IF Iran really is building nukes, would you support US air strikes

against Iran's nuclear facilities? I actually think we have very little choice, if negotiations fail--a nuclear-armed Iran would be an absolute disaster. The big problem, of course, is that every intelligence assessment that comes out of this administration has been bullshit--their credibility on such matters is less than zero. But hypothetically, for the sake of argument, IF it's a done-deal, ironclad (slam dunk!) certainty that Iran is building nukes, should the U.S. take them out?

Because that kind of provocation will ensure a nuclear holocaust.

Bad BAD idea.

That is a very bad idea. What would you do after you bombed them, send in the US military for another cakewalk like they are having in Iraq, only this time among radioactive rubble that is hotter than the depleted uranium the US is raining on Iraq?

Do we really need any more wars of aggression anywhere for any reason? Iran probably feels more impelled to create nukes because of what they see happening in Iraq and the sure and certain feeling that they will be invaded next.

If Bush had left us on any kind of diplomatic terms with any of the other nations in the regions or even our former allies in Europe, perhaps the matter could have been negotiated. But bombing Iran is a good way to start the end of the world the Fundies are waiting for so eagerly.

are stretched as far as we can be stretched. And China and India (where all our jobs and personal information happen to be now) are new best buds with Iran.

So anyone with a hair up their butt to start bombing Iran really needs to start thinking about it again.

nation to nuke another country and we did it twice. Remember that. The US is still the only nation to ever in history nuke another nation.

I have absolutely no interest in provoking a world war, one this country will most assuredly lose.

North Korea had no major nuke ambitions before the axis of evil speech. Neither did Iran.

If you tell me I am your enemy I'd probably try to defend myself in case you attack me.

Its obvious politics.

Get Bush out of office and Iran and N Korea will negotiate.

North Korea has wanted nukes for a long time. Similarly, I suspect that Iran has had plans for awhile, if for nothing else than keeping their neighbors under wraps.

On the original subject, no, airstrikes would be hit-and-miss at best. The only reasonably safe and effective tactic would probably be to send in covert teams to sabotage or destroy the weapons themselves and the facilities that produce them. That too is not without risk, but it's a lot less random than a bombing attack.

from what I've read during the early parts of Clintons administration North Korea ended most of their attempts to create nukes. Which is why for most of the 90's N.K. was not too much of a political discussion. They still had the rods and capability but they were emptied. It wasn't until the Axis of Evil speech that they then became a threat again.

Iran I haven't studied as much but it is a very similar situation. They may have liked nukes but they weren't hell bent on getting them like now. They view nuclear weopons as there only capability to protect themselves from Israel and the US.

Once again get rid of Bush and they will be far more bendable.

yes, Clinton fell for it....Big Deal.
They haven't used the nukes, they're just another paranoid little country. I don't blame them for feeling threatened. They're not going to run around and take over the world...the people over there are virtually starving already.
Iran feels threatened because we're next door. That also doesn't mean they're going to do anything.
W'ere the only "paranoid" country that has actually used nukes...I give thanks everyday that we have term limits on the presidency.

ONLY AFTER bunkerboy and the REPUKES nixed everything that Clinton did, did N Korea START to refuse to cooperate and BEGIN to restart it's NUKE program.

Stop repeating REPUKE lies.

cause you don't like hearing something. The north koreans don't give a shit which party is in power...and yes, I do believe they restarted their program during the Clinton years....foreign press stated this as well.
In the end, it doesn't matter...they're not going to do ANYTHING either way.

The inspections and use of funds to contribute to alternative energy needs was WORKING perfectly.

ONLY AFTER bunkerboy and the REPUKES nixed everything that Clinton did, did N Korea START to refuse to cooperate and BEGIN to restart it's NUKE program.

They had a reactor during Poppy Bush's time that created the enriched plutonium they needed and are assumed to have created 2 nukes before Clinton was in office.

In March 1993 there is Congressional discussion of North Korea's attempt to get out of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.

That was considered a sign that they had the weapons.

That is why the Clinton team worked up the Applied Framework with them.

I know the CIA has been denying it. I've even seen recent CIA claims that NK never made the other nukes that even NK claims they did make in the last couple of years from the same plutonium.

And the Bush people are trying to keep the knowledge of the nukes, from the time of his daddy's tenure, secret so the right wing lie that Clinton somehow got nuclear technology to NK (I suppose in exchange for 100 nubile virgins) will have some backing.

