This does not bode well. I wonder what is going going on behind the scenes?

Fallon wasn't a team player on Iraq and Iran.

I made my point, but I guess there might be others, besides yourself that is, that appreciate your hyperbole.

Like McCain said, it's now time to "bomb, bomb, Iran" and the nutty neocons are loving it.

As I understand it, Bush may be hard pressed to find a sycophant to replace Fallon. Seems real professional military men disagree with him almost to a man.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

A surgical airstrike/missile strike to take out their nuclear sites might well prove necessary if they insist on following their current path. Only objections I've heard to such a move are practical, not political in nature. Unfortunately, it seems Iran hasn't been stupid enough to put their nuclear efforts entirely in one place or even above ground as I understand it. There's considerable question as to whether or not we can identify and hit all the targets. But from a political standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Nuclear Ayatollas don't strike me as a good thing to have around. I'd be surprised if any of the three presidential candidates would rule out such a strike if it was feasible.

An invasion? That's just plain dumb, not that dumb has ever stopped the current POTUS.

I'd be surprised if any of the three presidential candidates would rule out such a strike if it was feasible.

True that. But it's the feasible part that is open to wide interpretation. Realist candidates would take the surgical strike nonsense into proper perspective. Bombs still miss their targets and kill innocent civilians, and good leaders know we must win hearts and minds.

It's hard to reconcile McCain's loose talk about bombing for fun and popularity with this reality and with his own words from the documentary Why We Fight. He was against a reckless militaristic foreign policy before he was for it.

FWIW, also, I don't know why it's more comforting to know North Korea already defiantly built some nukes for a rainy day, than to think about Iranian nukes that are years away.

FWIW, also, I don't know why it's more comforting to know North Korea already defiantly built some nukes for a rainy day, than to think about Iranian nukes that are years away.

I don't think it's all comforting that NK has nuclear weapons, nor that they appear to have the technology to launch missiles at least as far away as Hawaii. I also don't find it comforting that Israel has nuclear weapons possibly combined with a so-called "Sampson Plan" to begin nuking key Islamic population and/or religious centers should they ever appear to be on the losing end of a regional war. To be perfectly clear about the subject, I'm not comforted that Pakistan, India, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, the USA, et al possess nuclear weapons. Nukes aren't wonderful things. Unfortunately, they're a reality.

I wish we had both the quality of information and the resolve to have stopped NK's nuke program before it yielded results. The same holds true for India and Pakistan. A POTUS, however, cannot undo what's been done. To strike at a now nuclear armed NK would be even dumber than invading a pre-nuke Iran. Nuclear weapons do make a wonderful deterrent, you see. If they were only good for deterrence, I'd want every nation to have them. Unfortunately, they make great deterrents because they are such horrific offensive weapons.

However, the argument that we should just sit back do nothing while Iran joins the "nuclear club" because NK is already a member just doesn't hold water. I mean, does anyone really advocate that "oh well, North Korea has the bomb, so let's just flush the non-proliferation treaty"?

aka the Persian Gulf's version of the Tonkin Gulf. Can you sing bomb bombo bomb bomb Iran ?

If we're serious about no nukes and peace then perhaps we should get rid of a few thousands of ours and quit threatening other countries with invasion?

So the road to world peace begins with unilateral disamament? I haven't heard that gibberish since the height of the cold war. If you believe that in your heart, more power to you. I'm not in that camp.

I know if I were Iran and was continuously threatened by Bush, I'd do just like NK and get me some nukes ASAP seeing as that's the only thing that will stop those crazy neocons from invading.

I believe a less Bush-centric version of what you say above is the reason every rogue state has for seeking nuclear weapons. "No one will screw with us if we have the bomb." They are free to commit genocide against their own people, invade neighboring states, sponsor terrorists, or whatever other wonderful things they like doing that has us and others ticked off at them.

It is rank hypocrisy to pretend we are opposed to other countries gaining nuclear weapons when we play nice with Pakistan and give the technology to Turkey (perhaps you're not aware of what I'm referring to).

We were playing nice with Pakistan while they were developing the bomb. We have a long history of playing nice with Pakistan. We have long and seemingly honored tradition of playing nice with nations run by bad people when we decide it's in our short term interest. How is any of that an arugument for letting Iran get the bomb?

Look at it this way, we're the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons. Other countries have no doubts we would do so again (we're pretty crazy that way) and that is quite a deterrent against any country using one on us or our "allies" and we have LOTS of them to use.

This assumes rationality on the part of the leadership of the nation holding the bomb. Surely you've learned better than that over the eight preceding years?

Didn't mean to imply that anyone else is or should be comfy about NK having nukes, and yes, it's sort of difficult to deal with that toothpaste after it's out of the tube. (Thanks to Duhbya the PRezinent's brilliant Ignore Until They Realize the Error of Their Ways diplomacy.)

5. Are there no other remedies? In other words, is the choice down to a nuclear Iran or the use of force?

6. Can we identify and destroy the facilities or sufficiently damage enough of them to appreciably delay their nuclear program?

To (5), I would say use every form of diplomacy as well as sanctions before force. Force must be the last resort. Bush never learned that. He doesn't know diplomacy and he doesn't have the patience for stuff he doesn't know, the petulant bully.

To (6), the next POTUS must know there will almost certainly be unintended consequences that may do as much damage as might be gained by extending the clock. (Bush never learned or cared about that either. He can still kiss up to Saudi sheiks and do the sword dance after all the murders he is responsible for.)

I don't think we disagree about Bush, of course. I'm just wary about the costs/benefits of bombing Iran. We should have learned those risks by now.

The latest information on the subject of this "retirement" is that it isn't about Iran at all but about Iraq.
It seems Fallon is in favor of a quick troop draw down while Pace and Bush and McSame are in favor of an eternal presence.
Thus Fallon must go.
Fallon was one of the few military leaders remaining that was willing to serve under Bush in a high level capacity and indications are that many more will leave and/or refuse to accept this high level position as a result of Bush's idiocy.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson