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, April 11, 2008
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Advancing Iranian Nuclear Program
by Charles Krauthammer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- On Tuesday, Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges -- they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon -- in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.

It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.

The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.

This failure can, however, be mitigated. Since there will apparently be no disarming of Iran by pre-emption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and messianic, from using nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, we prevented an attack not only on the U.S. but also on America's allies by extending the American nuclear umbrella -- i.e., declaring that any attack on our allies would be considered an attack on the United States.

Such a threat is never 100 percent credible. Nonetheless, it made the Soviets think twice about attacking our European allies. It kept the peace.

We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. It would be infinitely less dangerous (and therefore more credible) than Cold War deterrence because there will be no threat from Iran of the annihilation of the United States. Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, would have a relatively tiny arsenal incapable of reaching the U.S.

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

This policy -- the Holocaust Declaration -- would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president -- and every serious presidential candidate -- would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.

It is an important question to ask because it will not be uncontroversial. It will be argued that the Holocaust Declaration is either redundant or, at the other extreme, provocative.

Redundant, it will be said, because Israel could retaliate on its own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that could be destroyed in a first strike. During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. created vast and invulnerable submarine fleets to ensure a retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence. The invulnerability and unimaginably massive size of this American nuclear arsenal would make a U.S. deterrent far more potent and reliable than any Israeli facsimile -- and thus far more likely to keep the peace.

Would such a declaration be provocative? On the contrary. Deterrence is the least provocative of all policies. That is why it is the favored alternative of those who oppose a pre-emptive attack on Iran. What the Holocaust Declaration does is turn deterrence from a slogan into a policy.

It is, of course, hardly certain that deterrence would work on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other jihadists. But deterrence would encourage rational Iranian actors, of whom there are many, to restrain or even depose leaders like Ahmadinejad who might sacrifice Iran's existence as a nation in order to vindicate their divine obligation to exterminate the "filthy bacteria" of the Jewish state, "this disgraceful stain (on) the Islamic world."

For the first time since the time of Jesus, Israel is the home of the world's largest Jewish community. An implacable enemy has openly declared genocidal intentions against it -- in clear violation of the U.N. charter -- and is pursuing the means to carry out that intent. The world does nothing. Some, like the Russians, are literally providing fuel for the fire.

For those who believe that America stands for something in the world -- that the nation that has liberated more peoples than any other has even the most minimal moral vocation -- there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final Final Solution.

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.

6000 New Centrifuges
Saheeb my friend, have you seen the new Centrifuges? they're beautiful, the thing I like about these is, while you're making enriched Uranium you can barbecue falafels the meat is so tender when they're done. I especially like it when they spin up and the atoms start to break down and they give of that yellowish greenish glow, thats when I usually open the falafel gently and spread my special curry sauce mixture I saw on Martha Stewart's show, I tell you, saheeb my friend, It is not the same when you do it on a George Foreman grill, centrifuges are the way to go, delectable my friend, truly delectable.

BIG Belly
Your comment would come under the category of almost amusing except that felafel is not meat(it is made from) chick peas and is fried, not grilled, which is what might be in the not too distant future.

Obama's Response
When Israel is a glowing hole in the ground and Tehran is a glowing hole and the Straights of Hormuz are closed and oil is $1000 a barrel and unemployment in the US hits 25% what will President Obama do?

Trulib
If some raghedd crazy does launch a nuke at Israel, it will be more than Tehran that glows. Last estimate i heard was over 40 nukes aboard boomers.

Iran Minus Tehran
Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran are willing to swap the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. Are there enough virgins?

Rational Iranian Actors?
Just an up-front THANK YOU to James Earl Carter for deposing the Shah of Iran, an ally, and replacing him with the "religious" extremists who welcome the ultimate war. It worked out great, Jimmy!

My concern is that "rational Iranian actors" are not in charge. The people who are won't listen to the threat that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States. I am also worried about statements by McBeachBoy that there "will be more wars, many more wars," and, "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran." That sounds like preemptive war by the United States if he is elected. All out war and empty threats are not our only choices. I assume we are working on a CIA reverse-Carter to destabilize the current Iranian government, but when will that work? Is it time to re-evaluate the United States policy not to kill foreign dictators? There must be some way to eliminate the real threats to civilization without decimating the innocent civilian populations.

Boutte:
Yes, Boutte. That gigantic nation of Israel is the scourge of the Middle East - always invading other nations, colonizing, robbing national treasures, and in general, being the Jesse James Gang of the 21st century.

Now - back to Planet Earth.

I'm pretty certain, Boutte, that old Charles was talking about a national policy of deterrence - since there is still some disagreement about Iran's "honorable" intentions for those centrifuges.

I realize Iran, since the fall of the Shah, has been an honest, friendly and peace-loving nation, but you'll pardon me if I'm just a tad bit skeptical.

How to send a message
We are concerned Iran will get (or has) nuclear weapons. Why? Because we think they are nuts enough to use them.... whydo they not fear ours. I submit it is because they know we are too mature,rational,(civilized) to ever use them again. The first thing I would do to help Israel is put a 21000 lb M.O.A.B. on The Syrian leader(Irans puppet's) head and tell Iran that that bomb did not "glow". Stop sending help to the insergants ie... terrorists, or three cities in Iran will GLOW. You might think this is crazy and I am too...you might be right, but that is what they will think as well and they willnot want to test me. The only reason we would have to hit Syria first is too many wusses have ruined our "street cred" and no one really believes we will strke hard. As an example the way we are engaged in Iraq is win without scareing or damaging too much. Bad for our troops. It prolongs war and those who hate you will still hate you and those who don't will not... you do little in real thought changing and soldiers and civilians suffer more than they should. First kill people and break things on a scale which causes awe... and then show others compassion once the battle has been won. I know we are fighting a new type of war but untill we engage in the same cowardly hide behind kids approach and they don't shoot at us our warriors suffer too protect the cowards kinsmen.

Relax...
...President Obama has said he is going to talk to Iran.Problem solved.

Iowa - Jimmy's great works are not done
The ex-president who used to be called, ”peanuts,“ but can now just be called ”nuts,“ is not done yet. He is headed off to console Hamas next week, and offer his assistance to their noble mission to kill more Jews.

KrautHAMMER has nailed it, peace comes through the strength and determination to make the world a better place, not by disengaging, and hoping they won't come. They will. They did, on 9/11.

Well Charles
Now you did it. Every anti-semite on TH will be here to call you a warmonger and worse.

Too bad they didn't read the article, but that would presume that they even care to see a cogent argument.

We, as a nation, are afraid to take on the mantle of super-power. That it is a fact is beside the point to most, where the only moral high ground is in tolerance for all and peace (or the illusion of peace) in servitude and collectivism.

The only media agenda I see is in characterizing Palestinians as persecuted and Israelis as evil.

Everyone needs to read Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel and THEN come back with the Israel as monster mantra (if anyone could).

Deterrence is a great idea, Charles. Unfortunately, I don't think the mad mullahs and Ahmadinijab are worried about self-preservation.

And that is the big gamble.

Boutte
I find your post interesting and revealing.

