Monday War Questions...

On a very happy Monday topic, one of the questions I asked my co-worker John was if he thought we were gonna nuke Iran. He snorted, and didn't really answer. My mind wonders if we shouldn't have gone into Iran instead of Iraq. We knew that Iran had nuclear power-generation capabilities, but not weapons technology. I suppose we can't go into every country that has nuclear reactors, and bomb them because we think they might obtain weapons tech, but where do you draw the line? I think it would have been better if we had gone and pre-emptively hit Iran, but even then, it would have been wrong. They hadn't started producing nukes yet, so what else could we do?

I don't know anything about what neo-cons believe, but I do understand that Pres. Bush seems to have acted on unreliable intel that was given to him by others. But, wouldn't it have been better to deal with the threat that had the most probable chance of manifesting itself? Better to deal with a threat that is already manifesting itself than a shadowy hint. Iran already had the reactors, and just needed to go in, give the finger to the U.N. , start them up, and buy the technology that they needed from someone. Again, which is more dangerous?

Now, I'm not advocating that we start wars with suspected problem nations. But if someone already has half the capability to make nuclear weapons, and all that is keeping them from making nukes is some hardware and their honesty, shouldn't we be doing something about that?Instead of toppling an, admittedly, despotic ruler and having no viable solution for rectifying the problems inherent in Iraq, shouldn't we stop a country that has more aggressive capabilities?

Now we have 2 messes that need fixing. How many more lives will it take to fix them?

OK, I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for listening.

Finish the rainbow!