Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 15, 2006
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Making a decision on Iran
by Charles Krauthammer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


WASHINGTON -- In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not ``leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.

The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ``It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''

``Before'' implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.

The costs will be terrible:

Economic. An attack on Iran will likely send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.

Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.

The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed but at considerable cost. And it will take time -- during which time the world economy will be in a deep spiral.

Military. Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.

Among the lesser military dangers, Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world, although without nuclear capability that threat is hardly strategic. It will also be very difficult to unleash its proxy Hezbollah, now chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon in the latest round with Israel and deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.

Diplomatic. There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. Much of it is to be discounted. The Muslim street will come out again for a few days, having replenished its supply of flammable American flags most recently exhausted during the cartoon riots. Their governments will express solidarity with a fellow Muslim state, but this will be entirely hypocritical. The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.

The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation. We will have done them an enormous favor by sparing them the threat of Iranian nukes, but they will vilify us nonetheless.

These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing.

In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.

Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?

These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Be the first to read Charles Krauthammer's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

We would be a lot better off
if we did not have to contend with the leftists in America who would apparently prefer to face annihilation than offend world opinion. America's will to survive is drained by the idiots among us.


Charles Krautmammer has done an exellent job of honestly laying out where this nation finds itself today. It is not a good place. The scenario he describes shows us that we will all be in for uncomfortable times. Oil at $150 a barrel alone will have a devastating effect on every one. Never mind the rest of the things he predicted.


Hitting Iran with our military can eliminate that sick nation from the world scene. It will, in the process, kill lots of Iranians who hate the goofball mullahs, and could eventually prove to be important allies in the Middle East. That is an absolutely terrible thing to have happen.


I find myself wondering what a nuclear explosion, or several of them simultaneously will be like. It is beyond comprehension. Millions of Americans will die. Anarchy will reduce America to a survival of the fittest society. It is too terrible to contemplate.


There is one thing that I know. Never mind the jihadists and the cowardly, envious Europeans. I will place the blame for whatever happens on the leftists traitors who have encouraged America's enemies by their self hatred and hatred of America. The greatest nation the world has ever seen.

The American Left
I agree that the American left has done more harm to America by their self-hatred and hatred of this country than any of our external enemies (so far). They have been the source of speech codes and baby talk that preclude honest debate on deadly important issues, issues that adults ought to be able to conduct without a lot of ad hominem attacks and petty name-calling. They excoriate their fellow citizens who are Christians but are among the biggest apologists for Islam, an international men's club that I dare say most liberals in this country really don't know much about. Their over-arching desire for egalitarianism in all circumstances at all times with all peoples clouds their ability to make empirical deductions and reach rational conclusions, causing them to drag down the strong and successful while attempting to boost up the weak and dysfunctional. Unfortunately, I believe things are going to get worse before they get better, because too many Americans who know better have been cowed into thinking they're bad if they deviate from the political correctness that the Left has foisted on us. It's going to take, in my opinion, something far worse than 9/11 for a critical mass of Americans to finally say, "We've gone against our better judgement for years, and look what happened...Now get out of the way while we take care of these things."

Europeans?
Off topic from the excellent run of comments here and nitpicking one phrase from an excellent article, but did I see "detered by the Europeans" in there.

Kind of, "...detered by the presence of Europeans..."

It just sounds odd.

An alternative..
is to drill our own oil on our own soil; but of course the left wing nutbags will not allow that. They prefer to have countries like Iran and Venezuala with a knife to our throats so they can advance their pathetic agenda. It really gets me steamed when I think of all of the danger the left puts us in. And I agree completely with NRALifer: Carter is the worst president we ever had and he is proving to be the worst ex-president as well. Of course the MSM will not allow anyone to remember that Carter's to blame for this mess.

A Different Scenario, Mr. Krauthammer
With boots already on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Eastern and Western borders of Iran, the greatest military in human history could topple Iran and confiscate its oil assets in a matter of months.

The Saudi oil fields could be had with even less effort.

And why not? Both of these countries have sponsored terrorism and spread hatred. Why should the West continue to fund these regimes with billions of dollars for oil?

Certainly, we, the greatest nation on Earth, cannot allow ourselves to be cowed by Islamic primitives with delusional, if nihilistic, goals.

Rugged individualist
And we're already accused of deposing Saddam to seized Iraqi oil. If we're to be hated for something we're not, perhaps we should consider becoming what anti-Americans think we are. Wonder what they'd think if they turned out to be correct?

I'm usually thought to be on the right
... though it seems to me though that too many there have submitted to a voluntary prefrontal lobotomy since the invasion of Iraq finished up.

During the Iraqi invasion we handed out satellite cell phones to any upper-level Iraqi officer who would take one and cut cash deals with whatever local Iraqi military leadership we encountered to fly the coop whenever it began to look like there might be a problem taking a particular objective. That was brilliant. So was the campaign to oust of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ever since then, though, the administration has been behaving more like they were directing a second rate Arnie Schwarzenegger or Sy Stallone action movie than running an intelligent military occupation.

I can give you an example that sticks in my mind. I have a video clip of the taking out of an Iraqi sniper that's well over a year old now. Basically, there was a guy with an AK-47 lurking behind a wall about 75 metres down a narrow street in a dusty Iraqi town. He was plinking a few rounds at our guys every time they tried to move down the street. How did our guys solve the problem? They called in the guy's coordinates to an F-16 orbiting over the battle space and he dropped what looked like a GPS-guided 250 kg bomb on the sniper. End of problem.

So what's wrong with that, you say? Simple. It costs about $10K/hour to keep an F-16 in the air, even in the US, the last time that I looked. That GPS-guided bomb costs about $25K. I figure roughly that it cost $50K to take that sniper out. What did it cost the insurgency to put the sniper in place? For the guy, maybe a few hundred a month. His AK-47 costs a few hundred more and his ammunition a few dollars at worst. That's bad economics, any way you look at it.

Krauthammer is urging us to do the same thing in Iran, that is, to substitute testosterone for brains.

Step back and assess the problem rationally for a moment. I know that's hard, but take a shot at it. Like him or loathe him and I certainly loathe him, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is correct, Iran has a right as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop its own indigenous nuclear programme. There is nothing in the treaty that abrogates that right on the pretext that much of the western world perceives that Iran’s President as a terminally dangerous nutjob.

Put into the mix that nuclear weapons technology is basically a bad of late-1930's engineering tricks and you can begin to see just how difficult halting nuclear proliferation is going to be as an ongoing effort without turning the whole world into a police state. The fact that the South Africans built a nuclear arsenal twenty-five years ago ought to turn on a tiny little light somewhere in Bush's so-called brain trust. Any half-assed little country can build a deliverable nuke if they're sufficiently determined to do so. Heavens, even a penny-ante nation-state like North Korea with a net GDP of under US$31 billion can contemplate not only a nuclear weapons programme, but also the development, however haltingly, of a guided missile delivery system for their warheads. That’s out of a total military budget estimated at US$10 billion which also has to equip, feed and house a million man army.

There was a big deal about Iraq going to Niger to get yellowcake. Do you realise that it only takes a couple of 18 wheeler truckloads of caronite ore to provide the uranium to make a bomb? If you want to keep it quiet you don't even need caronite. You can get uranium out of granite if you want. It costs more to do that, but so what. If you just want a bomb, you can use tuned lasers to do the enrichment. It costs a lot more per kg of enriched uranium to do it that way, but so what. That Iran is going for centrifuges is a strong indicator that they are being at least partially honest about making fuel stock for reactors. P2 centrifuges ARE economic for THAT purpose.

Okay, so suppose Ahmadinejad actually gets the bomb. Mind, I wouldn't put it past him. But, what can he do with it once he has it? Can he use it on the US or the Israelis? Sure, if he doesn't mind having Iran turned into the world's largest glass-lined parking lot, that is. He may be a nut-job, but he's not that crazy. Neither is Kim Jong Il. Can he threaten his neighbors? You bet. Putting a few Aegis-equipped American warships loaded with SM-3 Block IA interceptor missiles puts paid to that option, though, quite cost-effectively. That's exactly what we've done to North Korea. Can he threaten the "Old Europeans"? Certainly, but who can't effectlively threaten those clowns these days?

Really, the only thing that Iran insures in developing a nuclear arsenal is that it will be effectively impossible to successfully militarily invade Iran. That's why the South Africans developed theirs. There wasn't anything within the range of their air force that cost as much as one of their bombs, never mind being worth dropping one on. Ditto for North Korea.

Just what the terrorists want
Once again the right is being manipulated into doing exactly what the terrorists want. Defanging is the word? The nukes are 5 years out, box cutters were all they neeeded 5 years ago. Iran will have Iraq and its oil, the cells in the US will mobilize, amd bio-weapons are much easier to manufacture and use and are as effective as explosives for terror. Our communication systems, financial infrastruture, and business operations are absolutely dependant on computers and they are really not that secure.

We have forgotton but Antrhax, a relatively benign biological, was released in the mail and no-one was ever "brought to justice".

I studied computer science and some of the most brilliant and motivated programmers were from Iran. Our systems are really not very secure. Most of the problems we have now are from teenage hackers. Imagine what a concentrated effort could do.