It could be said of you then, that the foundations of our nation: freedom, democracy, personal choice to the pursuit of one's happiness, are not your ideals.

If so, why do you stay in our nation?

Why not further your adventure in life and live in a nation elsewhere that adheres to your particular view of life.

Perhaps Cuba?

Perhaps Iran?

Additionally, revealing your bigotry and discrimination toward another faction of our human race is distasteful in every censorial possibility.

You're either a coward or a bully, you choose.

Iran's Bomb
Our treat of attcking iran if they attack Isreal with nuks will never work. Russia wanted world domination. secular. With Iran its a religious quest. They do not care one wit about their own population.

As far as the war in Iraq, we have fought it all wrong. It should have either been total war or no war. We use to have a couple of saying's when I was in the military, " You want to play war? Ten let play th game of war. I will play with the attitude of 150% to win, or Kill em all and let God sort them out. Sounds pretty tough to the Lib's huh. You don't fight a war to be friends. You fight to survive, that means we win, you loose.

I am against war. Seen it up close and personal, like millions of other Americans. But if it becomes the only way, then stand aside because I am coming and there will be no stopping me. I can be your friend and ally, but if you attack me or my allies, I will become your worst nightmare with zero compassion.
I will come for you with a vengence like the world has never seen. So why don't we sit down and talk this over like rational people?

That is what needs to be told to these animals, its all that they understand. By the way, go to Google Videos and watch the video Islam to see what they have instore for us. Not Fitna.

Duplicitous Diplomacy
Dr Krauthammer's "Holocaust Declaration" is fine as far as it goes while President Bush is President. However, do we, as American citizens, trust that foreign policies of the United States of America will be honored under a president B Hussein Oblahma or even a president Billary? Please, as O'Reilly might say this week, "Don't be feckless!" Doug Giles, yes, that TH Giles' "Culture Clash" provocative preacher (another great American, like Krauthammer, not like wrong-Wright)writes in his newest screed, "I believe our increasingly effeminate culture doesn't stand a long-term chance in hell against Muslim mayhem - unless we beef up a bunch and get back some of the now-endangered American resolve... If we don't recognize and realign spiritually, physically and politically to stave off these death dealers, then within 50+/- years we will be another head on Muhammad's trophy room wall." (p24)

Denny
Not sure if you've read Ken Timmerman's recent book, SHADOW WARRIORS, but it gives an amazing account of how all this might have turned out differently had the war and Bush Policy not been subverted at every juncture by the FBI, CIA and STATE DEPT.

I agree with you about war being the last alternative, but it's always a viable alternative to the bullies of the world.

Let's not jump to conclusions here.
Ahmadinejad has said some nutty and apocalyptic things from time to time.

But let us not forget that famous incident where Reagan, as a joke, remarked that an attack on the USSR would commence in 5 minutes, or something along those lines.

Ahmadinejad does not run Iran. The Mullahs do. Do they seek the destruction of their nation? It is assumed by some they are irrational. But Iran has been run by fanatics since 1979, and they have not imploded their nation in a fireball yet.

I don't agree with Krauthammer's idea of placing the American people, our nation, in peril of nuclear retaliation by a guarantee we will regard an attack on a land that is not part of the United States, as an attack on ourselves.

Incredible.

With NATO we did so. However, communist dogma and Russian imperial designs, both combined to make the USSR a genuine threat to the west. A treaty(passed by congress)obligated us.

Iran's status as a growing threat was only brought about when Bush foolishly removed its arch enemy, Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

It was not Iran, even though controlled by the radically Islamist and apocalyptical Ayatollah Khomeini, who started a war with Iraq in 1980.

It was the the relatively secularist thug Saddam Hussein who attacked the religious fanatic and messianic regime of Khomeini in Iran.

And apparently Islam is not a threat either, according to Bush. He has declared it to be a great and peaceful religion. And has even supported creation of an Islamic state in the heart of central Europe(Kosovo). So Islam cannot be the problem. cough.

We must do what is in our national interest, not those of any other nation, even one whose interests some Americans seem to regard as identical to ours.

jerabaub
I wondered how many sentences before you revealed your distaste for the United States.

You didn't disappoint.

I like Charles' idea.
The only possible flaw is that these mullah's and abadabanutjob want to bring on the apocolypse to advance ther "religion", tough to deter fanatics.

Too many millions of innocent people have been killed because of the ravings of nuts like hitler et al in the past, better to announce a policy of take them out before they get a chance to start a war in the first place. Better yet don't announce it, just do it an apologize later.

Call it culling the evil gene pool, why should a handful of loonies be allowed to threaten the world? Being more civilized than they is no arguement when the stakes are this high.


scooternyc
Where did I demonstrate my distaste for the U.S.?

I said we should do what benefits the United States, not any other nation, even a nation whose interests some Americans have come to view identical with our own.

With all due respect, you are wrong.

Just as I don't think France, Bolivia, the Sudan, Indonesia determine whether our nation and our people are placed in harm's way, so too I don't think Israel should have that power.

If Israel is to have that power, at least let the American people authorize it thru a congressional hearings and treaty.


Iran is run by genocidal nuts
Yes, they are nuts enough to use nukes. Boutte and company, stand by for BOHICA.

By the way, Denny. You make a relatively cogent point, but it is based on a faulty assumption. They may not care much about the population in the way that we westerners think is logical, but they do respond to threats of destruction. They key in making the threat effective is the willingness to follow through.

We don't have the stones to do that and they know it.

We should nuke 'em NOW! THEN they will listen. But not until then.



pretty convenient history, Boutte
"one of the most ancient civilizations and most peaceable, non-belligerent countries on earth for centuries"

Perhaps you should study some modern history, say from the time of Carter on. I'm not sure how sending special guard troops into Iraq to continue to foster unrest isn't "belligerent." I'm not sure how kidnapping British naval officers and holding them captive isn't "belligerent." I'm not sure how holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days isn't "belligerent." I'm not sure how promising to wipe Israel off the map and seekeing the means to do it isn't "belligerent."

While you're at it, why don't you study some ancient history as well: in particular the Persian Empire and the Greco-Persian wars (you might find Xerxes complicates your claim, for example).

I just realized that you guys just pull this stuff out of your butts. If you say it, and say it well, then people might think it's true-- maybe even you.

my 2 cents
June 1981 - 8 Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers drop 2,000 pound bombs on Iraq's nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, destroying Iraq's capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. Iraq insisted that the site was for peaceful purposes only but that assertion was not widely believed.

Source - 'The Hidden Pope', Darcy O'Brien, 1998, pp286, published by St. Martin's press.

Starting in the mid to late 90s any number of quotes from American politicians on EITHER side of the aisle attesting to the DANGER of the WMD possessed by (the late) Saddam Hussein can be found. In 2003 American and allied forces invaded Iraq with one of their stated aims being the finding of and destruction of the WMD possessed by Saddam. Their source for the existence of the WMD - American intel, Russian intel, Israeli intel, French intel, etc.

So far there have been no discoveries of WMD and that of course has led to one of the more fragrant leftie chants "Bush died thousands died."

