The above was just reported and developing on Matt Drudge within the last 2 hours.

Posted by: Mackie at June 25, 2007 9:19 PM

An unidentified intelligence source said

We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back.

Why? Why is it hard to strike back? Because of the albatross of Iraq hanging around our neck.

It should be very easy to strike back against troops attacking us: logistically, diplomatically, morally.

It should be very hard to do another "nation building" exercise to "help" our "staunch allies" and "good friends", the Iranians. It should be hard to start another "Project Democracy" that will continue until the Iranians love one another and us, and peace reigns over the Middle East. That should be hard.

Posted by: special_guest at June 25, 2007 9:31 PM

150.000 US troops are occupying the country, along with the Coalition of the Threatened(because they had to join in) and somehow the AFP only notices a few Iranian troops, well that's cute! in all the sense of cuteness.

Posted by: progressive at June 25, 2007 9:33 PM

We have yet to declare war because we never will declare war. That would require admitting that not all Muslims are peace-loving.

We didn't declare war when our embassy (sovereign US territory) was invaded and diplomats taken hostage and paraded before the media in blindfolds. We certainly won't declare war because Iranians crossed the border of a third country. Haven't you heard? Iraq is a democratic nation! It's run by Iraqis.

Posted by: PMK at June 25, 2007 9:44 PM

progressive,

AFP has noticed and reported on the activities of coalition troops in Iraq many times over the past few years.

As a fellow progressive Rosie O'Donnell once said: "google it!"

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at June 25, 2007 9:45 PM

we kinda have to declare war to commit any true military action...otherwise it's policing or 'advisory' in nature.

just how vietnam started, you know. crappity crap crap.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at June 25, 2007 9:51 PM

Well progressive, if the jihadists would stop killing Iraqis, we could leave.

Posted by: Elric66 at June 25, 2007 9:51 PM

I'm sorry but I'm so tired of it. We are so soft and weak. Just like the Romans before the invasion from the barbarians. History repeats itself. What are we waitning for. Nuke 'em til they glow!

Posted by: webo at June 25, 2007 9:51 PM

The Iranian sympathizers inside Britain and perhaps the United States are ready. What is cute is that the West has allowed domestic security to deteriorate.

Progressive, as a progressive, do you think it appropriate or necessary to champion the rights of the downtrodden Muslims in our midst? You probably do. Yet, questions of tax law or gay rights or whatever ... should not affect our understanding of the threat posed by Islam.

"It isn't a threat," you might say; or maybe, "It's a stated threat only, and the purpose of that statement is to take people's attention away from the rapaciousness of the ruling class."

People are motivated by power and resources, but also by cultural meaning. Islam itself is a threat, even if you think we should distribute resources differently. And one of the great centers of Islamic power -- and therefore of evil -- is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I can respect the isolationist right. But I cannot understand folks who think that Iran is not a center of evil. I think such people are silly.

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 25, 2007 9:52 PM

"It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

New video of British military hostages coming any minute now. Wonder if they'll nail a couple more women to force-hijab for their presentations?

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at June 25, 2007 9:53 PM

webo-
my thoughts, exactly! I'd be lying if I said I wanted to wake-up tomorrow hearing of paris hilton's release from prison...
Everyone knows what they want to hear in the morning, unfortunately, it won't happen. Why and how did it get to be this way! After September 11, 2001, I believed our once "Great Country" would do whatever necessary...not anymore

Posted by: letfreedomring at June 25, 2007 10:01 PM

All of you hot heads who call for another war are complete idiots. The US could negotiate itself out of a tired Iraq in the face a gangs, how can the US face off with a bigger, stronger, more committed Iran. It will be insane to start a war with them. No one will be safe then.

Posted by: progressive at June 25, 2007 10:02 PM

It is very hard for us to strike back.

Posted by: Xero G at June 25, 2007 10:05 PM

Progressive-
I don't know where you come from, but you are DEAD WRONG!!!
You don't NEGOTIATE with the DEVIL!!!!!

If we get rid of "the rules of engagement", We can restore FREEDOM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD!!!!!

Posted by: letfreedomring at June 25, 2007 10:08 PM

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. "

they either attacked the soldiers or they didn't attack them?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at June 25, 2007 10:09 PM

Progressive

And, we're NOT SAFE NOW, ANYWAY!!!!!!