I do not see anyone talking about these other costs and risks because we are stuck in a 1950s view of the world. Times have changed folks. $150 oil would be the least of our worries. Bush has become their puppet.

Peace At All(any) Costs
The U.S. was founded and individuals (Liberals/conservatives) are guaranteed the right to object. That is a guarantee!!!.

Conservatives have not won the arguement with liberals. As much as I disagree with liberals, I cannot even change my brother's liberal mind to think correctly.

We can blame liberals, but when a decision has to be made, it is by the president. We has citizens have to support the decision and if we do not like the decision, vote for a new president the next time around.

If a corporation had a few of it's board members undercuting the CEO, those Board Members would be cut out immediately. The time to object is before the policy is put into place. An old saying is the people elect the representation they deserve.

Making a Decision on Iran
I have three suggestions;

1. Begin a program to supply 100% of our heating, cooling, ground transportation and industrial energy requirement with nuclear power. The system should have 200% capacity. This would solve our energy dependency problem and provide thousands of hi-tech jobs to our citizens.

2. Remove every Muslim (revoke their citizenship) from the USA by whatever means necessary and prevent any Muslim from visiting the USA. Prohibit US companies from doing business with Muslim nations or individuals. Ammend the US Constitution to specifically remove Islam from religions protected by the 1st Ammendment.

3. Preemptively attack Iran with nuclear weapons, leaving it without any military or industrial capability. Make the strike complete to a point that prevents them from attacking anyone.

It is time to "defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." We have not really done that since the end of the Cold War.

WWII Had High Costs Too
Economics, while important cannot be the overarching concern. An Iran with Ballistic Missles is simply unacceptable.

Here are a few thoughts:

Iran has poured tens of billions of dollars into thier nuclear and military infrastructure. This investment came about only by thier ability to export crude oil. We could set Iran back 2 decades within a week. Thier ability to close off the Straits is limited to a few silkworm missles, some surface to surface missles, and a few antique subs and gunboats.

Iran must import all of its refined gasoline. They have no refineries. They have only a limited amount of petrol to run thier economy. This is a huge vulnerability.

Without petro dollars, they are broke. Iran enjoys a huge advantage when oil is $80 a gallon. Without this they have no cash. Iran would be broke within a week.

Iran relies totally on proxies to do thier conventional fighting. In Iraq, Sadr's minions enjoy the advantage of fighting an asymetrical war. If they were to begin a conventional insurrection, the gloves come off. Al Sadr's forces would be slaughtered in a conventional fight.

Sleeper cells in the US and other nations are one trick ponies. We would have to expect 5th column attacks. However, thier ability to hit us hard goes down with every passing day of open conflict. They would be the most hunted men in American History.

In the very short term, Iran can inflict much damage to the world's economy. However, given the amount of accurate firepower our military can direct, the overwhelming advantage we possess technologically and militairily, Iran would be finished within 6 weeks if not less. Thier entire infrastructure( roads, bridges, airfields, power stations, telecom, communications,radar,air defences, adminstrative centers, and of course thier nuclear power station and attendent research centers) would be ruined, their oil fields would be laid to waste, and there is the possibility of an armed insurrection in thier own nation.

This is what the Mullahs have to think about. Once the balloon goes up, there is no coming down. Thier days would be numbered. Do they wish to risk all for non-compliance? The Mullahs are humans. They are not stupid.

The uneasy case for stopping Iran's rule
If anyone doubts the intent of the zealous group in control of Iran and its sponsorship of terrorists, they should be forced to think in terms of international standards of law and order and conclude that Iran's ruling control is in the hands of Muslim extremists, but that it is ok! That the ruling Mullahs have rigged the cast is acceptable to American liberals who willingly accept the risk that what the rulers claim to be their position is within their right to do so. This includes unfortunately accepting several clearly announced goals to:

1. Remove Israel from the face of the Earth is priority either #1 or #2.

2. Removing the rest of the world's infidels may have to come before removing Israel, or at least forcing them with nuclear blackmail - maybe encouraged by just one or two explosions to make the point, that we must not stop them from achieving point #1. My guess is that people who make the ground so holy as to contend that their first allegiance to their God is to remove any who are thought to be defiling such ground comes first.

So, we have many in the U.S. and elsewhere who could be willing to let #1 happen, even if an Iranian sponsored event takes out say Washington with an unknown source providing the needed nuke to be used by Al Qaida and therefore we can have no way to know who did it and what to do.

The other side of the decision possible has to be driven by other good people. Those who recognize that the Will of Allah, in the hands of extremists, calls for global jihad with nukes to be used as needed.

If the U.N. continues to fail as it always has to be able to stop a Holy War, we will be forced within a year to either mount an invasion of Iran to remove those who want nukes for terrorists in a jihad; or we will have to try to destroy their capacity to make nukes by using whatever weapons it takes coming via air and land.

Without a global force of overwhelming size to confront Iran in a way that reverses their course, we can count on either one or the other of the above options. Appeasement is a certain way to fail, and attack is only a slighty better option.

Only the U.S. has a choice in this matter. The rest of the world has no ability to avoid the first choice. It is up to us to decide.

SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN
And no where in the middle. This predicment that Mr. Krauthammer so perfectly set down in simple English is a very unfortunate position for the United States and for the most part, the rest of the world to be in. But the facts are the facts. If these two bit countries have the ability to hold the United States hostage for oil isn't enough to give the those on the left reason to see how important it is that the US needs to starting taping into our own oil resources everywhere and anywhere then they are more lame and dangerous to the well being of this country than they have already proven of themselves. Starting YESTERDAY, plans need to be in the works for the location of sites where new refiniries will be built. These plans need to go forward without even giving those opposed for

The Real Problem
Invading Iran may be the answer. I don't know what to believe anymore. But I do know that we wouldn't give a flying fling about Iran if they weren't sitting on top of a boatload of oil. That's just reality. It doesn't mean it's a war for oil. It means it's a war for our way of life.

This came up in another forum yesterday. I essentially said that it is important to restructure our way of life so that we don't need to worry about places like Iran, at least not so much. Restructuring means lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. It means probably giving up the idea that we can have endless industrial growth. It means, probably, ending immigration and encouraging fewer children for a while so that we can reach a manageable population level (lower population means more land to grow biofuels, fewer people to consume oil). It means dispensing with 5000 sf McMansions that burn a lot of energy to heat and cool. It means rebuilding public transportation.

I see that at least one other person here recognizes the necessity of this, at least to some extent. I completely disagree with the poster(s) who say the answer is to drill in the U.S. First, the amount of oil that we consume just isn't available in the U.S. alone. That is, there is still a lot of oil here. But if you pumped it all at once, and oil pumping doesn't quite work that way, it would be all used up in a few years. Second, it's probably more important to conserve what oil we have for things like petrochemicals, which cannot be replaced by solar or wind power (rather than burn it up sitting in traffic).

This isn't the "left's" fault. It's not Jimmy Carter's fault. It's our fault. Our wants exceed the limits of this very scarce resource. It's time to decide what it is we NEED. Bush should be providing leadership on that. If this is a war for our civilization, as many here (I think) believe, then I don't think it is asking too much to conserve and to live a little differently. In WWII, everyone had victory gardens, went without silk, steel, meat, etc. I haven't read too many old newspaper columns that said things like: "FDR is a dirty lefty nutbag who hates America", or "this is the greatest country ever; ergo, we can consume as much as we want, even if it means throwing thousands of our young on a funeral pyre (not to mention thousands of "the other")". Americans were ready to sacrifice at all levels (well, I'm sure the Bushes and the Kennedys lived pretty well) to achieve the goal. I don't hear a lot of that here, unless it's the talk about sacrificing lefties to grizzly bears so that we have more grizzly bears to shoot.

Bombing Iran, if anything, is only a short term solution. We can't walk around the earth controlling everything. We don't have the manpower or resources. We just don't. No amount of jingoistic language will change that. We can't even control Iraq, which was, supposedly, planned. A military draft would end the adventure before it began. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. Europe, Russia, India, and China, would have a lot to say about us taking over the world's energy resources. China can just walk across the border and take Iran. We have a 12,000 mile supply chain.

History hasn't ended just because we call ourselves the greatest country ever. Lots of people have thought the same about their own country, or empire. And eventually, they all come to the same end. Hubris is a b*tch.

‘Here, have half of my assets..."
“A lot of people think negotiations are an answer to confrontation, and their immediate impulse in negotiation is to say to the adversary, ‘Here, have half of my assets, and let’s have peace.’ The adversary will then take whatever you offer and will have advanced his agenda. This is called appeasement.” – Charles Krauthammer, Fox News

Iranaphobia
What can Iran do with an atomic weapon? Give it to the likes of Atta & Co.! But political problems in Pakistan for Musharaff, in black market Russia etc. could also arm the fanatics with WMDs.
(You will note that these nutroot mullahs do not go on suicide missions. )
Frankly, the genii is out of the bottle. We can slow down the process, but not stop it. So what practical options do we have? Well, Machiavelli had an approach that still has a certain appeal: It is good to be loved, but better to be feared. Teddy R. advised us to "speak softly, but carry a BIG stick."
And let's not forget that the man behind the curtain has distinctly Chinese features and an avowed appetite for Asian & global hegemony. They are quite willing to watch us blunt our swords on the mideast Jihadis. The real battle is to establish an understanding in those of us in the free West about the stakes involved and to establish the tools, resolve and heart to fight a long war.
Bush is far more subtle and intelligent leader than his critics allow. Real politics is best pursued by the tactics of Judo - rather than a straight-up street brawl. It has to be judged over time against strategic as well as tactical concerns. Any chess player knows what I mean. Bush's biggest problem are the nutroot liberals in congress who won't realize that we all are standing on a burning platform until their bras catch on fire. The biggest problem with Clinton et al was that he played not-to-lose. Bush, bless his Texan cowboy heart, fights to win. Is this a slam dunk? H*ll no! So get busy passing the ammunition.


