Originally Posted by zikzak
Nice rant. All I wanted to do was point out, again, that a unilateral strike by Israel is extremely unlikely due to logistics. But I did enjoy the rant.
Thanks. It was a good rant, wasn't it? :-) My point being that, no matter how unlikely, or difficult, you'll be better off it succeeds should it come down to it.
Originally Posted by SL__72
In the context of your post this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Most opponents to premtive strikes on Iran rank their preferred realities as:
1. Iran doesn't pursue nuclear weapons.
2. Iran does pursue nuclear weapons and is left alone to do so.
3. Iran does pursue nuclear weapons and aggressive action is taken to prevent them from building one.
You're right about the false dichotomy - I was posting from the perspective that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and that action must be taken to stop them. Aggressive action, considering passive action (diplomacy) hasn't done anything but allow Iran to stall in hopes of furthering their program (peaceful or not).