iranians surely know more about how to build a bomb than Oppenheimer & Co who had never build any bomb.

I love how you seem almost giddy at the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would prefer than NO ONE have nukes.

Why, do you wonder, might anyone in Iran want nukes?

Could it be because ISRAEL has them?  Naaaw. It is because they are evil Muslim terrorists.

[sirs]

I would prefer than NO ONE have nukes.

Since that is not an option, the next best option is that rogue nations, who have no problem with supporting acts of martrdom, declaring death to America and death to Israel, DON'T HAVE NUKES

Why, do you wonder, might anyone in Iran want nukes?

See above statement to anwer that question.  Even Obama gets that one right

Could it be because ISRAEL has them?  Naaaw. It is because they are evil Muslim terrorists.

BINGO.....even a broken clock is right, 2x a day.  Israel has no intention, in any way, shape, or form, of using nukes on anyone, outside of retaliation.  They're not on record as declaring death to Iran, or any other Arab country for that matter.  Leave them alone, and there would be peace.  So, yea, its because there are evil Muslim terrorists, who are on record, both verbally, and via their actions, in trying to bring death to Israel....and any others allied with America

[Xavier_Onassis]

Israel has always been the first one to fire a shot in all its wars. Because they have this sixth sense, see?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Israel has always been the first one to fire a shot in all its wars.

Yom Kippur War

October 6 to 25, 1973

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively. The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What is on the West Side of the Suez Canal? Egypt. What is on the East side? More Egypt.  You need to study your history.

[Plane]

What is north of the Suez?

All Jordan.

Depending in the year and who you ask.

Even if Egypt was invading Egypt , they definitely fired first.

[sirs]

Point being, that keeps getting reinforced, is any actions being taken by Israel, are in defense of their existence.  Especially when you have military forces massing on your border, from all sides. 

They have no intention of "invading" anyone (unless of course some neighboring nation made the egregious mistake of trying to attack them, and Israel, after repelling the attack, would be obligated to extend its boundaries into that country, once again, be it Syria or Lebanon....or Egypt if they tried something squirly)

They have not declared Death to any other nation, as such they have no intention of firing any of their nukes, in some form of 1st trike.  There inventory is strictly a deterrent, as in there's no reason for Iran to "feel" they need them, simply because Israel has them

[Christians4LessGvt]

What is on the West Side of the Suez Canal? Egypt. What is on the East side? More Egypt.  You need to study your history.

Nice attempt at a dodge.
You stated Israel fired the first shot in ALL it's wars.
That is in fact an incorrect statement.
Israel was attacked first to begin the Yom Kippur War.

Or maybe History.com has it wrong too? Ha Ha Ha Ha

"On October 6, 1973, hoping to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967, Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a coordinated attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Taking the Israeli Defense Forces by surprise, Egyptian troops swept deep into the Sinai Peninsula, while Syria struggled to throw occupying Israeli troops out of the Golan Heights. Israel counterattacked and recaptured the Golan Heights. A cease-fire went into effect on October 25, 1973."

http://www.history.com/topics/yom-kippur-war

[sirs]

d'oh....but....but....Bibi is evil, and so is Israel......and....and......they would have fired the 1st shot, had they been smarter....I mean dumber.....I mean.....Bibi is an ahole, and....and..... is just begging for our money. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are just wrong, sirs.

[sirs]

I'm glad you agree since i was mimicking a response you might have made.  Unless of course you have some specifics to refute what I'm supposedly wrong about