So - Did they ever exist? If they NEVER did then we are victims of the worst intelligence breakdown in history, and it is fair, it is NECESSARY to point out that the man on watch in the U.S.A. at the time this BEGAN was William Jefferson Clinton. (Now his old lady wants the gig but we'll talk about that later.)

I say that they did exist.

What happened to them? IMO - Some were destroyed, some were sold and sent out of the country, some have not been found and some have been found but the discoveries are so horrendous that the knowledge is being kept from the public.

Sold and sent out of the country - Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Iranians and Iraqis (sp?) might have religious/secular differences but they are united by their hatred of us and of the Israelis.

Uncle Max
You are so very right! What we are not told is the scary part! They had the WMD's, they moved them as we gave them plenty of time to do so. I think ultimately, Israel will take care of Iran - then it truly begins.

Iran doesn't want a bomb
You neo-cons and christo-fascists are aware that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, right? And you're further aware that Israel isn't, right?

Iran's leaders know that BushCo is just trying to stir up anything so they can invade Iran, expanding the Global War To Murder Muslims Because They Aren't Christian.

IowapatN
The thing that scares me is how much Obamessiah reminds me of the great peanut farmer. I fear that he would be similarly competent, which is to say not at all.

Iran "non-belligerent"?
Boutte's grasp of history is atrocious:
(1) won't waste time on Ancient Persia, since Grad Girl @ 08:15 covered this
(2) Persia (Iran) had long-running dispute with Mughal Empire over Qandahar which was "exchanged" violently several times during the reigns of Jehangir and Shah Jehan; also, Aurangzeb suspected Persia of stirring up Pashtun rebellions between Attock and Kabul (time covered here, 1605-1707)
(3) Nadir Shah, who raided Mughal-remnant Empire (authority extended from Delhi to Mehrauli) plundering Delhi in 1739 was ruler of Persia
(4) British, during their rule of Sub-continent always kept watchful eyes on Persia

The only time Iran can be considered to be "peaceful" was from 1944-1979, the rule of Mohd. Reza Pahlavi (due only to the fact that he OWED the West his position).

oil
With oil topping $110 a barrel I guess those sanctions are really sticking it to Iran. Doesn't all the money for Iran's nuke program come from their petro-dollars?

Hopefully, we will be able to hold onto our precious tax cuts in this time of war.

the usual from Krauthammer
Krauthammer is clearly wrong that statements of deterrence cannot be provocative. When Rafsanjani was president of Iran he made a classic statement of deterrence. He said that were Iran to develop nuclear weapons, that would guarantee peace in the region. Israel would not attack Iran because it would know that while Iran would survive a nuclear attack, Israel, because of its size would be obliterated.

This is basically the same kind of statement that Krauthammer wants Bush to make. If you attack Israel you will be obliterated. But Krauthammer when he has quoted Rafsanjani simply drops the first part of the quote and says that Rafsanjani threatened to obliterate Israel. When you are a narrowminded ideologue like Krauthammer it is not surprising that one can remember the part of a quote that serves ones purpose while forgetting the context of the quote.

But the leadership of Iran is also composed of narrowminded ideologues. Particularly given that our relationship with Israel is no secret, they would hear the Krauthammer statement as a threat just as Krauthammer, with less justification, heard the Rafsanjani comment as a threat.

But then Krauthammer thinks that foreign relations consists of threatening people, attacking them, or appeasing them with no other choices. So it is not surprising he favors threats.

GradGirl
Iran sent guard units into Iraq? prove it, whats your source? Look, its silly to think Iran wants to upset things in Iraq because they already have the tiger by the tail. Maliki and Sadr are already their good friends, Maliki the most and Maliki has told Americans to leave their fights with Iran out of Iraq.

Also Iran helped us when we needed them, they helped in Afghanistan and to get AQ.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm

Lastly, any seriously historian would look at Iran's history when US involvement began 1953 or earlier. We helped put in and keep a torturing bad dictator, the Iranian came to completly hate.

Oil Money
Ahmadinejad was in serious political trouble at home. He ran on the idea he would help the economy but it sank, and for the first time there were actually gas lines in a country that never knew what that meant. What happened? Cheyne gave him millions. Every time talk of war in the Persian Gulf is upped a notch, oil prices go up, literally meaning million more a day for Iran, and btw, Exxon.

What an absolute pantload...
Conservatives need to write the White House NOW to let Dubya know that Israel is not the 51st state, and we have no business whatsoever in making such a loony proclamation as Krauthammer suggests. BTW, the war threats we're hearing from the Middle East lately seem to be coming a lot more from Tel Aviv than from Tehran.

Uncle Max
Our fearless leader Saddam developed Weapons of Mass Destruction to kill Americans.

The Americans came to Iraq putting themselves into close proximity to these very Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Saddam, scared off his public image being tarnished (he hoped, one day, to win a Nobel Peace Prize) banished his Weapons of Mass Destruction to a far away place called Syria. These weapons, unbeknownst to Saddam completely degraded over the next few months.

Saddam was found in a hole.

When we stand down the Americans will stand up. No, No.... when we, the Iraqis, stand up the Americans can stand down. Hoorah!!

We never stand up.

to Primus 54:
"That gigantic nation of Israel is the scourge of the Middle East - always invading other nations, colonizing, robbing national treasures, and in general, being the Jesse James Gang of the 21st century."

Rich fantasy life, eh? Too bad the only way you can win a debate is to write your opponent's scripts for them. Sorry, but America has no business spending blood and treasure on an indefensible, nuclear-tipped Alamo surrounded by hostiles. The best solution is several million new Jewish immigrants to the US.

Pointless to say...
...seems this crowd jumped the tracks.

Iran with the bomb is a terrible thing. But they will be rational. It will be a tool to cow neighbors and keep the US at some distance. They can continue their low-level war against the west because they'll have checked any kind of effective response the west could use. Not a big change because the west has opted not to respond for most of 29 years now. Eventually, as with the USSR, a generation will come that will dismantle the hateful regime of Islam and the world might breath easier. Could happen now but the choices being made in Tehran are to not let that happen now and to forestall it for several generations. Did I say "hateful"? I think I just explained why.

Bobby
Admiral Fallon and many more very experienced a brave Americans say it would be very fool hardy to attack Iran. Use reason instead of what neocons tell you to think, they are always wrong.

Been Saying This Charles
Really simple. You dont have to set one foot into Iran. Simply tell them, if one missle leaves their airspace, they may not even have the time to see the first impact. End of threat.

Appeasement, Israel and the Sudetenland
Those blaming Israel for the situation in the Near East are incorrect, and antisemites. Note that those who think that Israel is cruel because it has deprived Arabs of their land have to double-think (in Orwell's sense) - since the land of Israel is the ancient land of the Jews. Their desire to see it abolished as a solution is like the solution Neville Chamberlain found for "Peace In Our Time" with Adolf Hitler - giving Germany the Sudetenland, "a distant country far away," which destroyed Czechslovakia, gave Germany more resources, and started World War II,.