Posted by: letfreedomring at June 25, 2007 10:11 PM

"progressive"
They have already declared war on us. What do you suggest we do? I know what I would do, but to state it here would get me deleted.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 25, 2007 10:12 PM

Beasty Boy is doing his best to create chao's.
Everything may go 'bang' all at the same time.
Probably will be here, there, and everywhere.
Mahdi may appear, or they will appoint one, but I doubt that Jesus will show up.
Everyone must know of Iran's intrusion by now, what are they doing about it...?

Posted by: duh_swami at June 25, 2007 10:17 PM

A Rumour of War....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 25, 2007 10:26 PM

progressive

"All of you hot heads who call for another war are complete idiots. The US could negotiate itself out of a tired Iraq in the face a gangs, how can the US face off with a bigger, stronger, more committed Iran. It will be insane to start a war with them. No one will be safe then."

I could go with "idea" progressive. I like the idea of a Sunni vs. Shia super war. As has been stated here many time most of us want to weaken the camp of Islam. A Iranian invasion of Iraq is like a dream come true for this non-muslim. Let them choke on that hell hole. Sunni crazies wacking Shia crazies and vice versa...God makes sweet music to my ears! Of course we don't need to be in Iraq anyway to take out those Iranian nukes. A good old fashioned air campaign should do the trick.

Hell Mecca will be in play! God nothing in the Sunni "universe" could be more troubling then the idea of "Persian dogs" running Mecca!

All we need do is get out of the way....and let the slaughter begin!

As for military greatness of Iran please tell me the last time Iran or Persia won a war?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 25, 2007 10:39 PM

All of you hot heads who call for another war are complete idiots. The US could negotiate itself out of a tired Iraq in the face a gangs, how can the US face off with a bigger, stronger, more committed Iran. It will be insane to start a war with them. No one will be safe then.

Posted by: progressive

**************************************************

Noone is safe now !
It is YOU who is the INSANE " Idiot" Progressive ,if you advocate Dialog with people and nations like this. i have yet to read a single valid helpful thing from you. Personally, based on everything we know of Islam and " War is Deceipt" teachings of Muhammad and the fact that in Islam any treaty can be signed with the full intention of breaking that treaty as long as it benefits ISLAM, we simply can never negotiate with or trust a Muslim. their entire 1400 year existence is built on betrayal and deceipt. what's changed about that?

remember this stuff?

"Today, you have reached the end of the road - both in our region and all over the world. This method of yours – your aggressive language, your language of selfishness, of the degradation and the coercion of the peoples - has come to an end. I would like to tell you that today, your collapse and the process of disintegration of your satanic rule have begun. You have no support – neither among the peoples of the region, nor among the other peoples of the world. I advise you to stop committing crimes. Stop your inhumane methods. Stop supporting these dishonorable and murderous Zionists"
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"[There is] no significant need for the United States."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Iranians possess delicate characteristics. They introduce their merits, which are extremely attractive to whole the world."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Global equations undergo changes, this is their nature."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"But let me tell you that with the help of God, they are done for. Like a battery about to run out, they muster the remainder of their power but Allah willing, nothing will happen."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Posted by: MoBlows at June 25, 2007 10:40 PM

Don't worry , I'm sure they have a nice little water bowl and a leash for a good lil Dhimmie like you Progressive . you probably won't even get beaten that much.

Posted by: MoBlows at June 25, 2007 10:43 PM

Too bad our troops (US, UK, Denmark, and a couple others)are in the way. I really wish they weren't there now especially, if this info is true.

I don't want our soldiers to be the shield to protect that corrupt house of Saud anymore. Let the Iranians overthrow the Saudi Royals and march to Mecca- and then take out their supply lines. Then sit back and wait.

Though I have a feeling this is just a probing of the defences, nothing more. A sort of Khalkhyn Gol (Japan testing Russian defences in 1939, to see how tough the Russians were; the Russians held their ground)

Posted by: npabga at June 25, 2007 10:54 PM

If the sovereign Iraqi democracy states that they would feel more comfortable having the extra Iranian ‘security’ in and around the southern oil fields, who are we to object?

Nice corner we've painted ourselves into.

Posted by: pez at June 25, 2007 11:00 PM

"In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

OK, I'll declare war.

Will that help?