Jude Wannisksi who may have had some wacko ideas about economics, but could be considered a Washington insider said that the "proof" that John Bolton claims they had about a second nuclear program (this one based on uranium enrichment) came from something someone said at a cocktail party.

All the nukes they have allegedly or truly created were from the plutonium enriched before 1993. They have them and they've had them for a long time.

To help with those who would wish me to go back and search all my sources again, I'll pass you one to Mahablog who did a decent job on the subject, considering the time and resources most of us smaller bloggers don't have.

http://www.mahablog.com/oldsite/id34.html

10 years ago.

I was not interested much in politics at the time AQ Khan?.

The Pakistanis basically set up the N. Korean nuclear program in the 90s as well as helping Iran. There is a very good cover story on Khan in the November 2005 Atlantic Monthly. Sorry, no link. But it is entitled "The Wrath of Khan" by William Langeweische. If you google that, you might find it.

they and their cameras got thrown out and unplugged and they told the world they are building nukes... why aren't we bombing them, oh thats right, they're next?

only an arrogant IDIOT would attack a country over their weapons and only a fascist would do it over weapons they may get in the future :crazy:

we must rid our country and the world of these neoCON fascist ASAP.



psst... pass the word ;->

peace

now, if they used them I would change my mind.

If Bush goes into Iran I personally will take to the streets. It might be in my wheelchair, but I'll be there.

I won't get naked, though.

no.

We saw the difference in invading Iraq with allied support (Gulf War I) and without support (Gulf War II). Germany and France aren't lacking in common sense and if the case is that clear, then they should buy in.

...and this is a really big "unless"...

Unless Iran uses those nukes on one of our allies or any other nation without provocation.

Even if Bush is unwilling to stick to the plan, I am. We do not need to be the world's policeman, but Bush forced our nation's hand because of his ego, his greed, and his delusions of grandeur.

Political cartoon I found somewhere.

We are not the police of the world. Now if Iran shot a nuke at our Nation then that would be a horse of a different color.

A nuclear armed Iran might be a disaster. So might a nuclear armed Pakistan, or India, or Israel, or United States for that matter.

I'm not aware that there is any international law forbidding any country from building nuclear weapons, and I'm not sure what basis there would be under international law for such strikes. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but I believe that they have the right to withdraw from that treaty, just as much as we had the right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Ultimately, I don't think that we have the right to make unprovoked strikes against a sovereign nation, and the consequences of doing so could end up being far more disastrous than those of not doing so.

And my feeling is: If Israel can have them when they're not suppose to, why can't Iran?

" You can" You can"t but "you can, AND of course we can, after all we are the be all, know all.

The world will not be a better place if Iran has nukes. No religiously insane country should be allowed to have them.

The problem is that this administration has no credibility at all and you simply cannot believe anything they say. That's what happens when you cry wolf so often, when the wolf really comes no one believes you.

"No religiously insane country should be allowed to have them."

So people feel our country is close to if not already there. Who would be the judge of us?

WE are becoming "religiously insane", also. With the RW Christians running this country, we're all set for a "Holy War" like we've never seen or heard of. It's religion run amok with nukes now. When the hell are we going to take a look in the mirror?

And it is the nuclear-armed US which has proven an absolute international disaster for the past five year. Do you think for one moment that if Iraq had nuclear weapons that the US would have pre-emptively invaded Iraq. I find your use of the term "take them out" to smack of an immature, macho attitude toward the horror of war. Sort of like Bush's promising to get OBL, "dead or alive".

made a difference what I thought.

no matter which country they're in. . . however, inviting their use through military action against them doesn't seem a particularly intelligent course. . .

""

:sarcasm:

We tried to tell this administration that invading Iraq would lead us down this path.

Airstrikes would solve nothing. It would make the situation that much worse.

I would prefer to live in a world without nuclear weapons, period.

Iran has threatened its neighbors -- Israel for one. I have personally known people who suffered terrible at the hands of the Mullahs in Iran. They are not nice guys.
Talk about torture!! Also, Iran has not declared that it would use nuclear weapons only for its defense. That combination of facts causes me to be cautious about saying "No." Frankly, I would need more information about just what weapons Iran possesses, how they might use, transport, deliver etc. them and whether every alternative has been exhausted. Of course, air strikes should be limited to the nuclear facilities themselves and should be executed after warnings that permit civilians to leave the area.

