[Red6]

Bombing them is 26 years overdue.

[expatpat]

No, the Israelis will use the military option.

[samcgwire]

I'm all for praying night and day up until the point that they still don't get it, then destroying their government and WMD capabilies. I'm not for rebuilding so much.

[SevenMinusOne]

"The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure"

And when / if this happens it will very likely come via this route - Not much talk / hype beforehand -

But still likely a ways off from happening -

[johnny7]

Fred Barnes & Mort Kondracke said we won't... they both alluded to “let Israel do it”. Mara Liason went so far as to say that Iran will get nuclear weapons... it's a given.

[moose2004]

"If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE PROBABLY SUPPORTED NORTH KOREA'S PEACEFUL ENRICHMENT AS WELL.

[carl in alaska]

This is like reading an article about a convicted serial murderer who wants to buy an Apache helicopter and 100 Hellfire missiles for "peaceful self-defense only." The police think that given his history, the murderer will use the chopper and the missiles to blow up his neighbors' houses, and therefore the police are trying to stop him from buying these weapons on the black market.

The BBC would, of course, say the convicted murderer should never be allowed to acquire these weapons systems. The nuclear negotiations with Iran are exactly the same kind of situation, except that the stakes are much greater and the cost of stopping Iran is much greater than the cost of stopping the murderer from buying the weapons. The big difference in these two situations is the cost to the world to stop Iran, and it's only because of this high cost that the BBC would even consider allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. The BBC writer and many others in the west are focused primarily on the cost of stopping Iran and they're not correctly assessing the cost of not stopping Iran and the gravity of the threat from a nuclear-armed terrorist state such as Iran. The west needs to wake up and take a long, serious, analytical look at the short-term and long-term threat to the civilized world from Iranian nuclear weapons.

[familyop]

"If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

The BBC doesn't care if Britain is nuked.

New Iran missiles can reach London
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227123/posts

"The timetable is uncertain but an assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington says that Iran might be able to assemble enough centrifuges by 2007, and enrich significant amounts of fuel by 2008."

Iran defies calls for freeze on nuclear research, restarts program-(50,000 centrifuges to be built)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555690/posts

Iran may have received advanced centrifuges: diplomats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561797/posts

Iran has built 5,000 centrifuges, says opposition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555554/posts

Iran has built 5,000 centrifuges, says opposition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555896/posts

[Wiz]

ping