Get real...
"Economics, while important cannot be the overarching concern."

ROTFLMAO! Try that "logic" out on the cashier at the checkout line the next time you go grocery shopping. :-p

At least we are having a good debate????
Ok, let's appreciate for a moment that Dr. Krauthammer is stating clearly the profound issues we will face in the next year. You may not like what he says but he is only the messenger. By not taking a more active interest in how our government conducted foreign policy we are getting the decisions we "deserve".

I will add to those issues. Remember all actions have almost unpredictable and unintended consequences.

In Pakistan, a country that already has nuclear weapons, their military dictator could be eliminate to tomorrow. If we attack another Muslim country like Iran and even though Iran is Persian and Shiite, not Arab and Sunni, other Muslim countries especially Pakistan could easily side with Iran. We are clearly infidels and Iran is clearly Muslim. They will sort out the differences between Shia and Sunni, as they have throughout history, after the infidels, we are defeated. In their minds that is how Saladin, a Sunni Kurd, commanded first Shiites and then all Muslims into retaking Jerusalem from the Crusaders. I might note that their timeline is much longer than ours. It took them over 100 years to finally boot the Crusaders out.

Being nice on the world stage and hoping the world likes you is not a international policy that has ever worked. We got into WWI, WWII and the Cold War by trying to be nice and stay out of other people's business. Yet we didn't win the WWI, WWII or the Cold War by being nice but by being utterly ruthless. No it isn't a pretty sight nor is it pleasant. Yet there are two ultimate ends to any war, winning or losing, anything else just delays the final outcome for other generations. That is just not fair to our children and grandchildren.

The ironic thing I find most bizarre, is that radical Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite, hate most the very concepts and policies that Western liberals and left promote and support. Yet time and again the Western left preaches patience or that we need to be nicer or we just need to understand their pain, etc. Yet we face the horrible decision with Iran today because of Jimmy Carter and his failed presidency and the fact that no other President since him fixed the problem he created.

For those that have asking why Iraq first not Iran need to review modern history. Iran is larger in area and in population than Iraq. Since the Iran-Iraq war they have steadily used their oil money to rebuild and modernize their military. Meanwhile, the USA reduced its military by one third since the first Gulf War and put much of the burden on reserves and National Guard. Some say, "but oh we have great technology." I would remind them that Germany was technologically superior to all its opponents, except possibly France, at the beginning of WWII but still lost the war.

As a democracy we have a truly horrendous decision before us and the consequences may be horrible no matter which decision is finally made. Imagine for a moment how the average American will respond if one of our cities is nuked. Instead of three thousand dead, a whole city lost and lost fundamentally forever.

As for Iran having the right to nuclear power, that is true but why would there be in logical reason for them not allow international inspectors to visit their facilities? Surely they watched Saddam fight and avoid inspections for WMDs and do everything to indicate he still had them. If Saddam had come clean, sanctions would have ended, he would still be in power and planning to recreate his WMD program.

Know your enemy
In war there is no disaster greater than misunderstanding and underestimating your enemy. We are at war with Islamist terrorists in Iraq, in the US and across the globe. This war was brought to us by Islamist terrorists because per 9/11 Comm. Report, "..to them America is the head of the snake and will be converted or destroyed."
They have committed horrible acts of war against the US for years including the "93 WTC, USS Cole, embassy bombings , many others and of course 9/11 itself.
Their leaders have openly and repeatedly vowed elimination of Americans and America. These same Islamist terrorists are in this country. They not only support these acts of war but are planning more of the same.

9/11 Comm. Report states,"..9/11 has taught us Islamist terrorism against American interests "over there" should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America "over here", in this same sense the American homeland is the planet. It (Islamist terrorism) can only be destroyed or utterly isolated."

A very vocal liberal left embedded within academia, MSM, and the current leadership of the Democratic party is giving aid and comfort to our enemy. Our Islamist enemies learned well over the 90's and before as we failed over & over again to react to their repeated acts of war. They will continue to encourage in any way they can the disunity being fomented by the liberal left. It is clear the partisan attacks on President Bush, our Commander in Chief, will hit new peaks this election period only emboldening our Islamist enemies.
Charles Krauthammer's time horizon of one year to be prepared to take overwhelming military action against Iran or as those on United Flight 93 said to "lets roll" seems very near term but he is no doubt right. The dire consequences he predicts are also no doubt true

The good old USofA in the spring of 1942 and its allies were "on the ropes". Hitler had Europe, North Africa and was on the way to England. Our Navy or more than half of it was at the bottom of the Pacific, Japan had China(rape of Nanking 1938) SE Asia and was on its way to Austrailia. At the time of Pearl Harbor our new draftees were training with broomsticks and cardboard cutouts of tanks. We didn't have the might at that time but we had the will, built our might and prevailed. We have the might now, how are we doing on the will part?

I have no doubt as all Americans come to know our enemy, with the heroic courage of the men and women in our military, with the leadership of President Bush and Congress America will again unite and prevail.

Question time...
"1. Remove Israel from the face of the Earth is priority either #1 or #2."

Can anybody tell me how Iran is supposed to achieve that against the Israeli nuclear arsenal even with nukes and the missiles to carry them?

“There must be no delay..."
"...People will endure their tyrants for years, but they tear their deliverers to pieces if a heaven on earth is not created immediately.” – Woodrow Wilson, on restoring peace to Europe in 1919. "The Great War And The Shaping Of The Twentieth Century", p. 340.

...only the messenger.
"You may not like what he says but he is only the messenger."

LOL! Are you telling me that he really didn't write the article? :-p

Just a thought
We definitely need to start drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts as well. It is a matter of national security.

Now, I have a plan and here it is. On Monday little ole Mahmoud is supposed to give a speech at the UN. How about midway through his speech we arrest him and send him on a nice vacation...oh, say Club Gitmo and once he's there we introduce him to the exciting sport of waterboarding. He might find it relaxing heck, even thereputic to get it off his chest as to where their nuclear facilities are located. Once he's gotten that off his chest we could let the Iranian people know where they are and tell them to get as far away from them as possible because we are going to destroy them.

Plaasjaapie states, "Iran has a right as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop its own indigenous nulcear program." Am I wrong or doesn't it mean when you sign that treaty that you agree to NOT develop a nuclear progam and if you do develop one you are in violation of that treaty and are subject to some kind of punishment? (Just asking). I believe North Korea signed something saying they wouldn't develop weapons grade nuclear material and of course they did it anyway.

And lastly Radlad states that Bush "can't even take care of Iraq". I won't deny there are hideous and awful things going on in Iraq being carried out by Islamists, but there is some good news as well. Please check out http://www.operationiraqichildren.org and let's hope the up-and-coming generation of Iraqis remember all the good our soldiers are doing for them. Afterall, the longterm solution will be changing hearts and minds.

doing nothing
“The world is too dangerous to live in – not because of people who do evil, but because of people who sit and let it happen.” – Albert Einstein

SORRY... CONTINUED
whatever reason, a voice or vote in the matter. As Rugged Individualist writes, we already have boots on the ground in the area, (not enough) and regardless of world opinion, the idea of going in to Iran with the full strength of the US military and commandeering their oil resources may in the long be a lot safer of a solution than some of the other alternatives that are available. Initially the rest of the world would be shocked. But after the mushroom clouds disperse, and the bad guys no longer having the ability to hold the world hostage with the threat of cutting off oil supplies, or having the threat of nuclear weapons we just may turn out to be heroes. This plan may sound to be way out there, but with all the possibilities that could arise if the United States finds it's in the position of having to react instead of acting, the results for our nation could be devastating. Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.

This Just In
The 4ID was hit in Anbar and some 25 soldiers were wounded and at least 2 killed.A major news network was at the hospital as the troops were being brought in for treatment. The Division Commander, Gen Thurman, was there holding the wounded troops hands and getting camera face time. Who is directing the war fight? Not this Commander, he is a personnel wienie--he is worried about the wounded troops. He should be a Warrior, he should out directing the retaliation, exacting retribution, leading his fighters. Gen Thurman can visit the hospital when the tactical situation gives him the opportunity. Gen Thurman thinks like Florence Nightingale--He should think like Patton. We desperately need to get rid of all these cry babies and get some good "Operational " tactically sound "hardcore" Generals into this war.

Jane
I believe that the NPT relates to nuclear weaponry, not nuclear power. It has been awhile since I looked, though.

