Okay, so i saw the Democratic Debate yesterday...And I just picked up an issue of the economist at borders.

According to Chris doods...It may take until 2009 to withdraw all 160,000 of our troops...getting attacked all the while, and we even have some 3,000 civilians in the green zone.

And according to a preditction in the economist....If unopposed, Iran may get a nuke in.....

2009.

This is very ominous.

In the magazine mentioned above, there are three possible bad outcomes of handling this crisis, as well as one of my own inclusion.

*Iran gets nukes, and has a stand-off with Israel.....Which would make the Cuban missile-crisis look like child's play.

*America and Israel take Pre-emptive military action....the IDF and U.S armed forces sweep into the country and manage to diffuse the missles, but not the crisis...

*Iran gets attacked. Iran goes ballastic. Iran ends up with a bomb anyway.

*We train a paramilitary force of everyone exiled or screwed over by the government of iran, and send them in to ignite a rebellion. Lol, maby thrid timez a chrm?! Or maybe not.

Any of the above fiascos might be avoided if we break out the olive branch, but how far does rational diplomacy go when your dealing with a president who denies that the holocaust ever happened??