Taft
I am not suggesting a first/preemptive strike......yet. I AM saying that Tehran and or it puppet Syria and the various pseudo governments (Hezbolla, Hamas etc) within should be TOLD if they start anything in Israel, America will finish them. Israel, and a few other moderate muslim countries close to Israel are the outposts of sanity. Aside from the killing field that would be created if Israel were overrun and taken over by the various radical states in the middle east (take your pick) can you not imagine the chaos in the world that would create. If not, you DO spend too much time with your head in the sand.

Taft
and yet my point is still true: it is not historically accurate to describe Iran as one of "most peaceable, non-belligerent countries on earth for centuries" (thanks to svpallava for the further history lesson).

And I guess the Iraninan soldiers captured in Iraq could've just gone there of their own accord, so I'll grant you that one if you insist...


And the whole point of the article is to avoid a policy of preemption.

knight of baawa
your comment "Iran's leaders know that BushCo is just trying to stir up anything so they can invade Iran, expanding the Global War To Murder Muslims Because They Aren't Christian."

And your are trying to say that Muslims are good won't kill Christians because they are not Muslims? You are full of it. The Muslim religion is not a peacefull one. Any religion that considers women as property, worse then dogs is despicable. My daughters and I stayed at a Days Inn in Ohio and were told by the middle eastern manager that we (females) were worse then dogs and he does not allow dogs in his motel. All this was becaue one of my daughters asked about the pool.

My personal feeling is you can not trust any Muslim period.

To Athena...
"Those blaming Israel for the situation in the Near East.."

Though no one here seems to be, eh? Still, you get the award for being first one to trigger Godwin's Rule on this thread.

Taft @ 09:53
Your history is a little off-base.

Mohd Pahlavi was initially placed in power by the British in 1944 (to replace his father Reza Khan, who wouldn't let them use Iranian territory for transport between Sub-continent and Europe--and whom they deposed).

Also a historical irony: Mousadegh could actually have been brought to heel in 1950's easily by the simple method of US not buying oil from Iran (the country's export earnings would have crashed). As a likely benefit, Khomeini probably wouldn't have been able to takeover either, as he would have had to deal with Mousadegh and successors who he would NOT have been able to project as Western puppets.

Iran and What it may do?
The article by Charles Krauthammer is very alarming and should make all resonable thinking people understand we need to take some action against them to disable their capacity to make the weapon. Their leader appears not to be very stable and is focused on destroying us. We can't afford to wait or it may be too late.
John Miaskowski

Dangerous nations
ApolloSpeaks worries that "nations choose to sleep ignoring a terrifying regime rising in their midst with a mandate from hell to rule them."

Does he mean Iran or us?

Regardless, one reason other nations sleep while our leaders froth that our leaders have no credibility with other nations. The bomb-Iran rant is just too similar to the bomb-Iraq rant and too soon after the Iraq rant to have eluded even the famously forgetful American people.

And scooternyc, love it or leave it? Whoa. It's been a while since I've heard that...about 40 years. Those lofty principles you cite are what we SAY we value, but too often our actions betray them as window dressing.

Krauthammer presents himself as a strategic military thinker but I see nothing in his background...no insider experience of any kind, at any rate...to make him especially credible. That exposes him as yet another neocon, a group that has been profoundly wrong on virtually every prediction since we abandoned Afghanistan to fight Bush's war of hubris in Iraq?

Iran
Beyond considerations of family and business associates, the only thing these Middle-Easterner leaders understand is "I'm tougher than you and you do as I say" or "You're tougher than me and I do as you say." The quicker we Westerners come to understand that, the fewer people will die as we sort out this clash of cultures. Read Walid Phares.

All Empires murdered themselves!
So, America welcome to the same fate, as your own evil is eating you up right at home at the same time you stick your big nose into every corner of the world with your evermore inhumane and horeendous war machinery! Nothing learned from the British or so it seems! Whie the USA borders are really treated as if they did not exist so that the illegals can continue to come along with God only who? As a matter of fact 9/11 made in America by America for America, in the "shop" of complete and absolute lawlessness/anarchy with the commander in Chief the foreman. Yes, George Washington said this: "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". James Madison said this: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the msot to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of a few". Yes, for one thing, America is now fully declared in complete bankrupt condition, by the Office of Budget Manegement, if my information is correct at the tune of up to 60 trillion dollar, with the bill forwarder to God only knows who. Oh yes Mr Krauthammer is concerned over Iran. Yes, while Saddam was once a buddy to Rumsfeld and using him to get the Iranian regime out, becasue it got rid of the Sha, America's oil boy. Yes, should McCain become president, America get ready for WWIII or if not a shooting war, he will manufacture another cold war making the previous one look like peanuts. Yes, while most Americans want the USA get back home Mr. Emperor George W. has plans like are Emperors did of the past, right? Government by the people for the people what in the hell is that anymore, may I ask?

H. D. Schmidt
It's not Imperialism if we don't colonize their land, jackass.

A Question of Cause and Defect
Dear Mr. Krauthammer:

In your column today advocating confrontation with Iran, you write: "The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed."

Like too many other Bush Administrtion endeavors.

Why would any country fear or respect a world leader who was incompetent enough to involve his country in a five-year-and-counting-war wihout end. depleting his country's once-prodigious military and resources? And worse: exhausting the will of his people to engage in a life-or-death struggle with an apocalyptic enemy, such as you and your like-thinking colleagues are currently trumpeting.

Given the record of costly Bush Administration failures and the debacle that is Iraq, and with the stakes so high, why would any rational observer propose engaging any enemy, let alone one with nuclear capability, well aware of the defective leadership which has undermined our nation for the past seven years?

knight of BS says;
"Iran doesn't want a bomb
You neo-cons and christo-fascists are aware that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, right? And you're further aware that Israel isn't, right?"

How about a basis for you statement that Iran doesn't want a bomb? They have made statements to the contrary.

Iran's clear statements that Israel should be wiped off the map obviate the non-proliferation treaty. How about the violations of said treaty?

Israel has not had an aggressive stance in my lifetime (62 years); they have, however, taken a strong, very public, position on aggression by their neighbors. The Doomsday scenario is a valid defense posture.

You need to think about your anti-semitism.

to nmi
Since you seem to be so convinced of the incompetency of the administration, what, then, is YOUR plan to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran Iran?

Woody from Iowa

to all keyboard warriors.
Before we embark on yet another invasion or attack of a Muslim nation, perhaps we ought to get our own house in order.

Radically alter the Rules of Engagement.

I urge my fellow townhall.com readers to access the fine article today at townhall by Diana West, entitled, "Was Soldier Jailed to Appease Iraqis"?

One might argue Bush's idiotic "compassionate conservatism" has now extended to the waging of warfare, by placing restrictions upon our soldiers, or exposing them to prosecution, in an effort not to offend the sensibilities of our Muslim "hosts".

While Krauthammer is all too willing to place Americans in jeopardy, and to shed U.S. blood, to protect the people of an alien nation who possess more than sufficient means to protect themselves, if we are to ever embark on such a ill-advised course, at least have someone as Commander in Chief who has enough sense to demand rational rules of engagement where our soldiers need not fear prosecution for actions which at the time they felt were required.

on the subject of radical islam
Check out the latest entry at my blog:

http://fountainabbey.blogtownhall.com

It's sure to crack a few eggs!