Posted by: rickl at June 25, 2007 11:10 PM

The way I see it - those 3 aircraft carriers sitting on Iran's doorstop aren't just sightseeing. Things are going badly for the US in the US-Iran chess game; the question really is, why wouldn't the Bush administration drop some bombs on Iran, especially if there is a significant Jihadist attack on the US. I'm sure they've got enough to make a decent case now - starting with the embassy seizure; support for groups killing Americans; harboring top Al-Qaeda members; and stuff we don't hear about.

Plus, the Iranian economy is in shambles; it can't last much longer anyway. Their military is third rate, many of the educated people in the country are fed up with the ruling regime, and the younger population isn't interested in the past. So, the question remains - why WOULDN'T Bush drop some tons of explosives onto this house of cards? Between infrastructure destruction, economic disaster, political backlash, rebellions, and increased crackdowns, 2-3 days of bombing sorties will put the Mullahs back 20 years.

I don't think it is the consequences that are holding Bush back; sure, gas will go up for a while, but it will be temporary. It will take pressure off of Iraq, Israel, our Saudi friends, Egypt - Russia and China will wag their fingers at us (then make billions with repair work). I think he is looking for the right moment.

The only losers will be Chavez, Hizballan, and Hamas.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at June 25, 2007 11:12 PM

"I like the idea of a Sunni vs. Shia super war. As has been stated here many time most of us want to weaken the camp of Islam. A Iranian invasion of Iraq is like a dream come true for this non-muslim. Let them choke on that hell hole".

Be careful what you wish for. The new Amnesty bill before Congress contains a potential amendment allowing Iraqis preferred status into the US as refugees.

If a war breaks out between Iran and Iraq, it may very well end up in our laps here at home.

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2007 11:14 PM

Still looking to see if this story will get some legs. No other confirming stories have apparently hit other news outlets as of now, and no more on Drudge at this time.

This story below from Iran Focus may have some contribution to the possibility of the Iranians Moving over the border in a possible show of force
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11671

Posted by: Mackie at June 25, 2007 11:23 PM

Really?

This has been going on for a long time; so, why is this being reported now as if it were something new?

Posted by: witness at June 25, 2007 11:37 PM

All of you hot heads who call for another war are complete idiots. The US could negotiate itself out of a tired Iraq in the face a gangs, how can the US face off with a bigger, stronger, more committed Iran. It will be insane to start a war with them. No one will be safe then.

Actually, Iran can be snuffed out completely in a few hours by the US acting alone without the help of "the world"; we DO have the capacity to destroy islam forever, within and outside our borders; what we DO NOT have, is the collective will to act.

The fact is, we in the West wish to do nothing but negotiate.

That is why we are in the mess that we are in and will continue to sink deeper into the middle east quagmire -- we steadfastly, and stubbornly refuse to take full scale action that we should really be taking.

As a result, YOU will not be safe -- in fact, I wager that YOU will not last two days under the yoke of shariah.

Rest assured, YOU and everyone in the West is in very grave danger indeed and "talks" are not going to save you -- you're done.

The only choice you have is a hard one -- to fight as if your life depends on you winning; because if you lose, someone in the other camp will be hold up YOUR severed head before the cameras and shouting allah akbar.

Perhaps that is "progress" alright -- but in the wrong direction.

Posted by: witness at June 25, 2007 11:54 PM

if this is fact true it shows Iran taking an even more aggressive role in the Iraq conflict,pay attention all you people that say we shouldn't be fighting this war,go ahead and blame Bush but remember all your whining when they hit us in the USA again.
Negotiations don't have any affect with the Islamist Facists,history has proved that over and over again.

Posted by: SAtarzan at June 26, 2007 12:19 AM

Something funny is called for, from 1940
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHmKl0cAV7U

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 26, 2007 12:34 AM

This appears to be some hyperbole from "the tabloid" Sun. They have just now posted their article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290279,00.html

This from a Digg posting:
Basically, this has been going on for some time as the Iranians bypass secure border crossings to deliver "insurgents" and IED's. To paraphrase what the "unidentified intelligence source" meant: "The Iranians have been spotted delivering the goods into Iraq, but we have not been able to strike at them because they are in and out before we get there (and perhaps because we lack the political approval and/or will to strike them)."

