re: #77 theheat

How is a nuclear Iran a boost for any part of Europe, or the world? That’s just it: it’s not. But the perceived solution is that America should go in, guns blazing, and fix that little problem for everyone; the POTUS should throw down the gauntlet, call Dinnerjacket a MF, and “get some shit” stirred up. You know, like our last POTUS did.

Oops. My bad. Never happened.

That approach makes for really good television, but it’s not quite that simple. Lately, we’ve been great at starting wars, but pretty much suck at finishing them. We can’t even get a consensus to send more troops to Afghanistan, let alone open a whole new can of whupass on Iran without the support of a coalition.

Just for once, I’d be pleasantly surprised if the United States didn’t have to play big brother and wet nurse to the rest of the world, while simultaneously being demonized, and someone else would man the fuck up.

No, Obama is not the guy to start shit with Iran - at least not at this stage. But who the hell is? I hear a lot of crickets and woulda/shoulda/coulda that doesn’t mean jack shit from the rest of the civilized world.

Which is why we have to do it. As long as we depend on oil, and our allies in Europe do too, it is in our vital strategic interest to prevent an Iranian nuke.

BTW, another benefit of taking AGW seriously is getting off of oil.