Not so...
Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

Censorship
My blog "This Just In" could not be posted because I used the word "harda-s"--I had to change it "hardcore". No wonder we cannot win this war--I have never been in a fire fight in which expletives were not the chorus of the action. Poor little delicate Americans, I guess we have to wipe our "cores" with tissues.

Krauthammer
1. Nuclear proliferation is a done deal.
a. Israel can and will defend itself
in a nuclear situation.
b. We can not prevent anyone from
deciding to attack us, we can only make
it more dificult and less likely to
succeed. Reagan's missile defense is
our best friend (and his left wing idiot
opposition our nation's biggest fools)
and we should continue to develop and
implement better and more of the same.
2. Iran is only one of many potential enemies
and we have not the ability nor the moral
ground to attack them all.
3. Dictators, Jihadists and America haters
recognize no morals, only consequences of
their actions as they perceive them. This
why when strong democracies act indecisive
they are liable to attack. Pearl Harbor,
Korea, the Falklands are occured because the
attackers believed the victim hadn't the guts
to use their undeniable power to win.
4 It is vital to prevent Arab perception to
see a Jihad win in Iraq. We must do what it
takes be be seen as powerful and decisive.
5. We must make the cultural, technological and
financial actions which maintain us as a
respectable opponent. Switzerland has
avoided war for 300 years by maintaining
the position that an aggressor can not
profit by attacking us. They had the Alps
to help. We have a couple oceans. God
willing we'll come to at least a draw in Iraq
and once again put founder Washington's
advice in place. "If you want peace, be
prepared for war".

Article IV
OK. I see it says for peaceful purposes. Hasn't Mahmoud said he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map". How better to do it than with nulear weapons? Mahmoud has stated that it wouldn't matter if Israel was able to retaliate with nuclear weapons because Israel would only be able to kill some Muslims, but not all of them. Whereas, Israel is so small it wouldn't take too many nuclear bombs to "wipe Israel off the map". I think any nation that officially states that another nation should be wiped off the face of the earth should not be allowed to develop any type of nuclear capacity especially a nation that is the number 1 exporter of terrorism. In my book, you relinguish any rights to "peaceful nuclear power" when you sponsor terrorism and you deny another nation the right to exist. Iran should not have been allowed any where near that treaty. Commonsense please! Oh, and Mahmoud has stated that by destroying Israel it will bring about the chaos needed to bring back the "hidden Iman". He believes the hidden Iman will return at the end of time and then Islam will rule the earth.

Question
Krauthammer: "Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days."

Is he talking about the religious right in Iran, or in America?

Phylo out.

...
Jane: "Hasn't Mahmoud said he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map". How better to do it than with nulear weapons?"

That's your assessment, not necessarily his...

Phylo ii
You and Tanabear are beyond understanding. Do you really equate the Jihadists and our religeous right wing as equal threats to our way of life? Are you blinded or merely inspired by your motives, whatever and however incomprehensible they are? I have believed the left was mistaken, but only in rare instances virulent. Can you move me back to that viewpoint which now is beginning to look foolishly charitable?

Krauthammer ID's Obstacles, Not Costs
We know what the cost of doing nothing against Iran will be: The nuclear annihilation of Israel and the threat of nuclear destruction of European or even American cities. Doing nothing about Iran is to allow Iran, under cover of a nuclear umbrella, to engage in routine blackmail and havoc with Gulf oil production: In other words, this hands Iran the ability to destroy the economies of the Western World.

I agree that President Bush is not likely to let this happen. He's already setting the rhetorical groundwork, and will obviously wait until after the 2006 elections.

But I disagree that what Krauthammer terms as "costs" of taking pre-emptive action are actually certain "costs". I would term them as obstacles to a successful military operation. Having identified them, our military is capable of neutralizing them:

Operation Cleaning Up Jimmy Carter's Mess:

1) Step One: Advise all Iranians who oppose the Iranian regime to leave its major cities, and that they have 48 hours to do it. This will save some wheat from the chaff, and will cause utter domestic chaos within Iran. While you might think that the Iranian leaders will be tipped off to leave as well, this isn't necessarily so---as they will have to make a show of staying to quell panic.

2) Step Two: Prepare two mechanized divisions currently deployed in Iraq to fight for six weeks without regular supply (in other words, bring their tankers and cargo carriers with them) and deploy to the Southern Iraqi-Iran border.

3) Step Three: Simultaneously with Step Two, deploy the Air Forces B-52, B-2, and F-111 squadrons to Diego Garcia and bases in the Gulf and Iraq and Afghanistan.

4) Step Four: Place two carrier battle groups outside of the Gulf of Hormuz.

5) Step Five: The Air phase: F-111 squadrons attack and take out Iranian air defenses. B-2 Bombers attack Iranian command and control facilities, and their nuclear program infrastructure. Another special assignment for the B-2's will be to drop EMP bombs to disable all Iranian electronic equipment (ergo, no Iranian cyber attacks). Following the elimination of Iranian air defenses, fleets of B-52's target Tehran and, if we have the ability, other major Iranian cities with good old fashioned napalm and firebomb these cities (Operation Dresden). Iranian military formations hiding in these urban areas will be destroyed. Civilians who stayed behind despite our warning are presumed to have supported the regime. If the regime prevented evacuations, then those deaths are the fault of the Iranians, not us. In any event, we have to start waging war based on our strengths, and not the low intensity conflict level that benefits our enemy. In concert with the B-52 firebombings, Navy attack aircraft target and attack Iranian navy and missile installations along the Persian Gulf coast. Minesweepers and destroyers take out any mines or small attack surface ships in the Gulf.

6) Step Six: Two U.S. Mechanized Divisions begin Operation Cannonball Run 2 hours after the air phase is over. Iranian military formations that left their hiding places in urban areas will be mowed down in the open desert by our Mech Divs as fast as the Abrams can fire. These divisions will not occupy any ground but will kill any targets of oportunity on the way to securing the bombed nuclear sites, in case any hardened bunkers survived. These will be destroyed by combat engineers attached to the Mech Divs. They will then proceed to the Iranian oil terminals on the Gulf coast and set up a defensive perimeter, putting all Iranians found into temporary detention camps (disarmed of course). Rounding up all civilians will be necessary to deny the Iranians the ability to make terrorist attacks on our troops within their perimeter. Anyone approaching the Defense Perimeter will be shot and killed. Holding this perimeter, they will then be supplied by the Navy and reinforced by the Marines.

U.S. forces remaining in Iraq launch an attack on Sadr City in Baghdad and destroy the Mahdi Army, Fallujah Style.

7) Step Seven: At the completion of this 6 week time frame, All Iranian military forces will be destroyed or dispersed. Iranian capacity to wage war or have a working economy will be destroyed. Demand at this juncture will be made for Unconditional Surrender. If it is not met, the resupplied Mech Divs, together with more reinforcements, can start securing the country one sector at a time until surrender is achieved.

Fighting on our terms, U.S. casualties will be on par with the first 6 weeks of the Iraq war, in other words, extremely low. Iranian casualties will be very high, but this is required in an atmosphere where the American Left is liable to sap the war effort if Americans absorb even moderate casualties. Since we can't take that risk, the Iranians will have to suffer, and I don't give a patoot if they do. Not when its a choice between our blood and theirs.

Post operation: The Arab street will be absolutely silent. They'll never love us, but they WILL respect and fear us.

What ever you're smoking is bad stuff
"We know what the cost of doing nothing against Iran will be: The nuclear annihilation of Israel and the threat of nuclear destruction of European or even American cities. "

No, we don't KNOW that. In fact, it's mad to even suspect it absent the case where it wasn't made clear to the Mullahs that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was in force. You can be CERTAIN that the Israelis would subscribe to that doctrine.

You'd have to posit that not only that the Iranians would have a nuclear arsenal and delivery systems but that they had a 100% effective first strike capability as well. Even the Soviets at their best never managed that.

Plaas---Hopelessly Liberal
Well, your response is pretty much the difference between Democrats and Republicans:

You're willing to risk catastrophic damage to America and its allies in order to indulge your moral vanity. Republicans aren't.

You want to bet your life that a bunch of Islamo-Nazis who view death as a promotion will be in the least bit deterred by the obsolete notion of MAD, go ahead, but don't bet mine, or my family's.

That is the calculation that American voters are going to make in November, and that's why the Appeasocrats are going to get shellacked.

Joisey...
"Plaas---Hopelessly Liberal"

ROTGLMAO! It's a shame you didn't google my screen name before trying that one on.

You're calling a guy who was a long-time research scientist for the South African apartheid regime a "liberal"? :-D

Really?
"plaasjaapie
THAT is the same outlook that FDR and his cabinet adopted in the days PRIOR to Pearl Harbor."

You need to read your history a bit more closely.

FDR and his cabinet had no choice whatsoever prior to Pearl Harbour thanks to his aggressively isolationist Congress.

If the Japanese gov't understood the political situation in the US a bit better than they did they'd have never, ever touched the US possessions in the Pacific and just steamed by them to conquer the colonial territories of the colonial powers there.

As it was, even after Pearl Harbour I doubt seriously whether FDR could have gone directly after Hitler if he hadn't helpfully declared war on the US.


