How long do you go on "threatening" military action before you have to cough up?

This is another exercise in question begging. You are assuming that I would not support the 'Coughing up' of force against Iran. There are cases I would support that, as a demonstrated last resort to a clear and present defined danger- and/or as an action that is clearly strategically and morally reasonable.

Saddam was convinced, even after Afghanistan, that we would never dare invade them.

And we never should of. Your point?

Why would Iran behave any differently if we had parked troops in neighboring nations (which nations would those have been, by the way)?

We'll never know, for one thing. For another, Iran is not Saddam. Iraq was subject to the same insine blindness that Nazi Germany was subject to as a totalitarian state. Whatever the dictator believes, is what he is told by his underlings, and is what becomes reality. Iran is not that kind of state, and has acted with a lot of geopolitical savvy as of late.

And are you conceding that maybe invading Iran would have been acceptable?

Let me see, do I have to draw you a map and light up a neon sign? Speaking of blindness and only hearing what you believe to be true! Why the hell can't you listen to those who oppose you in discussion??

How many other liberals might feel that way? Keep in mind that much of the Left doesn't even think we should have gone into Afghanistan.

First off, quite a few feel that way. The thought of Iran building nuclear devices is not a pleasant one. Secondly, only a very few on the 'Left' that I know believe we should have not exercised force in Afghanistan. Most of them are indeed upset about the way force was used, and the really piss-poor post-war reconstruction.

Now, I have not given much thought to the 'ideal' thresholds of when to use violence against Iran and to what extent and when it might be justified. The reason why I have not is that to do so in the real world, right now would be a terrible disaster. The choices are piddling little pops on the nose that plays into the hands of the totalitarian clerics, or an occupation that we can't execute, sustain or consider without putting our economy on war footing and drafting people by the hundreds of thousands. All of this BECAUSE of Iraq.

Who? Who would go in with us in threatening Iran in the United Nations that didn't go in with us in Iraq? France? Germany? Russia?

Try Europe, who knows that Iran is developing an advanced nuclear capability and has openly demonstrated the missiles to deliver them into Europe proper, and affirmed ties to global terrorist groups. All of which could NOT be demonstrated about Iraq, all of which WAS NOT demonstrated and all of which was cited repeatedly by the dissenting European powers as reasons for not supporting our efforts.

And keep in mind about how congineal they might be to us today if we didn't piss all over them and use their post-911 good will to run off and beat the crap out of a third world country that had nothing to do with anything.

We had to lie through our teeth (yeah, whatever, replace 'lie' with 'innacurately claim in the face of contradicting evidence', I'm not having this argument again with you, its like yelling at rocks for being too stony) to make a case for war with Iraq. Amusingly, everthing we cliamed to be 'out for' Iraq exists in hard proven fact doubly so in Iran.

Here is your manifest assumption, just like "No liberal supports any use of force", you are assuming "Europe is just a bunch of pitiable wussies out to get us". Its as dumb as looking at the middle east as a giant herd of suicide bombers screaming for Allah and dying to blow up a bus load of yankees. Stupid assumptions lead to stupid decisions. And gosh darn if you and your neocon gods have not filled the last 4 years with stupid decisions.

Besides which, its also argument by appeal to ridicule, which again is just rhetorical fluff, with no rational content. Makes a good show, but doesn't mean bull crap.

Do you have any evidence at all that their opinions of our foreign policy, or their opposition in the U.N., would change by simply changing "Iraq" to "Iran?"

No, but I have good reasons to believe.... Hold on there sparky, are you actually going to stand in judgement that I can't provide definitive proof for a position about events that never happened, will never hapen, did never happen? This is really dumb, Tom, you can't argue contingencies and expect anyone to prove anything. Thats why I don't do this with you. Its like arguing about if Batman could beat up Spiderman or the other way around. Oh, you think that so-and-so would win? Well prove it! Just really dumb.

Again, the ground assumption for statements like this is that somehow our taking out the government of Afghanistan and decimating al Qaeda was not going to irritate the Middle East like invading Iraq would.

Tom, it didn't!!! This is not a modality, it was a fact that the islamic world largely took a big step back from Afghanistan and said "Not Me!". Pakistan and a few other Islamic states even begrudgingly helped us directly. We don't need to ponder alternate universes here to know the truth.

Davin :.