A nuclear-armed Iran could be a threat to a number of countries in that area including Turkey and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, but especially Iraq. Imagine -- we pull our troops out of Iraq. The Shiite areas of Iraq unite with Iran, and they form a very large country led by religious fanatics and possessing nuclear weapons. Granted, Iraq/Iran are not the only countries led by religious fanatics, and we can look pretty close to home to find another one at this time. Still, that does not make nuclear weapons in the hands of religious crazies who believe God wants them to force the world to accept their religion an acceptable thing.

OK, I agree that quite a few countries have nuclear weapons. But, that does not mean that we should not do everything in our power to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

Like some other contributors here, I would only favor air strikes only as a last, last, last resort and only with international support, and not just from us and/or our European allies.
And, I would support air strikes on the nuclear capacity of other countries that hold nuclear weapons and have not agreed to limit their use to defense and to allow international inspections of some sort under certain conditions including ample warning so that people would not be hurt. There should be some international organization that can determine when strikes are appropriate. I realize that this policy of striking countries that abuse or threaten to abuse the use of nuclear weapons or even present such a threat could backfire against the US. But, I do not even want my country to abuse nuclear weapons, and the threat of a strike might even cause a crazy American leader to think twice.

Again, I would prefer to live in a world without nuclear weapons. I wish they had never been invented even though the science that led to their invention has also led to very positive and useful discoveries.

Yes, I am a Democrat and not a Freeper or a lookey-loo. I frequently contribute here and actively campaign for Democratic causes and candidates, etc. I just would like to see nuclear proliferation control made a top priority worldwide.

throughout the Middle East . . . including Israel . . .

The last rhetorical question that was asked was "If Iraq has WMDs would Congress support an attack?" Look where answering that one got us.

Sorry, but this administration no longer has any credibility to me. In fact, it has negative credibility. I'd sooner believe it is lieing than telling the truth

So I reject your question outright. Bring credible evidence. Present it all, pro and con. Have the intel experts talk to us, not just their figure head bosses. Then MAYBE I'll answer.

But you'll get no approvals from me before this administration dumps EVERYTHING on the table. And even THEN I'll be damned paranoid.

I would tend to agree. IF the intelligence is good and accurate...IF it had to be the VERY and I mean VERY LAST RESORT....it might be necessary.

Unfortunately, this administration of crooks, liars and idiots, makes EVERY situation ABNORMAL. I don't think we could ever trust anything they say, and I don't think they will ever have a single strand of credibility for the duration of their reich's reign.

MAYBE, we should wait and reconsider the subject POST-IMPEACHMENT!!

to complete their agenda,their baby PNAC..Project for a New American Century. PNAC's clear objective from what I read from their site is," friendly Pro-Western nations from Lebanon thru Syria,Iraq (our
now),Iran,Afghanistan(ours) Pakistan,India to the door step of China. This plan (agenda) needed a catalyst a beginning and 911 was the birth. Clearly a utopia designed by neocons for greedy power hungry neocons. Why did
the bush crime family make Iraq the "centerpiece on the global war on terror"? That answer is simple,Iraq has the 2nd largest deposit of crude, decades worth of crude,trillions of dollars worth of crude. No,I don't support any attack on Iran. Pakistan is a greater danger. Mousharff is hanging on by threads, if he's knocked
off and real anti-american people take over well, they already have nukes..jmho

not useless "air strikes".

International consensus along with multiple countries sharing the burden and cost of the operation. Gee what a concept.

as Iran will invade Iraq if such air strikes occur, not to mention the damage that could occur to our work in Afghanistan.

Invading Iraq guaranteed Iran would develop nuclear weapons. It's one of the consequences of our illegal venture.

because we cannot verify. Its their word against bush's I know I cannot trust bush.

I am sure Iran is looking at North Korea as a model of how to keep the Americans out with one's own internal politics.

I have no problem with it at all.

And they threaten me a lot more in Europe than they do in America.

Oh yeah, they're typing on an Internet message board which is of little real consequence.

really are....on a message board, of course, not in Reality fer sure.

NoFederales

If you pull an airstrike on Iran at any time, you have just committed an act of war and given them the perfect excuse to attack your ground and air forces in nations on their border (i.e. Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan).

Iran has exocet missiles, a navy, an air force, and a ground force numbering 540,000 with an additional 817,000 17 year olds that can be conscripted and put into battle within three months. On top of that, the entire population of Southern Iraq would welcome the Iranians as liberators.

Any air strike since drastically overextending our ground forces in Iraq would be strategic suicide.