I suspect this story will just fade away and be buried by the "it must be propaganda to get us into a war with Iran" crowd. The Sun's sensationalist approach doesn't help either.

This reminds me of the Pakistani incursion into Afghanistan last month, after which the NATO mediators were attacked (1 killed, 4 wounded) at the negotiating table INSIDE PAKISTAN by a Pakistani trooper shouting "Allah-u-Akbar". This was reported by VOA and several Asian papers, but never picked up by the western MSM and only barely by the blogs. Odd.
http://digg.com/world_news/NATO_troops_in_gunfight_at_Pakistan_border_meeting

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at June 26, 2007 12:52 AM

Three little nukes would take care of the problem. One on Tehran, Iran, one on Qom, Iran, and one on Damascus, Syria.

We paid good money for these bombs and we should use them! It would be a waste not to. If I were President, I would have already used them. I don't need the excuse of Iranian troops crossing the Iraqi border and engaging our troops, to dust them off.

Iran and Syria have already committed acts of war by providing arms and ammunition to the insurgents to be used against our troops.

Time to send those Islamic bastards to hell. A few hundred million less people shouting "Allah Akbar" would make the world a better place and put the fear of God (not to be confused with the false "god" called Allah) in them.

Posted by: FLLegal at June 26, 2007 1:03 AM

Lugar Calls for Redeployment Now June 25, 2007 11:09 PM

A Sean Hannity, "He is a cut-and-run surrender monkey and not a great American" moment

OR

A Charles Mackay, "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" moment?

Posted by: feralcat9 at June 26, 2007 1:30 AM

treehugger

Thankfully once we leave Iraq the Iranians, Turks, Arabians, Syrians and the rest of the crew pour into Itaq so there won't be many Americans still Iraq to fill out the paperwork for "Iraqis preferred status into the US as refugees".

Faster we get out the less Iraqis we have to take home...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 26, 2007 1:40 AM

I think it is a bad idea going to war with Iran when half the West blames itself or GW for the worlds ills and wouldn't know islam or the mid-east from a hole in the ground. Whatever happens it will back-fire.

America needs a Churchill or a Reagan and I can't see one anywhere.

Posted by: savitch at June 26, 2007 1:42 AM

It's only an opening (desperation) move...trying desperately to force us to fire on them-which is what the mOslem munchkin has wanted, and predicted, all along, but has failed to get out of us, which is why his thugs are crossing in large numbers-if he fails to get us to fire back, he can't claim he was "attacked" and claim some upper-hand so his allies worldwide will feel justified in their impending attacks on western interests they've had planned all along, especially since it's been made easier for them through political changes...
They've still got 13 days to their showtime-this is merely the "polish border incident" of August 1939 all over again.

Posted by: jcom972 at June 26, 2007 1:50 AM

I agree American needs a Churchill. It also needs a General Sherman, Patton, and/or MacArthur.

America needs a "will" to win.

America needs the attitude that we will win at all costs.

America needs the attitude that says Damn international law where said law means the difference between winning or losing.

War should return to what it once was....pure unadulterated hell. Not some nice, neat, tidy, and oh so proper. War means carpet bombing. War means DESTROYING the will of the enemy, including their civilian population, to continue to engage in combat. War is to be merciless. War is to be cruel. War is to be destructive.

Anything else is not war. Anything else might just result in our demise.

Posted by: FLLegal at June 26, 2007 1:51 AM

"In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"OK, I'll declare war.

Will that help?"

Posted by: rickl

Rickl:

That was both cute and funny. LOL

Posted by: FLLegal at June 26, 2007 1:56 AM

Our troops have the will to win. Our government on the other hand has become "two peas in a pod" and holds the deck of card's.
Get off ya royal buns ...democrats and republicans and let our troops wipe out Iran....drop the big one....disable them. Raise a flag over Iran to let those hounds from hell know we mean business.

Our government is so concerned with Amnesty "crap"..they seem to forget whats really important for American's. I wonder about our government...turning Communist or a stepping stone to communism. Who know's...all I can say, in all my years..I have not seen such a screwed up government as it is today. They act like a bunch of kids. (I want this and that....no it's mine, you leave it alone.)

Posted by: Cher at June 26, 2007 2:31 AM

Have any British troops surrendered yet?

