[indcons]

The world cannot sit silent as another muslim country goes nuclear......

[Boundless]

M.A.D. only works when the enemy isn't actually mad.

Iran will see to it that someone uses their weapons,
just as soon as they come off the assembly line.

We need to down the power lines to those lines now,
and keep them down.

Tehran doubtless knows that Tel Aviv has a Masada
Contingency, which is the vaporizing of all key
islamic coordinates if Israel is ever nuked. The
beardbrains in Tehran know it, and don't care.

[Dog Gone]

The US is the only country that could take military action.

Really? Not a single other country in the world has the capability of launching airstrikes that might at least slow down Iranian nuclear ambitions?

[Duke Wayne]

And when they do use Nukes the world will cry and mourn the fact that there was a time when the Iranians could have been defeated, but no one wanted to stop them until they used there weapons.

[Nachoman]

This journalist is way ahead of the curve. He's given up before hostilities even started.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

"Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do"

My goodness, everyone wants to quote Murtha in their stories now.

[teenyelliott]

there is nothing they can do [the Americans and Brits]

Hahahaha! That is funny.

[bvw]

But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

"Highly motivated armed forces" -- yes, we heard that with Iraq too. There are many sides to Iran. They are used to rule by the nutcase, zealot or loony-emperor of the day. That does not make for high-security in any installation.

And Iran does not have to be attacked so much as imploded.

[DakotaGator]

Another "surrender at all costs" article.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

The West, particularly the US, can take Iran down anytime it wants to. "Diplomats" have never understood solutions, let alone military solutions. At best they just perpetuate the unacceptable until it becomes a matter only the military can resolve.

[Roverman2K]

I will go and do it myself, how hard could it be.
Seriously.

[stuartcr]

We resigned ourselves to a nuclear Russia, China, France, etc....why not a Muslim nation?

[A.Hun]

Good post. A sober assessment in my opinion. No one in the world would have the balls to attack Iran except GWB, and the Congress would crucify him if he did it on his own.

No way is Congress going to go along with a preemptive strike for a hundred reasons (cowardice chief among them).

Good to see you!

Atilla

[Petey139]

Do I smell a Israeli-US War Coalition in this post?

[joesnuffy]

Thank China,Russia,N Korea,Norway,Romania,India,Pakistan,Germany,the UK,Canada and the USA who makes it all possible.

imo

[JasonC]

The world could not sit by while Germany rearmed. The world could not sit by while Japan seized Manchuria and raped Nanking. The world could not sit by while India was torn in half in massive religious pogroms. The world could not sit by while commie traitors gave nukes to Joe Stalin. The world could not sit by while commies took over China. The world could not sit by while democratic movements in eastern europe were crushed by tanks. The world could not sit by while millions were sent to re-education camps and killing fields in southeast Asia. The world could not sit by while scores of engineered terror-famines swept Africa. The world could not sit by while Rwanda was slaughtered.

Apparently, the world has a greater ability to sit by than the commentators suppose.

[Larry Lucido]

But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq

Last I checked, Iraq wasn't far from Iran.

[endthematrix]

Here's another Barf Alert on the same topic. Must be talking points...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558393/posts

[hershey]

The Scotsman gets it wrong. Again.

[hershey]

On cable TV the other night: The Heroes, an incredible, mindboggling account of three special ops officers, army and airmen, whose actions at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan made all the difference. Three men leading a handful of troops, and pin point accurate bombing from F-15's. Who says we haven't already 'painted' Iran's nuclear sites? We know special ops guys went into Iran long ago, and they haven't been sitting on their hands.

[TADSLOS]

The US is the only country that could take military action.

Apparantly, Israel doesn't rate.

But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq

(Quagmire)

and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

Yep, it's all one big Peter Pan adventure...

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq.

True, for Scotland...

It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

Not if they're all glowing in the dark...(another anonymous foreign office diplomat speaks out!)

[Richard Axtell]

Essentially, this article says that we can do nothing, so we must accept a Nuclear Iran. Somehow this is supposed to resolve itself into some sort of mini-cold war balance or equilibrium. But, that only works with sane leaders. All bets are off regarding this bunch. We will find out the hard way, that acquiescence to the Iranian hardline is not the avoidance of a nuclear crisis, it is the guarantee of it.