One point to ponder
OK, it does appear that Iran will achieve the nuclear power status for which it has so long been striving. It also appears that the pacifists, both in the U.S. and in Europe have succeeded in defusing any thought of preemptive military action.

Just wondering aloud, has anyone bothered to check in with the Palestinians with regard to the "fall-out" from a nuclear strike on Israel? What about Jordan, Lebanon or even bordering Syria. Someone might want to pass along the non-exclusionary affects of a nuclear blast. Some in the region may be that apocalyptic but I suspect many, many more would think otherwise.

Iran
Israel doesn't need our help to destroy Iran,but our stating that they are an ally and we will not standby while they are under attack.Ask yourself this is Iran willing to risk its own credibility in the ME if they bomb Israel.How many Palastinians and Syrians die from those bombs.

diagree
If Iran nukes Israel we will have allowed it...we and the rest of the countries who lacked the resolve to hold Iran's feet to the fire. And make no mistake, Krauthammer, America will not bomb/nuke Iran in response to nuking Israel. You've got to know that! Imagine the "moral outrage" from the left about the wholesale slaughter of people who had nothing to do with the Mullahs' decision to nuke Israel. Just more verbal condemnation...and probably another round of pathetic sanctions.

No embargo? No serious sanctions? No naval blockade? No destruction of every oil well in Iran for this provokation? These would, I think, be more appropriate if we were serious about preventing Iran. Bush's presidency, if Iran goes nuclear, will be a historic failure--he will be quoted more than the appeasers pre-WWII. If we're not going to stop a country at open war with us, then what the hell has all this been about? But, then, maybe we're finding out that we don't have the military might and commitment to fight two small wars...maybe the American century is going to end a lot sooner than we thought.

It will also end non-proliferation on planet Earth.

Mr. Krauthammer
You are reaching into the past with wishful thinking.

The people who implemented the Cold War just came off a World War that killed millions in a cowardly fashion and through battle. The taste of that was fresh in everyone's minds. My friend, that was 63 long years ago and most of those great people have past on along in history.

We, unfortunately no longer have statesmen amongst our elected officials. We are stuck with lawyers and salesmen to handle our affairs, and a greedy media for their spokespersons, which speaks for itself, and the world knows it.

The ME is infested (always has been)with religious fanaticism which we have no defense for. We are in the process of removing ourselves from the principles "under GOD" which this once great nation was founded under, and the world knows that too. We are on a runaway train, our beautiful freedoms are being digested by a snake swallowing it's own tail.

I always enjoy your comments Sir, and regret that it can't be so.

"Everybody hates the Jews"
I borrowed a line from a Tom Leher song of the sixties for my subject.

Time after time, over centuries the Jews have been the scapegoat of many. The world community typically turns its back on the Jews and today Israel. Israel has learned that they cannot count on anyone, including the good old USA. As a nation, we too have turned our back on them. Their country is like an island sitting in an angry ocean. Israel's crime ? They exist. That is enough for the likes of their enemies.

There will be another war in the middle east. For those that believe that this is about oil, I have a suggestion. Drill in the USA. There are some who say that buying our oil from the middle east funds terrorism. If that is true then it is also true to say that every time you fill up you are providing money for Iran to develop "nukes'.

Complain about this administration all you want. We call that freedom of speech. While you're at it, give a realistic solution to the problems that we face, because after all your candidate is listening. If talking is all that is needed then try your hypotheses on your local drug dealer. See if your ideas work on a local level and then we cn try them internationally.

Tibby




Israel
has submarine nukes, which, in a rational world, would result in a MAD standoff. Sadly, the kooks in Iran believe it is their religious duty to use nukes to hasten the arrival of the end times. To the mullahs, Iran is only a place. It is to be sacrificed in order to advance the Islamic goal of the return of the 12th imam. According to Islamic "thought" a nuclear war would cause his return. And they would gladly trade their place for the return of the 12 imam. In a win win situation for them they could elliminate of Israel, and at the same time, prompt the return of the 12th imam. We need to take preemptive action to save civilization from the new islamic crusaders of the 21st century.

Neo-con nutcakes
Krauthammer and his boys are like broken records. Over and over we hear that it is somehow the reponsibility of the USA to die--if need be--for Israel. Well I don't buy that! I do not exist for Israel. No American citizen exists for Israel. We must give them everything while they give us nothing but headaches. Let themm find another protector.

For Woody re 11:53 post
You write: "Since you seem to be so convinced of the incompetency of the administration, what, then, is YOUR plan to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran?"

1. Even you have to admit that when a President takes his nation to war with the best trained, best-armed and most prodigious military in the world, declares victory after a few weeks, and then, after four years of warfare, has to resort to a "surge" to ward off the "consequences of defeat," that qualifies for world-class incompetence.

2. The fact that you would have to ask what MY plan is to avoid a cnfrontation with a nuclear-armed Iran speaks to administration incompetence in its failure to resolve the situation.

However, addressing your question, I would, unpleasant or not, do my best to convince other major powers that it's in the interest of ALL of us to reign in any rogue nations with nuclear capability. Once we start the popping, there's no stopping, and no survival. And certainly no winners.

It Would Not Work On Iran
If we posed them that verbal threat, it will be all Iran would need to follow through. It would almost be seen as an invitation, a dare.

They don't value their lives, only their deaths. They WANT to die for allah and rid the world of the infidels, Israel and the US.

They have tested the waters in so many ways, trying to feel out our limits and breaking points, and we have yet to retaliate. The point is, they WANT us to retaliate. We are being provoked, as well as our allies, into this.

I am not saying we should, heck no, it would be chaos. But Iran cannot be told a threat like that. You will be basically giving them a map of where you have drawn the line if they cross it. They want to cross it.

They want to use those nukes, they want to decimate Israel and in the process, get us in the crosshairs. The entire ME, except Israel, will all work against us.



MDog
If you would refer to a map of the Mid-East it may explain to you why an attack on Israel by Iran with conventional weapons would be logistically difficult. You will notice a considerable land mass seperating their borders, how do you propose moving your troops into position and how will you establish suplly lines?

Arab countries have allied with each other in the past with total populations and militaries outnumbering Israel and have lost. Sheer numbers don't always matter.

When you hear muslum mothers exclaim their pride over a son loosing his life as a suicide bomber, or using mentally unstable young girls as bombers, or bombing schools, busses, pizza parlors... yeah I get the idea muslums don't care about their childern or mine. And distrust of islum is not racist, islum is a theology not a race of people. Maybe you should stop looking for bigots under every rock and you'll have a better idea of what the real world looks like.

MassivelyloopyDoggg writes:
Where do you come up with nonsense like this? If Iran is so heck-bent on destruction, what's to stop them from attacking Israel with COVENTIONAL weapons - they have a MUCH larger military and population. This idea that Muslims don't care about their children is racist claptrap unproven with facts. If Iran is so crazy, why have they not marched into Iraq to confront American troops? Could it be that they would be wiped up in days? Why are they scared of provking America? Why have they NEVER attacked ISrael?

Two things stop them.

1) Geography: Syria and Jordan would not permit them to go over or through their territories.

