Reply #37: Under some circumstances, I might also

[Tom Rinaldo]

but those who answer Yes to this poll have predetermined that there are absolutely no circumstances under which the United States should NOT take military action if necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In a way that is a type of absolute prejudgement that, unlike all of the other nations that currently have nukes, the United States simply can't co-exist with an Iran that had them also, even if the act needed to stop them from gaining nukes (an act of war against Iran) could set off a larger middle eastern war with a cocurrent risk of dramatic further spread of terrorism and massive economic upheavals caused by disruptions in the worlds oil supplies.

What you described was a need to take pre-emptive measures to avoid destruction caused by the intentions of fanatical leaders. To apply that logic to Iran now presupposes that fantical leaders in Iran will cuase that type of destruction if they gain nukes, and in so doing it justifies attacking Iran without any further need of evidence that failing to do so will result in that destruction. That is a standard for justifying initiating an act of war that the United States may never have asserted before in our history. Certainly it is at complete odds with how the United States dealt with the Soviet Union and China during the sometimes heated phases of the Cold war, including during the Korean War.