S-2,
Quote:
So total war is what you mean. Punative to coerce change with minimal regard for "collateral damage"? Or "kinder, gentler, softly-softly" as our mechanized corps race to Tehran and all the other key cities of this very large, very populated nation? Is "kinetic regime-change" the vogue diplo-speak for war? Another occupation? How long this time? Can we merge Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan into one "Occupied Muslim Republic of America"?
If this is the only alternative, are you attempting to raise the cost such that removing Iranian nukes becomes prohibitive in western eyes? That's my guess.
BTW, is that our responsibility? I just don't want Iran armed with nukes. I don't care how they govern themselves. "Policy change" is my only way-station on the road to bombs over Bushir.
|
you misunderstand. war is an option which should only be used if the mullahs demonstrate irrationality and are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. that's not currently the case for either postulate.
if they do, then iran with nukes becomes a fearsome threat that cannot be tolerated.
i imagine any replay of OIF would be run far better this time around.
Quote:
|
Regime change of a WMD-armed state. Sounds familiar. In truth, you must possess a lovely neo-connish streak down your backbone heretofore not really evident.
|
damn, and up till now bluesman and others have called me a friggin' softy too.
as for neo-con, no- their impetus for a war in iraq/iran was to militarily put in democracy, as part of their larger vision of the middle east. my vision of a war is in dire need- with the fulfillment of those two postulates mentioned earlier, the war would no longer be a war of choice. realist thinking and deterrence assumes rationality. when that goes out the window (which happens but very rarely- not even kim jong-il has gone completely off the deep-end), then you are left with a menace which is wholly unpredictable.