Posted by: george_rem at June 26, 2007 2:44 AM

I would hope that we don't mess around with this, and give our troops the FULL support, permission, and weapons needed to take out Iran fully. (Let's all remember the Vietnam era and how wonderful government tied the troops hands with China.

Posted by: Monkeywho at June 26, 2007 3:07 AM

Iran has just shortened the hangmans rope....Muslims desparate actions will see the beginning of the end for Islam....Islam is for losers...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 26, 2007 5:38 AM

If you want to be taken seriously, you would be well-advised to cite the Sun "newspaper" only on subjects like celebrities' bra sizes, not on politics!

Posted by: Flying_Dutchman at June 26, 2007 8:02 AM

The American Population has been made to feel excessively guilty about the outcome of Americas previous "Clash of Civilizations". Almost to the point where we should have adapted the Indian way of life and lived in Long Houses and Tipi's.

The current clash may just give the re-writers of history their desires. Unlike the previous clash, we are not isolated this time in its confrontation. We are isolated in our ability to render the Butchers bill unto our Enemies.

Multicultural revisionism has made the concept of killing the Enemy a criminal enterprise.

You know your in trouble when the consept of "disproportional us of force" is bandied about. Like War has to be conducted as if it were some sporting event.

It is to bad that the British didn't direct some Artilery fire on these Iranian Incursions into Iraq. Nothing like definitive proof that only dead bodies can provide.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 26, 2007 8:22 AM

Posted by: Monkeywho: "I would hope that we don't mess around with this, and give our troops the FULL support, permission, and weapons needed to take out Iran fully."

Delusions of winning a war fought with half measures as we have seen of late will tire the public as is now the case. The US will have to withdraw from Iraq at some point, certainly by January 21, 2009, leaving a vacuum to suck in the Iranians who will immediately begin to set up their long awaited caliphate and control of the ME. This war can be fought now or it will have to be fought later and under much more dire circumstances at that.

Posted by: sounder at June 26, 2007 9:02 AM

even if we had the will at the military level (which we do) or the presidential level (eh, kinda), we DON'T have it at the legislative level.

and they're the ones who can declare war!

so, gw needs to pull everyone out of the middle east & south asia (military, diplomatic, even private companies), then nuke the following countries (w/o declaring war):

iran (could have nukes in no time)
saudi (terrorist financiers)
pakistan (nukes & ubl...pull out musharref 1st)

then sit back and let others take it all in.

i think we can justify ALL of these actions because of the terrorist activity occurring in each country, and state that they declared war on us & we needed to respond in kind but didn't want a costly war, that we were concerned about escalation to war & wanted to nip it in the bud.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at June 26, 2007 9:40 AM

Dear Miss_Anthrope:

I agree with your post and that we could justify it.

However, I wouldn't care if we didn't justify it, but simply said, "Git ovr it or we'll whack your ass too"! :)

Posted by: FLLegal at June 26, 2007 10:17 AM

If the Iranian's did cross the border militarilly, it is an act of war against a sovereign gov. The official gov of Iraq. Unless the cagy Maliki invited the Iranian's in. If that's the case, why should the US continue supporting this regime that is playing both side's against the middle?

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2007 11:53 AM

You people with ideas of nukes are funny. Nukes are to be used as a last resort. Only a fool would set off a nuke in the middle east. Like it or not, all the countries on earth depend on oil, and if any country started lobbing nukes around the midde east, that country would get LOTS of hell to pay from those countries that need that oil. We would have china and russia to contend with, and you could just forget about anybody wanting to be our ally.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 26, 2007 3:11 PM

To mrockroll1969:

You stated: "You people with ideas of nukes are funny."

This is no joking matter. Perhaps you don't realize how serious things really are.

You stated: "Nukes are to be used as a last resort."

Well I am glad that you recognize that such "last resort" situations could arise in the Middle East. I am glad you are willing to not take the nuclear option off the table.

What would you define as "last resort"? Failing diplomacy that continually gets nowhere as the Iranians take the final steps to become a nuclear power? Just before they get the bomb? After? What if they attack our troops in Iraq with their troops? Is that the last resort? More dipolomacy? Then they have the bomb, what then?

Truman before nuking Japan did a cost benefit analysis concerning loss of life comparing loss of both American and Japanese lives if the bombs are dropped to the number of lives lost if we simply invaded. How many American lives are "acceptable" to be lost, before you deem using nuclear bombs as a "last resort"?