2)The IDF: Israelis have never lost a war to the Arab/Muslim state, and I don't think they would lose again.

How do YOU know what the Iranian leadership, civil and religious think about anything?

Shells
"They don't value their lives, only their deaths. They WANT to die for allah and rid the world of the infidels, Israel and the US. "

When you say Iranians want to die for allah aren't you forgetting that many are not religious fanatics, Jews, and Christians, and Zoroastrians?

Taft writes
Shells
"They don't value their lives, only their deaths. They WANT to die for allah and rid the world of the infidels, Israel and the US. "

When you say Iranians want to die for allah aren't you forgetting that many are not religious fanatics, Jews, and Christians, and Zoroastrians?

From: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factboo k/geos/ir.html#People

Population:


65,397,521 (July 2007 est.)

Religions:
Muslim 98% (Shi'a 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%

Or a population of 1307950. Not a great many as you said Even if only 20% of the remaining population is fanatic, and willing to die for Allah that still over 13,000,000. That's 1,000,000 more than we had in the entire US Military in WWII.

Why Israel?
Why this special treatment for Israel? India is a bigger democracy, and they are threatened by Pakistan, why not do the same for them? As democracies go, India is a lot more important economically. What is it that Israel does for us to justify this special treatment? Let's see, they take our money, for one. They ignore us when we advise them to stop building settlements in the occupied territories. The shot up our ship "Liberty" and they steal secret documents from us. Their supporters call us anti-semites if anyone dare criticize them. We take a lot of grief for Israel, and for what? Is it their massive oil reserves? Their huge economic importance? For all their faults, the French at least helped us kick the Brits out and built us the Statue of Liberty. Plus they make pretty good wine and cheese. What is it that Israel does for us!? Gefilte fish??

India and France can take care of themselves and so can Israel. Neocons, like Krauthammer, assume that Israel's interests are the same as our own, when they most definitely are not. It's time for conservatives to quit listening to the neocons and instead put America first! We can't afford not to.

Boutte writes:
Let's not mention that another state in the ME, one rather dear to Charlie's heart, has over 200 fully armed nuclear warheads that are good to go, developed totally outside any international inspection or control.


Lets not mention that the other state in the ME has never pledged the destruction of any other state but only wishes to not have its civilians die in daily rocket attacks.

Let's just say for instance that rockets were pouring into your neighborhood and you lost your friends and family members, how would you respond? With a UN resolution? How about sending Jimmy Carter to barter with the terrorist? Oh I forgot it's the Jews fault isn't it.

Neo-cons!

Where in the hell in our constitution does it claim we need to protect Israel, who is a sovereign nation capable of protecting itself.....did we make them our 51st state?

We need a little more Jeffersonian...."entangling alliances with none" in our foreign policy.

The sabers are rattling, as neocons like Krauthammer are biting at the bit to take the horses to another war, stretching out our economy to the brink of collapse, and our military.

For the first time in my life, I am starting to look at other countries to move to, and to leave this nation of leftist statists, and neocon statists who want to argue in favor of perpetual war. I fear one day, my children will be drafted in defense of Israel....and before I allow that to happen, I will plan for leaving the McCainiac Warmongers, and the Obama Marxists to fight among themselves for control...all the willing complicit puppets who support them can stay behind.

Bobby
I am guessing that you have been a consistent supporter of the Iraq war. So to some degree I have to bow to your greater experience in being surprised when a foreign policy decision results in exactly the result that the people you disagree with claims, and exactly the opposite of what the people you support contended.

So how did you feel when you realized that Iraq had no active link with al qaeda, had no active nuclear program, and not even the limited WMD's that our intellignece suggested they did?

Maybe if I found out how you responded when it turned out that everything that the Krauthammer's of the world told you about Iraq turned out to be false, I would know how I am likely to feel in the unlikely event that something that Krauthammer tells me turns out to be true of the world.

jpatrickham
Charles Krauthammer, a man I admire deeply is, as usual right on. No matter how you play your cards the hand still comes up the same. Iran is
the most dangerous element since 1940, and the negotiations with the Japanese became futile.

We can pretend this problem does not exist or we can prepare for it. The real danger in my opinion with Iran is that China, Russia and maybe North Korea are on the side lines cheering them on. Of course not all situations are a like, but History is repeating itself.

The sooner we act like we know whats going on in the nastier side of the world the better prepared for Nuclear initialization we will be.

Krauthammer writes:
“The Holocaust Declaration:”

“It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

He also recognizes:

“The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that could be destroyed in a first strike.”

Firstly to the proposed “Shmolocaust” Declaration:

I can not for the life of me see the rationale for such an belligerent and frankly, insane, “declaration.” What is Israel to us, except a perennial welfare queen whose biggest accomplishment has been to make the rest of the world hate us?

As to his second point: “A small nation that could be destroyed in a first strike” should find it prudent to exercise some behavior modification, such as ending what UN calls belligerent occupation and generally curtailing it’s terrorist activities.

To nmi
regarding your response. Why is it that whenever I've pressed someone for their solution to a given problem with the Iraq war, (or in this case, the Iranian nulear beligerance to the world), they give a non-answer and go right back to finger pointing?

Even if you told me to challenge them to a game of beach volleyball, for God's sake, at least it's an answer!

Take my point for what it's worth. Charles has a perfectly logical point to his article. Finger-pointing to another issue has no relevance.

Woody from Iowa

Bombs Away ...
Actually, Ahmadinijad did say that he didn't care about the results of "fall-out" from nuclear strikes against Israel because there would be enough alive in the future to rule over the ME. So much for concern for his neighbors. But, did you all realize the deafening silence from the "neighborhood" when Israel took out the beginnings of a nuclear reactor in Syria - including Syria?

Of course, the ME rulers must posture about where they truly stand, but they are double-minded. They have a proverb that says (paraphrased from not being able to remember every word exactly) "what you whisper in the ear of the infidel is not what you yell in the market place." So, while the leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others spout hatred for Israel, still, they do not want to suffer the calamity of an all-out nuclear war. So, they stay relatively quiet and allow Israel, and perhaps the U.S. to fight their ugly war for them. All the while, you understand, lining their pockets with the proceeds of $110/barrell oil.


Karelian and Dr. North's Folly...
On 4/11/08 (1:19pm), Dr. North says "Over and over we hear that it is the reponsibility of the USA to die--if need be--for Israel. Well I don't buy that!" Similarly, Karelian writes on 4/11/08 (4pm): "What is Israel to us, except a perennial welfare queen whose biggest accomplishment has been to make the rest of the world hate us?"

If Americans embrace these short-sighted and narcissistic sentiments, we're doomed as a moral force for good in the world. As long as we remain a prdominantly Christian nation, believers should honor the Biblical admonition found in Genesis 12:3--"And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee." Muslims who bemoan Israel and the U.S. as the "Little Satan" and "Big Satan", respectively, understand this spiritual connection, to which isolationists are completely oblivious. We abandon Israel at our peril!

If you disagree with this Biblical interpretation, at consider the fact that America's historical mission statement has always embodied the vision portrayed in President Kennedy's Inaugural Address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Defending freedom and democracy at home and abroad is not a welfare subsidy. It's a precious commodity that's diminished whenever and wherever liberty is threatened.