...and also another reason that the optional Iraq war was a bad idea. I just want to make the point that I won't say "no" simply to spite Bush* for lying about the Iraq war. And who knows? We might have allies against Iran if we actually make a case against them.

next?

this isn't tell'n bush no just because of past LIES - though that is certainly a legit reason all by it self - but it is insane to enable this fascist foreign policy that says we have a right to fight preventive wars, not only have suffered enough damage to our credibility, our treasure and our troops, but we would never 'WIN' it would only make our situation and the worlds worse.

plenty of reasons to fight these fucking crazies and slim to none reasons to support the fascist in their ongoing crimes, hello...

peace

we could have avoided adding two new members to the Nuclear Club.

As it sits now, North Korea is most probably a member and Iran is probably close to being a member, more than likely with shared technology from North Korea.

Invading Iraq was probably the stupidest strategic maneuver in human history.

What if we are just a behind the scenes player? Allow Israel to use one of our Aircraft Carriers to launch the attack because as far as I know Israel does not have the capacity to complete the mission on their own.

If Israel does an air strike, Iran will consider Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and the United States to be complicit and attack.

IMO, Iran is HOPING anybody does an air strike as an excuse to liberate Iraq, and they'll have about half of Iraq greeting them as liberators and joining in the fight.

Basically, within a three month span the odds will be ten to one against the U.S. on the ground.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

and you don't have to deal with the consequences of escalating war in the Middle East.

Not enough bloodshed in that region there yet to suit you?

:banghead:

would you support air strikes on Israel or China, Indaia, Pakistan, which country?

it is absolute madness to go to war with someone because of the weapons they have or WORSE might have :crazy:

peace

nuclear development is towards a weapon and the development is far along, yes I would. It would be surgical and I would make sure that at the very least Russia, China, Pakistan and India were "consulted".

Let me get this straight: A country's arming itself with nuclear weapons is sufficient for you to commence a war?

Why not attack Israel? Pakistan? India?

should come out and start negotiations to destroy all nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy can be used for good purposes I suppose, but weaponization of nuclear energy will doom us all. Bombing Iran will do nothing but further elevate Osama Bin Forgotten, further alienate the U.S. and further destabilize the region which, in turn, will further wreck this economy.

Maybe if Wes gets in the White House some of this will change. :hi:

Look at how Bush has mishandled a war against a - basically 3rd world country - how do you think it would handle a war against a country the really does have WMD?????????

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

and I would certainly not support this Administration's claims that Iran had such weapons.

If the Bush team said that water was wet, I would not believe them. Maybe I'll take what they have to say seriously when they admit that Bill Clinton never lied about Monica Lewinsky (if you read his deposition like a lawyer, and really cut through the weeds, it's clear he did not lie).

Anyway, no. I oppose nuclear proliferation whether the country is Iran, Israel, North Korea or the US, but Iran knows what the Soviets knew for 50 years: Mutually Assured Destruction. If they fire off one of those weapons then they are committing national suicide. It worked during the Cold War. Striking Iran preemptively would unleash a retaliation. Iran has a real Army and an Air Force too. We have long since worn out our welcome mat with the rest of the world since 9/11. Casualties would be huge, there would be another quagmire war and the draft would have to be reinstituted. There would also likely be an oil embargo. The moderates in Iran would lose influence and the mullahs would be stronger than ever. Even the Brits would not support us.

You know maybe if we didn't view the Middle East as a potential American colony, Iran would not be interested in making such weapons.

It would require someone with a sound mind and honest moral values to make the decision. Diplomacy would need to be exhausted first and that would require honest brokering. Our country is already in an absolute disaster at present, we are losing it to Fascism. If we do not change course very soon, we will have lost all we have fought and sacrificed for. I would not put it past these criminals to use nukes to strike Iraq. Regime change needs to be done here before we endanger the world further.

as last resort to divert much unwanted press, Iraq war, Scooter, Abrahmoff, Delay, SS. and the list goes on. This sicko-whacko prez is liable to use any means to remain-regain control of his pathetic current situation.

When the shit hits the fan bigtime later this year, I believe this prez will crack, and nuking Iran is no different then his "shock n Awe" move, the man will sacrifice any amount of people to spread his brand of freedom and democracy, or - we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here.

don't you just feel so much safer now...?

Iran has as much right to nukes as we do.

I have no problem with aiding Israel in the strikes though. They will most definitely need our help. The U.S. Army War college acutally issued a study the other day that stated Israel does not have the capacity to completely destroy Irans nuclear facilities on their own.

