An atom bomb doesn't care how brutal you are or aren't. It only cares about physics.
Any invasion of Iran would proceed with at least the same amount of circumspection that the current invasion of Iraq did. We would want to crush the bombs not their population. You want brutal, look at WWII.
"An atom bomb doesn't care how brutal you are or aren't. It only cares about physics.
Any invasion of Iran would proceed with at least the same amount of circumspection that the current invasion of Iraq did. We would want to crush the bombs not their population. You want brutal, look at WWII."
???
Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not, or you basically missed my point. My point was that war is bad. Who can disagree with that? I didn't say it is never justified. In fact I said it was justified in WWII. I also think I made the point how brutal WWII was.
I also stated that pre-emptively nuking Iran was a bad option. If you disagree with that you should seek some help. And that would crush their population, and would be brutal. I think we should do something about Iran, possibly something militarily. I was simply making the point that moral societies have to draw a line between right and wrong, and used the situation in Iran as a relevant example. Should we annihilate them with our nuclear arsenal at the drop of the hat because they may have nukes in a few years, or should we pursue every other option so it doesn't come to that.
Your comment about an atom bomb only caring about physichs is corny and cliche` at best. It is also a little out of date since no one makes atom bombs anymore because it isn't 1945. Are you going to the sock hop this weekend so that you can do the jitterbug. After that we can go checkout the new Humphrey Bogart movie.