Worth repeating...
On 4/11/08 (1:19pm), Dr. North says "Over and over we hear that it is the reponsibility of the USA to die--if need be--for Israel. Well I don't buy that!" Similarly, Karelian writes on 4/11/08 (4pm): "What is Israel to us, except a perennial welfare queen whose biggest accomplishment has been to make the rest of the world hate us?"

If Americans embrace these short-sighted and narcissistic sentiments, we're doomed as a moral force for good in the world. As long as we remain a prdominantly Christian nation, believers should honor the Biblical admonition found in Genesis 12:3--"And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee." Muslims who bemoan Israel and the U.S. as the "Little Satan" and "Big Satan", respectively, understand this spiritual connection, to which isolationists are completely oblivious. We abandon Israel at our peril!

If you disagree with this Biblical interpretation, at least consider the fact that America's historical mission statement has always embodied the vision portrayed in President Kennedy's Inaugural Address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Defending freedom and democracy at home and abroad is not a welfare subsidy. It's a precious commodity that's diminished whenever and wherever liberty is threatened.

Islamists won't understand the message
I agree with Dr Krauthammer that such a declaration should be made, but I disagree that it will have the same effect on the Islamic millenialists that it had on the Communists.

In the worldview of an Ahmedinejad, it doesn't matter that to launch a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would bring down a retaliation in kind. That is precisely the sort of thing he wants. To him, that is the signal for his idea of Armageddon to begin, and the 12th Iman can come out of his well or from under whatever rock he is currently under. I don't think those kind of fanatics appreciate the actual, physical effects of a nuclear strike. I think they think that Allah will stretch out his hand and protect them.

It still comes back to the point that we are going to have to kill as many of these fanatics as possible, until those more moderate Muslims no longer see a threat of death every time they speak, and can join us in purging the world of these killers.

Hillary delenda est.

response to compos_mentis
Yes, I do disagree with your Biblical interpretation. Vehemently!

And now you're quoting a self-avowed liberal like Kennedy! What on Earth has become of conservatism!

This whole neocon movement smacks of Woodrow Wilson! A bunch of high and mighty moral activists trying to make the world safe for democracy. Pie-in-the-sky dreamers starting things they can't finish (Iraq, for example, or the broader "War on Terrorism" -- BTW, How are we supposed to fight and win a war against a technique? That's what Terrorism is - a technique. Sounds like just another self-perpetuating government program to me). What's next? A war on Poverty? How about a war on unequality an maybe a battle against unfairness! What other abstract nouns can we fight? I can't believe I'm reading "conservative" comments!

Re Finger pointng
For Woody 4:22 post

You write: "Finger-pointing to another issue has no relevance."

What does have relevance is a Town Hall column, "The Blame Game," dated Sept. 13, 2005, written by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, in which Lowry writes:

"A vigorous blame game is the still the only way to keep government failures from being conveniently ignored."

I view that statement as applying to ALL failures by governmental officials. If you don't hold feet to the fire you get the same repeated incompetence from the Bush Administration we have seen prior to 9/11, in the phantom pursuit of mass murderer Osama bin Laden, post-Katrina and for the past five years in Iraq.

Our judicial system is based on finger-pointing and "blame game." Such as allegations by Cliff May stated in his Town Hall column of March 20, 2008, in which May wrote:

"One can say the invasion of Iraq was unwise: Before committing troops to battle, a president should have a realistic understanding of what can be achieved, in what time frame, and at what cost. One can say the occupation of Iraq was bungled."

May also wrote "The result of so many errors and misjudgments was catastrophic." With Iran, such catastrophe would be at least tenfold.

As long as two years ago Town Hall columnist and Conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr. called the Iraq War "Pres. Bush's failure."

If we're really looking for a meaningful solution to the Iran problem, I would suggest turning the reins over immediately to non-arrogant competents while holding Mr. Bush and his team accountable for past devastating failures and having them resign en masse. That's a start.

Fight the good fight!
On 4/11 at 5:14pm, Buck warns readers to be wary of "agendists" who exploit religion to sway national policy. His admonition that America retain its independence from inimical foreign powers and interests is fundamentally sound. George Washington, himself, advised the public, and future administrations, to avoid entangling alliances with other countries.

But George Washington, being a man of faith, was no doubt aware of Ephesians 6:12, and its allusion to both a physical and spiritual dimension to the warfare we face, as individuals and as a nation. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Buck is correct when acknowledging that "dueling religious philosophies" exist, but he errs when dismissing them as mere tools of political and military warfare. Individually and collectively, we must decide whether evil truly exists in the world, and what we must do to engage and defend against it.

Buck does nothing to insulate himself against the depredations of evil by denying that it exists. Luke 11:21 declares that "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." America must retain both spiritual and physical armor if it is to fight the good fight brewing on the horizon.

Taft
"When you say Iranians want to die for allah aren't you forgetting that many are not religious fanatics, Jews, and Christians, and Zoroastrians?"

Looks like Lumberjack nailed you on that one, thanks Lumberjack.

Tyeler2
"What is it that Israel does for us!? Gefilte fish??"

You really are a schmuck, aren't you? I'd explain it to you, but pointing out the bleedingly obvious to an anti-semite would fail.

At least you spelled Gelfilte right. Good job on the effort.

Shells
He did and he didn't. What proof do you have that anyone in Iran would sacrifice their whole country in a nuclear exchange? It really is preposterous for another reason, it would mean the Iranians would, in a first strike scenario, bomb Israel but take out millions of Palestinians along with them.

Tyeler2, hear me out...
On 4/11/08, Tyeler2 criticizes me as follows: "You're quoting a self-avowed liberal like Kennedy! What on Earth has become of conservatism!"

Read "Power, Faith and Fantasy" by Michael Oren to see how America has been intimitely involved in Mid East affairs since Jefferson sent the Marines to fight the Barbary pirates--long before Woodrow Wilson's vision of making the world safe for democracy.

Iraq was a noble, if costly mission, but remember that the last chapter hasn't been written on the role democracy may yet play in this vital region. The money we've spent so far on the war represents a small fraction of our GNP, amortized over a reasonable time horizon.

Islamic culture is very distinct from the cultural mileau of German and Japanese society. While those cultures were sufficiently robust to permit a U.S. political and military presence for the last 50 years, it may not be possible for Westerners to acheive the goal of creating a peaceful, democratic society in Iraq. Tyeler2 makes a good point that terrorism is a "technique" that is difficult to fight.


Happy Jews
"It is not a sight you would expect in a revolutionary Islamic state, but there are synagogues dotted all over Iran where Jews discreetly practise their religion.

"Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers.

He says the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm

Taft
Palestinians are considered the Red-Headed Step Child of the ME. Since when do extremists care who they take out, as long as they take out the infidels?

As a religion, as a country, and as in their politics, it is more worthy to die for allah and visit the 72 virgins.

Yes, there are core normal groups who wish for peace and for this to stop, they do not want to die, but they are not in control. They have no say in what happens.