Like you said, a nuclear-armed Iran would be an absolute fucking disaster.

Side note: A diplomatic solution would obviously be ideal, but when your dealing with a country that has a president who denies the holocaust... Diplomacy may not be an option.

and what better choice then the state headed by our favorite ME terrorist :eyes:

what country has the right to take us out because our CIC is whacked?

interesting how americans can sound JUST like UBL & not even realize it :shrug:



peace

It was so the moment we invaded Iraq.

If any attack happens on IRan, they invade IRaq with the entire Southern part of Iraq joining in on their side.

A nuclear armed Iran is a guaranteed situation now. There is no stopping it.

the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, think that might be prudent?

talk about keyboard chicken-hawks :puke:



peace

if we are going to war because of nukes and countrys that have them.
Iran ain't shit let's attack these first!
Iran?

United States
10,455

Russia
8,400

China
400

France
350

Israel*
250

United Kingdom
200

India**
65

Pakistan**
40

North Korea***
8

TOTAL
20,168

with weapons a little less inferior to the ones that are aimed at them?

against the arsenal we have aimed at them. I would bet a dollar there is an ohio class sub running missile drills with Iranian targets now. Same goes for the rocket guys at minot afb, and the rest of the units in the armed forces that can deliver nuclear weapons.

They signed the npt and should either withdraw or honor it. They are trying to cheat their way around it.

The best they get is massive sanctions and a arms race with israel.

I personally don't believe a damn thing the US has to say. Had enough of the 'Cold War' scare tactics...time for this administration to grow up. Foreign policy and showing restraint, would be a good beginning. War never solves anything!

From what I have read, Iran learned a big lesson from the Iraeli strikes on Iraqs nuke facilities back in the 80's. They have built their facilities dispursed and hardened against air attack. So all that would be accomplished would be making the entire region howling mad, but their nuke sites would still be operational.

Furthermore, nukes seem to be a stablizer. That doesn't mean that I like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran or North Korea either. But countries with nukes seems to become more careful about getting in a conflict with another nuclear country.

Either way, I agree. I think the mullahs in Iran are batty, but at this point it'as nearly impossible to stop them.

They seem hell bent on it. The IAEA is likely trying it's best, but I doubt it's going to succede in stopping them.

The Israelis may attempt to bomb them. I'm wondering how effective it would be though. As you mentioned, the facilities are much better fortified than Osiraq, plus Iran is in much better shape militarily than Iraq ever was. They might not win a full all out war against Israel, but they certainly could a decent amount of damage.

I suppose Israel will weigh it's missile sheild and decide. I would rather the US not get directly involved. If Israel wishes to engage in such behavior though, they have the right...but they will have to deal with the consequences as well...

The b61-11 is a bunker buster that comes in a nuclear flavor, and will make any facility useless due to fallout.

While I'm not sure if Israel has this kind of a configuration they may have an equivalent warhead, I think that a nuclear bunker buster is something Israel would be able to make.

If you had the most powerful country in the world constantly making noises about attacking you, wouldn't you be tempted to build a nuclear deterrent, too?

Besides, I don't trust the Busheviks not to LIE about whether Iran has nukes. Remember how we all had to be saved from the Big Bad Iraqis and their Weapons of Mass Destruction--which didn't exist?

We're not talking about twelve-year-old boys playing Risk here or fifteen-year-old boys shouting "yes!" as they "take out" another "enemy" installation in a video game. We're talking about the potential for the Middle East to really blow up in our and everyone else's faces. We're talking about the potential for millions of people to be killed.

Iran has not been threatening to attack anyone. (Nor had Iraq...) The country is gradually liberalizing, and nothign will set it back faster than our ham-handed PNACers attacking it, because then all liberalizers will be branded as traitors.

Europe would NOT support an attack on Iran, nor would Japan or China or anyone else. We'd be alone.

All you armchair cowboys who want to attack Iran really need to enlist in the military so can volunteer to be stationed on the Iraq-Iran border when the Iranians react to that violation of their sovereignty. Then let's see how brave and forthright you are.

Why would they bomb Iran? Because they can. Why not China, Russia and North Korea? Because they can't. Republicans have become the party of hypocrisy.

The United States should NEVER attack any country. NEVER!!

If they bring an arsenal online we should ally with Israel in a Nato like pact. They have stated they could absorb a Israeli second strike. They can not absorb ours. They know we have a no warning first strike capability, that we have never used.