You stated: "Only a fool would set off a nuke in the middle east."

Really? You can't imagine last resort scenarios in the Middle East? Does your proclamation that nukes are only to be used as a "last resort" not apply to the Middle East?

Waiting until after Iran gets nukes is far more dangerous for America & Israel, then taking them out before hand. Wouldn't you agree? You wouldn't deem Iran and/or Syria attacking American troops in Iraq as a "last resort"? What if they are also attacking Israel? Do we defend Israel? Do we even dare defend Israel once Iran gets the nuke? Oh right we can talk talk talk...the eternal language of diplomats as they usually lie to one another.

You stated: "Like it or not, all the countries on earth depend on oil, and if any country started lobbing nukes around the midde east, that country would get LOTS of hell to pay from those countries that need that oil."

I don't like the fact we are addicted to the oil and hence fund the very people that want to destroy us. Nuking Tehran, Qom, and/or Damascus would no more destroy all of Irans oil production capability as did the two nukes in Japan destroy all of Japan's manufacturing capability throughout the nation. All of Iran's oil and infrastruction does not reside in Tehran. Major parts of Iran would be untouched by nukes as major parts of Japan was untouched by nukes.

As to getting hell, sure we'll get hell. We get hell now, but I'd rather endure the "hell" then have Iran pointing nukes in my face and/or seeing mounting U.S. casualities in Iraq as Iran pours across the border.

You stated: "We would have china and russia to contend with, and you could just forget about anybody wanting to be our ally."

China & Russia contend with us now. They do nearly everything possible to roadblock our efforts to impose greater sanctions. I would rather go the diplomatic route with Iran, but Russia and China are not helping any and Iran does NOT want to negotiate in good faith. In fact, they are giving aid and assistance to Iran. They are by their acts and omissions making the "last resort" more inevitable. We don't need allies like these guys and Iran is playing us for "fools".

I guess I would like to hear from you is this:

Do you think diplomacy is working? Would you rather continue using diplomacy even if such continuation of endless chatter allows Iran to obtain nuclear bombs? Or do have a "point" before Iran gets a nuke where the "last resort" comes into play? Define that point would you?

If Iran is invading Iraq, which was the topic of this thread, tell me the point where the "last resort" point would be reached would you?

What if Iran invades Iraq killing Americans and Iran has the nuke, what then?

And at that point of Iran invading Iraq killing Americans or attacking Israel with Iran having nukes, might you then wish we had nuked Iran before they had gotten the nuke themselves? Well it is too late then. Do you think then you or the powers that be might have wished you and they had listened to "fools" like me? Fools who think we need to pre-emptively strike Iran before they get the nuke? Fools who aren't willing to stretch out the point of "last resort" to such a length that will cause us greater distruction and/or our demise in the longer run.

One day we will wake up to the announcment that Iran has the nuke or nukes. Then we will all wring our hands and dread the fact we didn't take care of the situation before hand.

Posted by: FLLegal at June 26, 2007 6:21 PM

FLLegal,

I know diplomacy never works withn muslims. We can take out Iran without nukes.

I stand by my point that using nukes in the middle east would be stupid. When we fought Japan, oil wasn't in the situation. It's the oil that is in the way of us (and every other nation on earth) of dealing with the muslims the right way. Every nation on earth depends on that damn oil. Their economy would collapse if they didn't get that oil. That what makes the middle east such a touchy situation.

If we dropped a nuke in the middle east, we would be dealing militarily with russia and china (not just this cat and mouse stuff we have been doing).

Oh yeah, and when I said last resort, that meant that there would be NO other alternative. Right now we can take out Iran's nuke facilities without needing to use nukes.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 26, 2007 9:25 PM

I know nuking Japan was the right thing to do. It ended their ideology and ended the war sooner, and it did save a LOT of lives.

I really don't think that by dropping a nuke on Iran will make the jihadists want to give up (sure, it will be the end to Iran, but it will also encourage the jihad). I know just about anything encourages the jihad. What I'm saying is that dropping a nuke in the middle east will have the opposite effect on the muslims as it did on the Japanese.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 26, 2007 9:46 PM

Hughs idea of isolating the muslims and encouraging their sectarian violence is better. They will destroy themselves.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 26, 2007 9:49 PM