Joisey
"You're willing to risk catastrophic damage to America and its allies in order to indulge your moral vanity. Republicans aren't.

You want to bet your life that a bunch of Islamo-Nazis who view death as a promotion will be in the least bit deterred by the obsolete notion of MAD, go ahead, but don't bet mine, or my family's."

ME: So I take it, then, that you are willing to pick up a rifle and go fight for Israel? Because if not, then watch what you say about other people who don't necessarily think it wise to throw more Americans into their graves just because the president of Iran says some stupid garbage about Israel. I mean, what, you want us to also invade Pakistan and North Korea, because that is the only way you can ensure the safety of American cities (and not even then, unles you also want to go after Russia's loose nukes)? When are YOU going to put YOUR life on the line, if you think it is so important?

Phylo ii
Or is this Rosie O'Donnell? I'm starting to get the two of you confused. The religious right in America is equivalent to the "religious right" in Iran? This can't be Phylo se Fizer....this must be an imposter, because your more recent points and arguments have been beyond ridiculous.

Refresher course anyone?
NRAlifer: You need a refresher course in recent history.

Sunday, December 7, 1941

The US Congress declared war on Japan only on 8 December 1941.

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/dec41/f08dec41.htm

Thursday, December 11, 1941

In Washington... Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. Shortly afterward, the US Congress issues a declaration of war against Germany and Italy.

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/dec41/f11dec41.htm

Charles K. is a smart guy
He puts the current situation in perspective. Maybe not an optimistic perspective, though.

It seems we are in a real dilemma: do we persue our demands that Iran stop its nuclear program or do we just pack up and leave the middle east?

I know! Let's ask the Democrats!

(crickets chirping)

Well, so much for that idea. Let's watch Letterman tonight and listen to the top 10 ways to defeat Islamofascism.

response to pistol
I'm being a little snide I suppose, but my question is based on what I've heard from Olive Tree Ministries, which is all about eschatology. They are always taking about the end times and Israel. I don't see how those people are any different from the eschatologists in Iran. I think anyone who talks about the devine ending of the world, and the coming of some superhuman savior is nuts.

Phylo out.

Nuclear threat
Iran is not the only nuclear threat in the Middle East. If the many Islamic Extremists in Pakistan ever suceed in taking over the country they will have the bomb already and pose a serious threat. Also bombing Iran's nuclear facility will not be that easy as it is spread around the country and some of it is deep underground in heavily populated areas and we might assume that our intlligence knows where they all are but we also assumed that our intelligence never would have allowed a 9/11 to happen.

this morning
I was watching the President's press conference this morning while waiting for my son to gather his school things. What made me laugh was some dingbat reporter (woman blonde hair I believe) ask Bush if he was going to take the opportunity to speak to A(Ahmadinejad) when he comes from Iran for the UN meeting. I was just flabbergasted when she asked if he would show A respect by sitting down to talk to him! RESPECT?! Show respect to a guy who calls our nation Big SATAN??? Who wants to wipe us all off the map?? WTH? He shouldn't be allowed on our soil, much less be shown any respect! Unbelievable! Who in their right mind shows respect to anyone who wants to do them harm?? Oh, that's right. The MSM are out of their minds.

Mencken
I believe Israel is fighting the same war, and the same enemy, we are, and for the same reasons. Our enemy refers to Israel as the Little Satan and to us as the Big Satan.

Throwing Israel under the bus, like Liberals and Old Europe want to do, won't end the Islamist threat against us, it will only succeed in losing an ally in the Middle East.

The Liberal urge to distance us from Israel, and walk away from them, is the very essence of appeasement. It is the very essence of what France and England did to Czechoslovkia in 1938. It is the very essence of Churchill's reference to feeding a hungry alligator with other people, hoping he eats you last.

My fitness for military service has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm entitled to have an opinion about my country's foriegn policy as a civilian. Unless you insinuate that only servicemen and veterans ought to be allowed a say in our countries' political discourse, or a vote. If that were ever to occur, every seat in Congress would be filled by a Republican.

In any event, as the passengers on Flight 93 demonstrated, we may all be called upon to fight as patriotic militia at any time, any where, against this enemy. Any block in America could turn into the front line in the War on Terror when you least expect it.

Right now, Senate Democrats (and 3 Republicans)are working hard to make sure we cannot get the necessary intelligence from detainees and enemy phone traffic to keep that from happening. They are 5th columnist traitors. And yes, I include John McCain. Benedict Arnold was a war hero too.

One Left ~
Tell me, are there any men left in Washington or are they all cowards?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is one brave Texan, I believe.

Joisey, Winston C. on doing nothing
Winston Churchill said re appeasement or doing nothing
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly. you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worst case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Military Service
"My fitness for military service has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm entitled to have an opinion about my country's foriegn policy as a civilian. Unless you insinuate that only servicemen and veterans ought to be allowed a say in our countries' political discourse, or a vote. If that were ever to occur, every seat in Congress would be filled by a Republican."

FIRST: I disagree. I agree that not only veterans and servicemembers should have a say, but I think at some point it becomes so disgusting the extent to which people are willing to use American lives like chips on a chessboard that it is legitimate to ask those who militate for the fight to fight themselves. We can disagree on when that point is reached.

SECOND: I believe that the overwhelming majority of Iraq war veterans that are running for elective office are running as Democrats. I don't think the Democratic Party is going to come up with any great solutions, but I think this is somewhat of an indictment of the Republican ideal that servicemen and women are totally enamored of the GOP. Granted, it's not exactly a scientific study or anything.

Who will be our Churchill?
What a great quote! But, who will emerge as a leader of that stock? Bush sounded like a real leader in his recent comments, but he will gone soon and is already a lame duck in many regards. McCain? Not a chance! For someone who fought in war, even a so-called pointless war, he seems to forget all that war entails. Maybe the Libs have gotten to him. He just back-stabbed the president and Republicans and Americans in general by siding with Harry Reid, Boxer, and Kerry by shunning Bush's terror proposals. WHAT IS GOING ON???

I fear the standoff with Islamic jihadists and their financiers (Syria/Iran) will lead to another full-blown world war and a draft for young men from this country. But, what kind of young men are we breeding with liberal educations teaching would-be soldiers that WE are the problem and if we simply understood and appeased our enemies more they would leave us alone. Bin Laden says that he will strike America blow for blow, and for every bomb we hit them with he will do the same back. That logic would work if we had been the ones to fly planes into Afghanistan's tallest towers of commerce (probably a goat-herding shack adjacent to an out-house near Tora-borah), but sadly for these insane madmen it was their actions that led to our reaction.

Who will be our Churchill, Reagan, or even FDR?

Our founders had a grasp on this...
I hope no one tries to convince me that Mr. Adams was watching too much western biased television!

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men"

John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of The United States of America
1830

Neo Con
The term "neocon" is a meaningless phrase used by liberals to identify Jews who happen to be national defense hawks. Of course, they don't want to refer to "those Jews who cannot be reasoned with", so they come up with something meaningless like "neocon".

Note that those who are identified as neocons are almost always Jews, or conservative blacks like Condi Rice. In other words, they are individuals who Democrats think ought to be in their camp. Having escaped the Liberal Plantation (and you know what I'm talkin about), the Liberal response is to smear them in the same language Hitler reserved for the Jews, just by another name.

As the Democrat party more and more openly embraces the Palestinian cause, and appeases the Islamist cause, and speaks out against supporting Israel, I expect there are going to be quite a few more "neocons" being created in the electorate.

The anti-semitic invective hurled against Joe Lieberman by the Netroot Kook Left has been unparalleled

McCain...
McCain is seriously damaged goods, poor man. Any time the notion of POW's is mooted, never mind how indirectly, he goes nonlinear. I can understand why, but it isn't helpful and it makes one wonder what else will cause him to freak out.

From what I've seen, more than a few things. I'd never be able to vote form because of McCain-Feingold if for no other reason. That Bush signed it puts me off as well.

Phylo ii
I appreciate your measured and coherent response. Personally, i have never heard of Olive Tree Ministries, but Al Queda wasn't a big word in my life prior 911 either. I don't pay very much attention to end of the world prophecies either. The difference i see is those pesky Jihadists are performing deadly and effective actions to bring about the EOTW. If Olive Treers are doing anything much more than knocking on doors (???) and making pests of themselves, they are keeping a cool profile. There is enough grief in the history of western religion and enough going on now to bring a Christian to tears as it is. I prefer to be part of an at least possible solution. Peace on earth good will towards men is not a particularly lousy to start. Decent thoughtful folks can disagree on directions.

Krauthammer
Charles always gets it right. An attack on Iran is nearly inevitable and absolutely required. The key question is how far from the bomb is the Islamic republic?

See my thoughts at http://www.toddkeister.com

A dose of reality
The "Hammer" has delivered a dose of reality to those who are not willing to see what we are fighting in the Middle East. Our way of life and the world economy mean nothing to the Islanic jihadists.

The Philo's of this world continue play word games to explain away terrorism, but in the end, they will be forced to face reality, just as the appeasers were at the start of WW II.

Thank God we have journalists, like the "Hammer", that have the courage to call a spade a spade, and a President who understands the magnitude of threat that the world faces.

