That's funny, because you never mentioned centrists of leftists either, only Democrats.

As with other discussions we've had on various topics, my comments are often directed at the largest percentage of the problem. I don't tend to think in terms of double-clucthing that one every time, k?

I could go on, but I am sure you get the point.

Yes, thank you for that, it certainly elevated the discourse around here.

If Bithead needs insulting, I'm perfectly capable of providing it on my own, thanks.

You need to understand the fundamental tenant of Bithood.

Anything bad that ever happened anywhere is the fault of Democrats. The sinking of the Maine? Democrats. The fall of the Roman Empire? Democrats. The black death? Democrats.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the point.

Nope. Just centerists to leftists. Usually that means Democrats... but not always.

That's funny, because you never mentioned centrists of leftists either, only Democrats.

Nope. Just centerists to leftists. Usually that means Democrats... but not always.

Actually, we've been doing exactly that for some time, now. Of course it occasionally requires action on our part. Action that Democrats, particularly don't have the political will to do.

Because of late, say, the last 20 years or so, we've allowed it.

No, you never mentioned Conservatives or Republicans anywhere.

Your two claims, when put together, seem to imply that Democrats were in charge of foreign policy for the past 20 years. I'm not quite sure how you reconcile that with history.

From which you somehow derived that it was all the fault of Democrats controlling foreign policy? Your train of thought it hard to follow, Bit.

Only because you're having problems with labels. You've fallen into the fallacy that "Republican"= "Conservative"

1. Then they should leave the treaty.
2. We also have a track record of restoring ties to governments that give up their nuclear ambitions (see Libya)
3. p.s. we removed Noreiga, we re-installed Aristide...this is not a new thing.
4. They started their nuclear program mainly with Saddam Hussein in mind, you know, the guy who invaded their country, shot city-buster missiles at Tehran, and used poison gas. So, technically, while they might fear a US regime change, they must also be conflicted about our role in eliminating their greatest threat to the Iranian regime EVER.
5. In fact, I wonder if using Iraq as an "honest broker" as part of our negotiations might be interesting.

Because of late, say, the last 20 years or so, we've allowed it.

From which you somehow derived that it was all the fault of Democrats controlling foreign policy? Your train of thought it hard to follow, Bit.

Really? The Iranians have given nukes to groups within Iraq and Pakistan? Cite please

I don't have time for this.
Go to dictionary.com and look up the words 'weapons' and "tactics" and get back to me when you actually understand the difference between the two.

Oh? Home come they're 6 months away from usable weapons if we've been preventing them all this time?

Because of late, say, the last 20 years or so, we've allowed it.

And while I am at it, I often wondered why the fear-mongerers amongst us are themselves so fearful yet talk so brave. Have you been in the military Zeldorf? Killed any brother soldiers with friendly fire, destroyed any civilian families because their car was in your line of fire, laid waste to the countryside in vengeful ire? I know 9/11 scared the shit out of you, but by now you'd think you would be able to acknowledge that Saddam had nothing to do with that. No country or political regime did either. Just a small group of men who were looking for their match in a group of small-minded opponents. They got their wish. We got endless chest-thumbing from "bring-it-on" non-combatants. Now you whine a lot because you realize we are on to your game and aren't going to let you win it without a real struggle this time. Which I guess explains you're main reason for fearing Mr. Obama.

Being neither democratic and, consequently, wanting to curry favor with the people on whom its power depends nor totalitarian and able to ride herd effectively on the various elements of its own military is really a dangerous scenario.

Again, short of nuking any suspected sites inside of Iran, Israel doesn't have many options to top them.

Particularly notice that Israel completely flubbed, and pretty unambiguously lost, their attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon. That was right next door and against a paramilitary group. Striking Iran requires them to go far afield and attack a real military target.

Well, yes, if it wanted to follow international law in the matter. Otherwise, it's merely a technical issue.

Uh, James, there were three steps, right? Only one of those has to do with international law (withdrawing from NPT). The second (expelling inspectors) has to do with being operationally capable of producing the weapons. The third (time to enrich the fissile materials) is a function of laws, yes, but of the physical sort. Iran cannot ignore those regardless of how rogue they go.