Then you have a stalemate like the korean peninsula or the india pakistan situation. Reduces the likelihood of war.

It is pretty much known that if they made move toward Europe or the US they would be "wiped off the map"..

If they do they should face the consequences of breaking the npt they signed.

It would take 10 years and trillions of dollars for them to develop a true 3 part delivery method that could deliver hydrogen bombs with the domino's guarantee.

I will NEVER believe anything these PROVEN LYING WAR CRIMINALS ever say.

If they said water was wet or the sky was blue, I'd AUTOMATICALLY NOT BELIEVE THEM.

These REPUKES have ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY and deserve our complete and utter DISTRUST with everything they spew.

Are we clear yet?

India or any other country that has nukes? Should the US be bombed for having nukes? What do you think anti-proliferation was for anyway? We told the world that we don't want no stickin anti-proliferation---We are not God, we don't represent God and we are not the world's police force!!!!!! And if you really want to know who has the most bang for their buck-all you gotta do is look at the good ole USA!!!! I am for the whole world having no nukes, but it ain't gonna happen as long as any rogue nation can tell another nation how to run their country. If the people in any country are disenchanted with their government, then they better do what we did over two hundred years ago, because revolution is from within. If a country invades another country to change regimes, it's just a foreign invasion. And, believe me, said citizens of country, even if they are against their government, are going to fight tooth and nail for their soil against foreign invasion. Wouldn't you?

Let's be consistent.

Right? Right?

Twas sarcasm...

I say we arrest the leaders of countries that own nukes and make them mud wrestle for money.

there was a great PBS documentary before Bush-a woman who went to Iran and filmed across the country. Women vote and drive in Iran. The documentary showed how policies were becoming more moderate. Women wore headscarves, but didn't have to cover their faces (unlike our great ally Saudi Arabia, where women can't vote, drive). Before Bush, Iran was going moderate--he screwed the pooch. Now, did he do it intentionally? The Iranians voted for a more conservative government this time because of FEAR of the US. I'd like to know if some Americans are going to spout how we're going to spread democracy to Iran---because Iran already is a democracy!!!!! Yes, there has been a give and take between the government and theocrats, but before Bush, the moderate government was winning!!!!!!

unless we are in imminent danger from that sovereign nation, or an ally is in imminent danger.

And I believe anyone will agree if they research the law.

The only other exception, per international law, involves a U.N. resolution authorizing action.

It is NOT either legal or appropriate, I believe, to bomb another country because you don't like what they have.

Contrary to popular belief, we are NOT the World's ruler.

Get Jimmy Carter, the Pope, Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, a moderate Muslim leader, and a not-Likud Israeli leader (and no, Sharon does not count) together, and immediately start negotiations to remove ALL nuclear weapons from ALL countries (and yes, lurking Freeps, I mean ALL) in the name of the fucking survival of planet Earth and the human race.

:sarcasm:

Israel already has hundreds of nukes stockpiled. No one's talking about bombing them...

Stupid idea...

That is bullshit and against International Law. If Iran takes action against another nation, then bomb the shit out of them. But I do not believe the US has the authority to dictate who can have nukes and who can't.

We have nukes, they should be able to also.

facilities, vs a nuke strike to take out the nuclear facilities?

Definitely neither without the International community's involvement, and after all else fails.

Even then, I don't know. I'd have to hear Wes Clark's take on it and hear more discussion to have a real opinion.

You are falling for their hype. What countries has Iran invaded or bombed without first being attacked themselves? Why do you feel they are an aggressive nation? What evidence do you have other than some rhetoric from some of their fanatics that they are a threat?

and held them for a long, long time.

If you don't realize that bombing Iran would start Dubya Dubya Trifecta, and make no mistake - THAT IS THE PLAN, then you need to do some more reading!

Will we take out every country with nukes? Well, every country but the USA...

We've let Bush start too many wars as it is.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

Jr. and the PNACer's are moving on with their Empire plans. We must all write our congresscritters and demand that every ounch of diplomacy possible be used - that jr. MUST talk to Iran whether he wants to or not, that he MUST talk to the UN and our allies.

There's a thread at kos with video clips of Clark on FOX last night and this afternoon. He spells out what these war-mongers are doing and how they will do it in a way that the Dems are going to have to go along or look "weak on security." I've been writing all the Senators all afternoon. They for once need to be pro-active and not WAIT for the thugs to put them in a corner.

Please everyone write. We must head these evil doers off at the pass!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/2/13512/91287