Democrat Vets
I can't think of any Iraq vets running for office as Dems except that hack Hackett in Ohio, a perennial loser.

In any event, it is a irrelevant number. The real thing to look at is the record re-enlistment of servicemen volunteering to GO BACK to Iraq and Afghanistan that is far more instructive on the vast majority of servicemen's attitudes regarding Iraq.

Regarding discussions of military affairs:

Chips on a chessboard are exactly what military assets are in a war. Anyone who is too casualty adverse to use those assets will NEVER win a war. Too much regard for casualties means you will never be an effective military leader. War REQUIRES that Generals be dispassionate about casualties. Casualties are inevitable, even when your strategy and tactics work well. That's just the way it is. I certainly don't advocate wasting lives, but only someone totally lacking in historical perspective could possibly claim that today's trickle of casualties are too high after 3 years of war. We lose five times more people to highway deaths per year than our forces are taking in Iraq. With over 1 MILLION servicemen in uniform, 2,500 casualties after 3 years is de minimis. Regretable? Yes. Inevitable? Yes. It is the price of victory, so that the enemy cannot slaughter masses of our civilians.

I am reminded by the dichotomy between George S. McClellan (the Wesley Clarke of the 19th century) and U.S. Grant. McClellan was the original Democrat General criticizing a Republican president trying to successfully prosecute a war. He was so touchy feely about casualties, and so timid and gun shy, he never could stir himself to attack the Army of Virginia.

Grant, and Sherman and Sheridan, were criticized as butchers, and indeed, the butcher's bill was high. They were also winners while McClellan is now synonomous with ineffective and vacillating generalship. As I said, he'd have fit in perfectly with the current Murtha-Kerry crowd today.

If Democrats were truly concerned with the deaths of servicemen, they'd SHUT THE HECK UP and stop giving the enemy the idea that just a few more American deaths will cause us to cut & run.

Tanabear
I stand corrected. I can only suggest in defense that i'd bet you sometimes have difficulty separating the right wingers into accurate boxes. I promise to be more careful.

ProfGene
We could eliminate Iraq's nuclear threat with conventional weapons. We have the tecnology (MOAB's and Air/Fuel bombs) to wreak incredible damage without one stray neutron getting loose.

The will to use such weapons, however, is (IMO) sorely lacking. Our country is just too afraid of offending the wonderful, peaceful, loving Muslims who have stood by us since 911.

Joisey you are Right!
I recently had the priveledge of having one of my son's buddies at my house. He was on pre-deployment leave to go to Iraq for his 3rd tour of duty: two tours as an infantryman with the 1st Marine Div, for his 3rd tour he's going back EOD (looking for bombs you liberal turds!). Needless to say, most of our servicemen are conservatives, while the libs, their sons and daughters are busy hamstringing their every efforts.

John Q. Adams quote
cat trapper, where did you find that quote from John Q. Adams? I'm having trouble looking it up.

trojan140
Did an "alltheweb" search the final address is: http:http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/36576

This from is father John Adams
This was taken from a report by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to the Continental Congress after meeting with the Tripolitan ambassader to Britian, in London in 1786....

...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

A Decision on Iran
Obviously there's no easy answer here.

My first, and I'll admit, kneejerk reaction to the "Iran problem" was to give them a healthy dose of the very item they so desperately want: nuclear weaponry of all sizes, types and shapes.

The second, somewhat less kneejerk, reaction was to bunker-bust the country to kingdom come.

Come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea. I would hate to be thought of as a paper tiger.

And we do have to do something.

If you read the history...
If you read the history of that period you will be depressed to find that Muslim foreign policy towards the West hasn't changed at all in many hundreds of years You will also find that european foreign policy withe respect to the Barbary Coast was indistinguishable from how they approach matters in the Middle East today.

The bloody Europeans did sweed bugger all about the Barbary Pirates until the Americans, small as they were at that time, went in and fought them to a standstill first and the Eurotrash discovered that there was another way of behaving, for however briefly a time.

Attacking Iran

Iraq an oil rich, democratic and once, a stable country was invaded by US. For last many years US forces are trying very hard to consolidate their positions, to turn Iraq it into a stronghold. But the out come is vivid--- zero. To justify the invasion of Iraq, US have very sheepishly been trying to infer different surmises to the wider world; Starting from the Tyranny and dictatorship of Saddam Hussein imposed on Iraqis, to WMD and then switching to Terrorism, Alqaeda links and lately to dish out the sacred taste of freedom in democracy.

If Iraq sole export was only, cucumber and tomatoes, and oil was located some where in central Africa, This would have been amazing to watch, US mission, 'able laureates’ landing in Iraq and occupying it, just to teach democracy. Also further making it, an absolute sure by deploying battle ships and forces in the vicinity to Bar all the neighbouring countries not to disturb, so that ‘lesson practices of democracy’ to Iraqi go well.

We would be, but only fool..ish… to believe all this;

Arabian countries are sitting on the pits containing world’s crucial fuel energy resources. The world’s lone super power feels it right full to make safe, secure these crucial resources for her best use and to avail an effective Hegemony in this part of the world.

The grand scheme of Imperialistic dream, ‘The Project for New American Century’ (PNAC), constitutes of the plan of racking up of all the territories containing the world critical economic resources to bring them into American fold and subjugate the natives. This also Include the securing of routes, ways and all the lands, considered as stepping stones, leading to or around such havens.

The guide line to execute the plan, can be best described in an author words; “The defector role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those end, we will do a fair amount of killing”

Most of the lands marked for such exploitation aresituated in and around the Arab world. They have the history of corrupt regimes imposed on them. Once they used to be the dominant power in the civilised world. But with the break up of their Ottoman Empire, they have gone into some hibernation state and are still stuck in their old century woven shells. Their social fabrics are weak and the native generally live a life style of some gone centuries, destitute and primitive. They can very easily be exploited.
Often with the western vested interests, they are instigated and supported to rabble-rouse against their imposed rulers. They are always seen engaged in some sort of a show down of embroilment with their governments. Such continuous anarchy keeps these states at the brink of collapse and at the mercy of rich western nations. Once subjugated, they form part as multiple local forces and are assigned new tasks to act as proxies.

For last some decades, under the clever, coercive western policies in Middle East, the natives and local dictator rulers of these Countries have been fully emasculated and successfully castrated. Whole Middle East is supposed to be doing a tip, toe dance on the tunes of ---USA. Most of these Middle Eastern countries are now fixed up into bondage of some kind. Iran is found to be the only one odd out and a last obstacle stuck in the way.

Iran is surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan. Both these countries are fixed up in war and are being turned into invincible, Western strong holds. The persistent defiance of Iran is proving to be a night mare. Iran is offering lots of resistance and well sought US Imperialistic dreams, seems to be withering out.

The previous track record of US invasion of Iraq shows that US lead forces did not advance into Iraq till chief UN weapon inspector, Dr Hans Blix categorically made it clear that there were no WMDs and that there was a little resistance of scud medium range missile in Iraq.

History shows that our Western forces are the warrior and conqueror of no-resistance, depleted, and forsaken lands; --but they easily get bodged down, like mighty Israeli army in the face of determination and resilience shown by, even a very weak and negligible resistance, like Hezbollah in south Lebanon war… or Taliban showing vehement resistance against occupation by US/NATO forces in Afghanistan for last many years.

But Iran has greater depth. Military value targets are very well spread. Any ground forces may find multiple layers of defences and many more other fortifications to converge on to...

Israel Army retreat in the face of Hezbollah resilience in south Lebanon has brought lots of embarrassment for Israel as well as the US. In order to regain the lost deterrence, this seems eminent that out of desperation, US may attack Iran, with all her might, under any pretext and very vehemently.

Hezbollah guerrilla tactic demonstrated in Lebanon is an encouragement for Iran to put up greater resilience and US lead forces are likely to have tough time in the killing fields set up by Iran.

High altitude air strikes and long range cruise missile attack may be the preferred Option, to root out the Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

--------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none.

"Hatefest in Cuba"

That Cuba meeting of every county that hates America is worrisome. You just know they weren't planning how best to grow tomatoes!

The little Hitler (Ahmadenijad) was making deals left and right and none for our benefit. It's scary.. and I'm now more than ever, convinced Iran is closer than a couple of years away from having nuclear capabilities. IAEA, be damned who can trust them anyway. Ahmadenijad can barely reach the podium to make his Hitler like speeches and yet everyone bends over backwards before him, have you noticed how his flunkies cower whenever they have to get near him..amazing. And yet he's holding the whole world hostage.

And I also blame the left loonies if anything happens to this great country again!


Correction:
That should read.. barely reach the mic (sp)at the podium to make his Hitler-like speeches.

Mushroom clouds over NYC-film at 11
What a deliciously gloomy column--I'm just about ready to buy up 55 gallon drums of gasoline and dig me a nice bomb shelter.
Since our country is over-run with an extreme case of wussiness, if they decide to use the military it'll only be yet another half-baked 'measured response'.
I am sorry but THERE IS NO PARTIAL WAR!!
You either have an all out war or you don't. Anything else is just plain wussiness. Warfare means you use everything that you can muster and you don't stop until you crush the enemy into submission. This means wiping out their largest cities, occupying the left-over rubble and telling them afterwards how to run the place or else.
If our country of 300 million with an industrial base that's about 100,000 times larger than that ENTIRE middle-east region cannot kick the living daylights out of that place our country deserves whatever we get.
"He who hesitates is lost"




Oh yeah?
"I am sorry but THERE IS NO PARTIAL WAR!!"

