Replies

This may come across as callous, but I do not currently support an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. Until and unless we can categorecly rule out an attack on Israeli nuclear facilities, and also an Israeli nuclear response to same, what good does it do to chase after two soldiers, if you get millions killed in the process?

Some may argue that the rocket attacks justify and Israeli invasion, but Hezbollah has stated repeatedly that they will stop when Israel stops.

Some may argue that Hezbollah lies, and has lied for decades, and Israel has reached the point of no return, that this is a matter of survival.

At that point I agree, asking any nation to ignore survival is a crime against the laws of nature and is not likely to succeed.

But there are ways to do a thing smart, and way to do a thing not so smart, and until certain things are cast in stone, things I will not talk about until I know that they are certain, then my position is that invasion should wait.

It is entirely possible that what I want to come to pass has already happened, that Israel is aware that it has happened, and therefore they are clear to invade.

But until I know this too, I can't say it's ok, because the math cannot add up until I know this thing.

Hostages in the Iranian Embassy. Well first off, publishing that fact focuses attention on both the front door of the building and the back doors too, which seems like a good way to get those two soldiers killed.

Past that, it is unconfirmed by three sources.

Past that, if I was sure of the data, and I was in charge, I'd make as much of Iran as possible glow in the dark. But see, that's niot a valid argument, because if I was in charge, Iran would have ceased to exist around 30 years ago.

I wasn't in charge then, and now Iran can potentially make large portions of Israel uninhabitable, potentially even after a successful and massive first strike against them. Then we're back to basic math. Risking millions of Israelis to save two Israelis doesn't make sense.

Unless all of the Israelis have decided, well basically, live free or die. If thewy're at that point, well, the results will be inconvenient for me and others, but a doomed society doesn't care about that, so our opinions are immaterial.

I guess then, my answer to your question is that I don't have an answer because I'd never have let things get to this point in the first place. It is impossible for me to view a situation, and make decisions regarding it, without also looking at the long term ramifications as well.

Iran proved themselves a threat to the human race long ago, and we waited way to long to do anything about it. Recognizing that I was not in a position to make unilateral decisions in this issue, and that few if any supported my position at that time, I took steps to remove myself from the threats they present and I have. I will cheer if someone takes out Iran, but I may not necessarily assist them in the task.

It seems unfair to me to argue with me early, then agree later on, when the stakes are much higher, and then expect me to bail you out (a figurative you, not you personally).

If that seems cold, well, in my opinion it is simply very basic math.

All that said....I am still a sucker for suffering people, so...

If I were President Bush, I would tell Iran that Israel is a long term American ally, that Israel was going in to get their people, and that if they attacked Israel with WMD or against targets that achieve the same results as WMD, or attacked targets that would negatively affect significant numbers of the global population (energy targets), then all of Iran, and any nation that chose to ally themselves with Iran in such an attack, would face the full wrath and destructive ability of the American people.

If Iran ignored that warning, then I would turn both keys and not look back.

Again, an invasion is not the solution, in that scenario, it only addresses superficial issues while ignoring the root of the problem, along with its long term effects.