Fareed was speaking to the neo-cons that love his show. No Democrat would ever go to war with Iran, because only Republicans are that stupid.

Is any credible individual proposing a full-out war and occupation of Iran?

If so, that's patently absurd. There are 78 million people in Iran. They have standing forces of about a million people. It's just not going to happen.

There are people who propose air strikes aimed at nuclear facilities. And that'd be a goddamned nightmare, on many levels. The worst of which is that it'd probably set back modernization efforts within Iran by a generation. And it'd probably only set back Iran by a couple of years.

That being said, Iran with nuclear weapons is also a goddamned nightmare for a host of countries.

So which is worse? I don't know, but reasonable people could disagree about it (unlike a full-scale invasion). I'm sort of hoping for a deus ex machina of another computer virus or Israel figures something out...

Somacandra: Nuclear weaponry is a technology older than most Farkers. Its not like governments aren't going to get it one way or another.

But, for the most part, governments haven't gotten it. There are exceptions. But, using a wide array of tools, the US and other first world nations have managed to keep nuclear technology out of the hands of despotic governments. I think that policy ought to continue.

It sucks, but the U.S. public just doesn't want yet another holy mess of a Iraq-style war.

Again, there's a real distinction between targeted air strikes aimed at nuclear facilities and a full Iraq-style war. I don't think anyone in their right mind supports the latter.

Weaver95: sooner or later, Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon. we can make it difficult. we can make it expensive. we can slow it down...but in the end, if Iran wants nuclear weapons badly enough, and they push hard then eventually they'll get their weapon.

I don't think making it difficult, expensive, and slow is necessarily a bad strategy. At the very least, it may persuade other countries that following Iran's example is not worth the trouble (hello Venezuela).

Now, I don't know enough about the situation to figure out the odds of air strikes actually being effective. I don't know how much time it would buy. And so I don't know if it's a good idea. But I don't think it's self-evidently a bad one.

Hello? You're forgetting the easiest option, it only involves the press of a button. Come on you know you want to press it

Who said anything about war?

That part of the desert is just going to get hotter and flatter.

How about we just target allah with an airstrike. It'll be like independence day!

If only we can blow up the mothership in the sky....

How many wars of aggression does this country have to start before people realize that we're turning into Nazi Germany?

Weaver95: hubiestubert: Weaver95: hubiestubert: To be fair, I think the Israelis are going to try blowing the f*ck out of the facilities for some time yet...

if Israel launches an attack on Iran, it would be bad.

It's not like they haven't done it before...

yes, but they'd be launching a military attack against a nation armed with nuclear f*cking weapons. that complicates things a tad bit.

short of an all out invasion, Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons. that's just a fact of life we're going to have to live with...I'd start developing a strategy to deal with that reality once it snaps into place.

If Israel attacks Iran, it will be *before* they get nuclear capability.

1) They have oil.
2) They have brown skin.
3) They are not christians.

Thus, they have no souls and are occupying OUR oil!

This is Israels war. Yankee stay home.

Weaver95: AeAe: If Israel attacks Iran, it will be *before* they get nuclear capability.

so Israel would be the agressor nation trying to kick off WWIII - this does not improve the situation any.

Israel is the United States proxy in that region and we're aligned with a bunch of countries there (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc.) If Israel disables Iran's nuclear program, I don't think WWIII is going to happen - they're just doing what everyone else wants to happen.

SoCalSurfer: Hello? You're forgetting the easiest option, it only involves the press of a button. Come on you know you want to press it

[image.spreadshirt.com image 280x280]

[www.ngoilgas.com image 640x488]

Iran.

Iran so far away.

I couldn't get away.

Ah, the Jews are at it again. fark you and your Bronze Age bastardry.

AeAe: Weaver95: AeAe: If Israel attacks Iran, it will be *before* they get nuclear capability.

so Israel would be the agressor nation trying to kick off WWIII - this does not improve the situation any.

Israel is the United States proxy in that region and we're aligned with a bunch of countries there (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc.) If Israel disables Iran's nuclear program, I don't think WWIII is going to happen - they're just doing what everyone else wants to happen.

What happens when Iran returns fire?

Once again Ron Paul appears to be the only sane person in DC. Bring all of the troops home and get the fark out of everyone's business.

Yay! More land war in Asia!

hitchking: That being said, Iran with nuclear weapons is also a goddamned nightmare for a host of countries.

Once they get nuclear weapons...then what?
If they use them, their top cities will be erased. Their leaders will die. There is no other scenario.

Once again, Juan Cole takes a shiat on the Iran war rumors.

I also found this post of his on the topic:

It is likely that Iran wants "nuclear latency," or the "Japan option." That would involve knowing how to construct a bomb in short order if the country was ever directly menaced with an invasion and regime change a la Iraq. From Bush's announcement of the coming war in September 2002 at the UNGA until there were American boots on the ground in Iraq was about seven months. If Iraq had had "latency" or a "break-out" capability, it could just have made a bomb and blown it up, and there would have been no US invasion. Iran wants to be in that position. It is not the same as constructing an actual bomb. Everything we know about Iran's nuclear enrichment program points to it mainly being for civilian purposes. There is no known nuclear weapons program as such. Whatever computer simulations or other measures Iran has taken would be consistent with seeking nuclear latency as a deterrent against an invasion.

Oh man. I loved Breakout.

Let's delay Iran from developing Nukes for as long as possible without getting into a conflict. The country is full of young people who frankly hate the old religious freaks. Time is on our side.

How many nukes does Israel have? Oh wait we don't know because they kept that number hidden from the international community for decades. The only country besides North Korea do so.

we're blowing up who now?

moothemagiccow: we're blowing up who now?

Israel will probably be doing the bombing this time.

All of those whining "occupy" people will soon have a real draft to protest.

/ and will most likely enjoy a huge influx of new protestors too

// But honestly, did you expect a president (any president) with ratings lower than the devil's basement to go into election year without starting a war?

But I'm soooo close to the whole set.

I agree with the idea behind the article. Let's get Iran talking. If they're talking, they ain't fighting. That's an adage that works from the national level, all the way down to the bar.