Really? Never heard of the Cold War then, I guess? Ran from 1947 to 1989, more or less, as I recall. Looked pretty partial to me most years.

From all the chest beating and Tarzan yodeling I expect that a lot of people are going to wake up in the morning hoarse and sporting a bunch of bruses on their noble breasts this weekend.

Everybody sing! :-D
SEND IN THE MARINES
By Tom Leher

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S., They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!

For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

plaasjaapie
Yeah how long did that Cold War take again??
You really want to go through all of that crud again?
You just totally missed my point.
If they 'do down that road' of measured and small diplomatic and military responses do you think that Iran will do the same thing? No--their going to use every thing that they can muster to defeat us 'infedels'.
If you want neverending warfare use that tiresome 'measured response' garbage.


Multiple Responses
[quote] plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 10:48 AM
Question time...
"1. Remove Israel from the face of the Earth is priority either #1 or #2."

Can anybody tell me how Iran is supposed to achieve that against the Israeli nuclear arsenal even with nukes and the missiles to carry them? [end quote]

Israel is a tiny country that can be wiped out with a single nuclear weapon. Their ability to respond would be gone. Additionally, any missile would be short to medium range. They would not have the several minutes notice that we would have from an incoming ICBM. They effectively have no deterrent whatsoever with regards to Iran, even assuming (and this is quite unlikely,) that the mullahs could be deterred.



[quote] plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 10:50 AM
...only the messenger.
"You may not like what he says but he is only the messenger."

LOL! Are you telling me that he really didn't write the article? :-p [end quote]


No, merely that he is reporting on the situation, not creating it. But then you must have known that. This is a good example of shooting off a clever response rather than making a substantive argument.


[quote] Phylo ii writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 11:41 AM
Question
Krauthammer: "Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days."

Is he talking about the religious right in Iran, or in America?

Phylo out. [end quote]


Are you suggesting that the religious right in America is subsidizing terror and implementing its own nuclear weapons program? Exactly how are you calculating equivalence between these two groups?


[quote] plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 11:53 AM
...
Jane: "Hasn't Mahmoud said he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map". How better to do it than with nulear weapons?"

That's your assessment, not necessarily his. [end quote]

It's the assessment of any number of analysts, actually. And, in fact, it is the only way that they could achieve that objective. Iran's immense oil wealth is enough to render any protestion of theirs that their nuclear power is for "peaceful purposes" absurd on its face. How could this assertion possibly be taken seriously?



[quote] plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 12:09 PM
What ever you're smoking is bad stuff
"We know what the cost of doing nothing against Iran will be: The nuclear annihilation of Israel and the threat of nuclear destruction of European or even American cities. "

No, we don't KNOW that. In fact, it's mad to even suspect it absent the case where it wasn't made clear to the Mullahs that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was in force. You can be CERTAIN that the Israelis would subscribe to that doctrine.

You'd have to posit that not only that the Iranians would have a nuclear arsenal and delivery systems but that they had a 100% effective first strike capability as well. Even the Soviets at their best never managed that. [end quote]

First, their apocalyptic world-view makes deterrence unlikely. Secondly, comparisons to the Soviet Union are worthless. Israel is a tiny country and they are not a continent away. A single nuclear weapon would destory Israel and its nuclear capability. This weapon would not have to travel thousands of miles over the sea and would therefore not give them anything approaching the several minutes response time the United States would have had to a Soviet missile strike.



[quote] plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 12:28 PM
Joisey...
"Plaas---Hopelessly Liberal"

ROTGLMAO! It's a shame you didn't google my screen name before trying that one on.

You're calling a guy who was a long-time research scientist for the South African apartheid regime a "liberal"? :-D [end quote]

I assume that Joisey was reacting to what you were saying. That's usually a fairly good indicator of one's political beliefs. Not that everyone can be expected to google every poster they respond to, but how exactly can one's personal political philosophy be better understood from an occupation they held years ago than by the positions they take in discourse today?


[quote] Mencken writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 12:35 PM
Joisey
"You're willing to risk catastrophic damage to America and its allies in order to indulge your moral vanity. Republicans aren't.

You want to bet your life that a bunch of Islamo-Nazis who view death as a promotion will be in the least bit deterred by the obsolete notion of MAD, go ahead, but don't bet mine, or my family's."

ME: So I take it, then, that you are willing to pick up a rifle and go fight for Israel? Because if not, then watch what you say about other people who don't necessarily think it wise to throw more Americans into their graves just because the president of Iran says some stupid garbage about Israel. I mean, what, you want us to also invade Pakistan and North Korea, because that is the only way you can ensure the safety of American cities (and not even then, unles you also want to go after Russia's loose nukes)? When are YOU going to put YOUR life on the line, if you think it is so important? [end quote]

The rightness or wrongness of any approach is not dictated by any one individual's willingness to fight in the Israeli military. You can label it hypocrisy or cowardice if you like, but it is absolutely possible to be a hypocrite and yet be 100% correct in one's assessment. Besides which, we have an all-volunteer military. They get to decide whether or not the cause for which they are serving is worth the risk of their lives. No one is "throwing them into their graves." Moreover, you are making the mistaken calculation that Israel is the only nation at risk here. If and when U.S. soldiers are involved in Iran, it won't be because they are "fighting for Israel."

[quote] Phylo ii writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 1:21 PM
response to pistol
I'm being a little snide I suppose, but my question is based on what I've heard from Olive Tree Ministries, which is all about eschatology. They are always taking about the end times and Israel. I don't see how those people are any different from the eschatologists in Iran. I think anyone who talks about the devine ending of the world, and the coming of some superhuman savior is nuts.

Phylo out. [end quote]

The difference is between Olive Tree Ministries and the eschatologists in Iran is Hezbollah, nuclear weapons, and immense oil wealth.

[quote] tanabear writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 1:59 PM
To Pistol
Pistol states, "You and Tanabear are beyond understanding. Do you really equate the Jihadists and our religeous right wing as equal threats to our way of life?" Not at all. I associate the neo-cons with Jihadists. Neo-cons are as far away from Christianity as Marxism and Fascism. The Neo-cons are the one's who can not be reasoned with. [end quote]

That is simply not true. Marxism and Fascism both sought the eradication of religion from society. I can't think of even the worst liberal neo-con fantasy being as far away from Christianity as that. But for the sake of clarity, just what exactly what level of reasoning do you believe that an Iranian mullah would repond to that a neo-con wouldn't? Could you perhaps give an example of a neo-con and a mullah who demonstrate this difference in susceptibility to reason?

[quote]Mencken writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 2:13 PM
Military Service
"My fitness for military service has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm entitled to have an opinion about my country's foriegn policy as a civilian. Unless you insinuate that only servicemen and veterans ought to be allowed a say in our countries' political discourse, or a vote. If that were ever to occur, every seat in Congress would be filled by a Republican."

FIRST: I disagree. I agree that not only veterans and servicemembers should have a say, but I think at some point it becomes so disgusting the extent to which people are willing to use American lives like chips on a chessboard that it is legitimate to ask those who militate for the fight to fight themselves. We can disagree on when that point is reached.

SECOND: I believe that the overwhelming majority of Iraq war veterans that are running for elective office are running as Democrats. I don't think the Democratic Party is going to come up with any great solutions, but I think this is somewhat of an indictment of the Republican ideal that servicemen and women are totally enamored of the GOP. Granted, it's not exactly a scientific study or anything. [end quote]

The first point is irrelevant so long as we have an all-volunteer military. They are the ones who decide for themselves which causes are worth risking their lives. And again, the wrongness or rightness of a strategy is not determined by the willingness of its proponent to fight. The argument stands or falls on its own merits.

As to your second point, your're right; it is not exactly a scientific study. It is in fact nothing more than a conjecture based on attributing significance to a single data point that is itself based merely on a belief. I think it analyzing the voting patterns of active-duty military and the rate of re-enlistment are far more significant here, and those tend to support the GOP and the current Iraq deployment.

[quote]
plaasjaapie writes: Friday, September, 15, 2006 5:36 PM
Oh yeah?
"I am sorry but THERE IS NO PARTIAL WAR!!"

Really? Never heard of the Cold War then, I guess? Ran from 1947 to 1989, more or less, as I recall. Looked pretty partial to me most years.

From all the chest beating and Tarzan yodeling I expect that a lot of people are going to wake up in the morning hoarse and sporting a bunch of bruses on their noble breasts this weekend. [end quote]

Where the various proxy wars were being conducted, exactly where was a partial war strategy actually successful? As far as the over-arching war, it was never fought as a military conflict, but the nuclear arsenals built up for it didn't bespeak of any partial strategy.

Annex Persia
This is exactly why Persia should be annexed and divided between Europe, America, India, and China.

It will never happen, though, unless I've got my eschatology wrong, Iran will remain independent and belligerent against Israel until the end of Earth history.

