I wouldn't use "history of invasions" as a metric to measure responsibility. Here's one in Israel's favor; they have honored peace treaties with Egypt. They have a proven track record of settling differences with former enemies.

Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations).

http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3.htm

are we better off stopping iran from obtaining nukes? and how far are we willing to go (what price will we pay)?

Who bestowed the responsibility on the U.S. (and Israel) to police this?

Iran. . . . obliterating itself? you mean like the suicide bombers who board the buses in Israel?

Here is where you ignore history. Mutually assured destruction kept the world's two most significant nuclear powers in check for the entire cold war. Your statement above "garners an emotional response, rather than a rational one." to quote you back at yourself.

You have to ignore a lot of history to draw that conclusion.

The lesson that Iran has learned is that of North Korea, who has nukes, and has not been attacked by the U.S.

I do not support Iran, or anyone's pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think there are more than enough in the world today. But to treat Iran as if they are irrational, as you and the neocons have been doing, hasn't been working out so well.

What, you don't believe him?

I doubt heavily Ladeen believes himself when he's spouting this kind of stuff.

Mike:

I don't know the entire history of who invaded who. I know that after Israel became an independent state all if its neighbors have attacked it. It has had to keep its guard up ever since. The fact that it has peacefully co-existed with Egypt, a former enemy, is an example of "responsibility" on Israel's part. As is the fact that it holds elections, and permits free speech and debate. If you want to argue that Iran is more responsible, be my guest.

If there is another question I did not address, ask again.

The Bald One:

Paraphrased from a philospy text: "A man stands on a bridge. He sees another man drowning in a cold, icy river below. Does he bear any responsibility by failing to act?"

To answer your question, of course we can do nothing...would you let the man drown?

If this is not analogous, you can certainly make that point, and give your explanation as to why.

Throwing around the "neo-con" label and hurling insults, doesn't accomplish much.

From the Rawstory interview with Larisa Alexandrovna,

published March 20, 2006 [click on my signature for live link]:

"...Iraq through a 911 Lens

RS): I want to revisit what we briefly touched upon with regard to the Iraq war and pre-war intelligence, but I want to continue from a different vantage point. Let's begin with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Do you think the attacks could have been and should have been avoided? Were there enough warnings? If so, where did the failure, in your opinion, occur?

ML): Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place. As I said at the time. The key to the terror structure was and is Iran, and we should have started by supporting democratic revolution in Iran, not invading any place. And even if you decided to 'do' Iraq first, it should have been political first, and military second-if-necessary. I proposed declaring the 'no fly zones' to be 'free Iraq,' and then dropping leaflets on the country urging Iraqis to go govern themselves, preparing for the fall of the regime..."

What, you don't believe him?

(Iran as an 'irresponsible neighbor')

In many ways. I wouldn't use "history of invasions" as a metric to measure responsibility. Here's one in Israel's favor; they have honored peace treaties with Egypt. They have a proven track record of settling differences with former enemies. Can you demonstrate a similar act of responsibility on Iran's part? Then there's democracy vs. theocracy.

Iran has honored all peace treaties its signed. It has a proven track record of not invading its neighbors. And its government is an Islamic Republic, not an outright theocracy.

(the 'right to nuclear weapons')

Possession of nukes is a right? Who bestows that right? This is a frivolous question.

On this we agree, though I suspect for different reasons. For me its frivolous because Iran has shown no sign its nuclear research is heading towards weaponization of the technology.

The questions to be answered are; are we better off stopping iran from obtaining nukes? and how far are we willing to go (what price will we pay)?

Or, more accurately, what price are you - NotOrbitBoy - prepared to have the rest of us pay for your personal peace of mind.

Caricatures of neo-cons plotting a conspiracy in a dark room ignores the tough questions. It garners an emotional response, rather than a rational one.

Very good. You're finally admitting the central problem you have here. Good progress.

(who starts the nuclear exchange)

The side the has stated, repeatedly, that Israel should not exist.

Um, given it is NOT an avowed policy of Iran to wipe out Israel?

Again, Ahmadinejad is powerless and a loudmouth that Ali Khamenei has been taking very public steps to shut up.

(the consequences of US-led invasions in the ME)

Wishful thinking, as if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that Iran would not have pursued nukes.

Pity no-one thought further than getting to Baghdad back in 2003. Oh, wait...

You have to ignore a lot of history to draw that conclusion. Iran's efforts to obtain nukes pre-date Bush, by decades.

You should distinguish what 'history' you're referring to, as you're evidentially reading something other than Iranian history. You should also understand the difference between civilian- versus weaponized-nuclear technology.

Again, the devil's in the detail you clearly aren't considering. Maybe you should start before embarrassing yourself further.

I had precisely this argument with someone recently. Generally, I like to fully engage people like this who aren't committed, just parroting some feel-tough lines from the Neocons, because they can be flipped/saved. I was starting to lose patience though, also consciousness, so I short-circuited the argument by saying:

"Commanders on the ground are responsible for establishing force protection measures to ensure the safety of the troops. Are you suggesting the commanders are incompetent? That they can't protect their troops? That they need some civilian in Washington, DC to tell them how to fight?"

Yeah, it worked. Nah, I don't feel that bad about it. I'll try to save two more to make up for that one.