The father of our nation
George Washington
1793 - Fifth Annual Message
Category: National Defense
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
Reference

Now that I think about it
Bandar Abbas, where most of Iranian oil lies, is right on the coast. A few Nimitz class carriers with heavy British screening, one Marine division, and one mechanized Army infantry division could take it anytime we want.

And another patriot...
Thomas Jefferson
1823 - letter to James Monroe

..Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.
Reference: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Foley (685); orignal The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ford, ed., vol. 5 (198)

You inrelligent lefties read this
James Madison
1792 - essay in the National Gazette

....A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts...

Reference: The Complete Madison, Padover (349)

The Oil Problem
The oil shortage would be temporary. Preventing devastation caused by it merely involves the amassing of a year's worth of Iranian oil imports before the invasion. Their greatest weapon can be nullified with a savings account.

Ahenobarbus
"Exactly how are you calculating equivalence between these two groups?"

With that mighty liberal logic known as the Wish.

Khobar
Its tough to make firm sense out of your broken English, however i see several instances where you point out failures of Western Arms to defeat Muslim resistance. You point to Israel's failure to kill every member of Hezbollah and imply the USA would fail to defeat Iran. You perfectly illustrate the Arab attitude towards Judeo-Christian forbearance. You apparently see this as proof Muslims will prevail militarily. If they cared to, Israel could systematically execute every man, woman and child in Lebanon. The USA could do it in Iraq and Iran. We hold back because we hope some other solution may take place. I see Muslims as placing themselves in a no win position. If they insist on violence they will endure violence in retaliation. If they escalate and/or become more effective, they will persuade more and more of the doves that only violence can succeed. Eventually i see a WMD being used somewhere. Saddam Hussein lost his country to a 911. What do you think would be the result of some Muslim nuking NYC?
Israel exists today because they have nukes on subs. Whether or not Israel could survive a nuclear exchange,about 40 Muslim cities would not. With nukes available to Pakistan for many years this is the only reason Israel still exists

Nuke The Bastards
Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked in WW2, the US dropped millions of leaflets printed in all the known dialects of Japanese onto those cities. The leaflets warned the inhabitants that their cities were going to be destroyed, and advised the civilians to evacuate. The Japanese government prevented that evacuation, and thereby signed the death warrants of a little over 200,000 people. It's time to start dropping leaflets over Teheran.

Decide
Half the people here seem to think the U.S. is imbued with great values like democracy and freedom. The other half seem to think we should slit the throats of the Muslims and take their resources. Sounds like and odd contrast.

Mencken
So resolve the paradox you've described, already. Pish or get off the pot!

What do you think defending democracy entails? War? Does not involve killing people?

Your comment was so stupid it makes my brain hurt.

Mencken, the tree
of freedom is watered by the blood of patriots. Not by inhabitants who consider themselves patriots by pointing out warts, but sophisticated people who have been there, seen that, and realize how precious the USA ia. This nation is worth defending, and regretably must be defended. Not from the man in the street, who only wants a piece of our pie, but from elites and tyrants driven by fear, greed hate and envy. You don't appreciate the difference between conquest and self defense. The Japanese conquered Korea and seized assets. The USA defended itself against violence initiated by an enemy. After victory we initiated a new era of prosperity in our enemy's land.

Making a Decision on Iran
Mr. Krauthammer avoided the option of a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facilities and the immediate follow-up demand to Iran, after the attack, of its demilitarization and halting of all of its support to terrorist groups - or a massive second wave of nuclear strikes against all of Iran's governmental & military facilities would follow - whether in or near civilian populated locations.

The last time an nation received this treatment was the last time it posed a threat to the USA and to its neighbors - as well as, the last time the USA won a war.

Pistol you are correct...
Thomas Jefferson
1787 - letter to William Stephens Smith

...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (911)
Thomas Jefferson

and a few more...
John Madison
1792 - National Gazette Essay

...In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.
Reference: Advice to My Country, Mattern ed. (20); original Papers of John Madison, vol. 14 (191)


Thomas Jefferson
1820 - letter to Richard Rush

...The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition), Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 15:283.

Benjamin Franklin
1759 - Historical Review of Pennsylvania

...They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Reference: The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 3 (107)

Can you see a common thread?
The true patriots who express their opinions on this blog, echoe the sentiments of our forefathers. You liberals, on the other hand, reiterate the sentiments of one who follows Timothy Leary... turn on, tune in, and drop out.

Drop dead!

Ahenobarbus
Thank you. You dissected every one of the posts by those on this site who apparently think that they are more clever than everybody else. Delusional is closer to the truth.


There posts range from shallow, ill informed Moveon talking points, through plain old leftist insults, to an occasional effort to make a reasonable argument. Well, they tried and you demolished them. I love it. Again, I thank you.


P.S. Neo-con is being overworked. Something like homophobic and racist. Words leftists love to throw at those who do not buy into their delusional ideology. When smoke starts coming out of their ears from trying to think, they throw out those overworked insults. Pathetic.


Cat trapper
I knew i was paraphrasing Jefferson, but i didn't know he included tyrants in the manure. I enjoy accurate research, so thank you. How about "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to defend it" "Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those who don't" "A republic Madam, if you can keep it" "If they shoot down all but one, i expect that plane to go in and get a hit" "When this war is over Madam, i pray that it will be found that i was on God's side" My memory isn't all that good, but i have been inspired by the words of men like these. Webster, unknown,Franklin, the commanding officer of torpedo squadron 8 (one man, no aircraft survived the Battle of Midway), Lincoln

Question?
What are the Democrats in congress doing to help solve the situation in Iran?

Clyde9

Thanks Pistol
I imagine that some of those left-wing-dings really do think, and I'm trying to be magnanamous, that they are, indeed patriots. So, instead of me argueing with the "educated" dolts, it is best to use the words of people even most of them will admit, are patriots.

Besides, I'd rather read some of the comments that the CONSERVATIVES have to say when trying to reach some of these, er people?. The dip-a-crats really just don't get it.

MacZed
You have taken the bait the trapper had put out in hopes of catching a dem-o-cat, thus ruining my set.

Sine you and I, are primarily, on the same side, I haven't the time to engage in any arguements which are, empiracally semantic in nature.

As my set is now fouled, I must set myself to scounting for a different location in which to lay my steel.

Ahenobarbus
Thank you for taking the time to refute each and every one of those space cadets masquerading as intellectuals. You did so with reason and clarity. We need your voice!

Pub talk v. reality
I can imagine almost the same discussions going on in the pubs in England during the American Revolution. The Americans don't fight fair because they don't just line up in the field like we do. We should send over alot more solders to line up in the field and overwhelm them. You, get really tough on those sinners and they will fall in line and if they don't, we should kill them all.

Of course this would have not made any difference and neither will bombing Iran, nukes or not.It will only harm us politically, financially, and cause more loss of freedoms.

It was box cutters that were used in 9/11 and those people committed suicide in the process. Why, that's not fair! Kill them all!

Look at what they did with box cutters. They divided the country. There is more vitriol on this web site directed to other Americans than against the enemy. We instantly respond to the slightest threat with rediculous actions. e.g. no gel bras on planes, scrambling fighters because a woman peed in the aisle, what next, curfews and marshal law because of a threat to dirty bomb Fresno?

As a result, we have been repeatidly attacked by terrorists since 9/11 but since it was not with weapons we say we have been successful. In fact we are doing the work for them. We continue to loose friends in the world, we have so empowered our enemies that that leaders representing millions of people openly anti-american meet just a few miles off our shore and we send the press.

We compromise our principls of humanity, freedom, and economy while accomplishing nothing in terms of internal security or well being.

We allow true threats to the US such as China, Russia, the rise of leftests in Latin America and Europe to quietly go about locking up resources and building our economic dependance on them.

We exhaust our military, become a debtor nation, and feed our citizens with the pablum of cheap goods manufactured by our enemies while shipping our jobs and money overseas and it ends up in Iran.

We are loosing big time people and bombing Iran may seal the deal for our enemies.

don't defang, behead
Karauthammer's alternatives are not necessarily the correct ones: There's little good, and much harm, in taking out their nuke potential but leaving the regime intact.

Dr. K. Needs a 2nd Opinion
Dr. Krauthammer, the psychiatrist, is apparently giving himself a clean bill of mental health when he endorses the neocon idee fixe that military violence is the answer to all political problems in the Middle East. It certainly has worked swimmingly with Iraq and Afghanistan, he seems to reason, so why won't it be equally effective with Iran?

Note that in his list of costs associated with a military attack on Iran, he grants that oh, yes, there will be economic, military, and diplomatic costs associated with attacking yet another country in the Middle East that has not attacked or even threatened to attack the US, but he is apparently blithely indifferent to the carnage that such unprovoked aggression would indisputably cause, i.e., the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of Iranians.

I say he is apparently indifferent to the inevitable human casualties of an aerial and/or ground assault against Iran, because he doesn't even *mention* them in his list of "terrible costs."

But then this is the same good doctor who opined in another of his columns that we all have a duty to torture some of our fellow human beings if we suspect them of harboring sufficient hostility to Americans.


If anyone were ever in need of another opinion besides his own regarding his mental health, it assuredly is Dr. Krauthammer.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.