What happens to those that speak out? Beheadings. Rapes. Torture. Not just yourself, but your entire family. The nice and timid ones are not in charge of the nukes.

Extremist groups are taking their control in regions. Add that to Ahminablob wanting the same as them, is a recipe for disaster. So, who gets their hands on the nukes? Who wants and needs 6000 more uranium Walmarts there? Does this just escape your mind?

If my neighbor who just got out of jail because he served a 10 year term for murder, all of a sudden but a ton of guns and butcher knives, I would be daft not to think twice about that.

Iran has pushed ours and the UK's buttons on numerous events, or don't you recall? Kidnapping, threatening to blow up our ships? We did nothing, but they waited and they watched to see if we would.

We are being tested and they are getting ready for when we draw that proverbial line so they can cross it.

Wake up. Please, wake up.

the Baron

The signs of the coming of the Twelfth Imam in Shiite tradition are as follows: Nothing about nuclear holcaust
'The Sign consists of the following traits: the people will neglect prayer, squander the divinity which is conferred on them, legalize untruths, practice usury, accept bribes, construct huge edifices, sell religion to win this lower world, employ idiots, consult with women, break family ties, obey passion and consider insignificant the letting of blood. Magnanimity will be considered as weakness and injustice as glory, princesses will be debauched and ministers will be oppressors, intellectuals will be traitors and the reader of the Koran vicious. False witness will be brought openly and immorality proclaimed in loud voices. A word of promise will be slander, sin and exaggeration. The sacred Books will be ornate, the mosques disguised, the minarets extended. Criminals will be praised, the lines of combat narrowed, hearts in disaccord and pacts broken. Women, greedy for the riches of this lower world, will involve themselves in the business of their husbands; the vicious voices of the man will be loud and will be listened to. The most ignoble of the people will become leaders, the debauched will be believed for fear of the Evil they will cause, the liar will be considered as truthful and the traitor as trustworthy. They will resort to singers and musical instruments...and women will horse ride, they will resemble men and the men will resemble women. The people will prefer the activities of this lower-world to those of the Higher-World and will cover with lambskin the hearts of wolves."

Taft
Your example is nice, but it's not the happy ending you believe that covers it all.

There are core groups who are nice people, that are willing to risk their necks to be decent to Jews, but the rest of them do not share those values and have been taught that Jews are pigs, inhuman, and must die. They are teaching their children this.

I forgot, you're an ObamaPod, everything is sunshine and rainbows. Forgive me for trying to discuss reality with you.

Yes, the ME loves us, they are harmless, they are decent loving people, and the Jews are their best friends. Problems? What problems? Those nukes are just there to hang their laundry on. They only want 6000 more because they like the glow of uranium. Yeah, what was I thinking?

And I can't trust a christian, pegwitch
"And your are trying to say that Muslims are good won't kill Christians because they are not Muslims?"

Nope. I'm not saying that at all, and I have to question your reading comprehension ability if you took that from what I wrote.

I just want the christians-in-office to be honest and admit that it's all about murdering muslims.

joe_bs
"How about a basis for you statement that Iran doesn't want a bomb? They have made statements to the contrary."

No, they have not. Why are you lying?


"Iran's clear statements that Israel should be wiped off the map obviate the non-proliferation treaty."

No, they do not Why are you lying?


"Israel has not had an aggressive stance in my lifetime "

Yes, they have. Why are you lying?

You need to think about your anti-semitism, joe. Remember: 75% of the world's jews are from European, and not semitic stock. Arabs, on the other hand, are semites.

But I know that because I'm not a puke-drooling moron like yourself. I'm not the one who believes the lunacy of "any disparaging comment about Israel is anti-semitic".

Moron.

Tyeler2, hear me out...

On 4/11 at 5:43pm, Tyeler2 criticizes me for “quoting a self-avowed liberal like Kennedy!” to justify America’s support for other democracies. “What on earth has become of conservatism?” he asks.

I suggest Tyeler2 and others read “Power, Faith and Fantasy” by Michael Oren. The U.S. has been intimately involved in Mid East affairs since Jefferson sent US Marines to fight the Barbary pirates—long before Woodrow Wilson’s vision of making the world safe for democracy.

Iraq has been a noble, if costly, effort. But remember that the last chapter has not been written on the role democracy may yet play in that country. The money we’ve spent on the war represents a very small fraction of our GNP, amortized against a reasonable time horizon. The cost of sacrifice is mounting, but the cost of geopolitical instability is incalculable.

Islamic society is very distinct from the cultural milieu of Germany and Japan, where the U.S. has maintained a military and political presence for the last 50 years. Muslim culture—which has never experienced a reformation like Christianity--may not be sufficiently robust to coexist with a secular government resembling Western-style democracies. Tyeler2 makes an astute point that terrorism is a “technique” which is difficult to fight, and I can only pray that, ultimately, his pessimism proves unwarranted.

Tyeler2, hear me out...

On 4/11 at 5:43pm, Tyeler2 criticizes me for “quoting a self-avowed liberal like Kennedy!” to justify America’s support for other democracies. “What on earth has become of conservatism?” he asks.

I suggest Tyeler2 and others read “Power, Faith and Fantasy” by Michael Oren. The U.S. has been intimately involved in Mid East affairs since Jefferson sent US Marines to fight the Barbary pirates—long before Woodrow Wilson’s vision of making the world safe for democracy.

Iraq has been a noble, if costly, effort. But remember that the last chapter has not been written on the role democracy may yet play in that country. The money we’ve spent on the war represents a very small fraction of our GNP, amortized against a reasonable time horizon. The cost of sacrifice is mounting, but the cost of geopolitical instability is incalculable.


Shells
Iran is not AQ and in fact helped us get them and they had big demonstrations after the 9/11 bombings. Iranians are not extremists and care who they take out.


"What happens to those that speak out? Beheadings. Rapes. Torture."

Please add source here.

"? Who wants and needs 6000 more uranium Walmarts there? Does this just escape your mind? "

If you mean do they need nuclear power, yes. If you'd pay attention to news, they have gas shortages and problems with refineries.

"Iran has pushed ours and the UK's buttons on numerous events, or don't you recall? Kidnapping, threatening to blow up our ships? We did nothing, but they waited and they watched to see if we would. "

Yes, and we pushed a few buttons to and propped up a very hated dictator who had evil secret police, SAVAK, who tortured people all the time. Recall too, we took, from our friends in Kurdistan their guests, Iranian diplomats. We also helped Saddam kill thousands of Iranians on the battle field. Talk about threatening, Cheyne sent a war fleet up to their backyard and Bush, after they helped us, called them the "Axis of Evil."




looking for a leader
Krauthammer can't be blamed, as a Jew; for his deep concern when Morons in Teheran brag about starting up another 6,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges; making a total of 9,000--for the purpose of making nuclear bombs. (We know Ahmadinejad denies such an intent; but he lies.)

That spells the end for Israel anyway you read it; and somebody has to react now.

Bush has to send the Iranians a clear choice, he already knows it.

One, tell them MAKE NO BOMBS. Two, Don't attack any another country. Then advise their public that we are training spy satellites on them with every intention of preparing a first strike against Iran --to be followed by leaflets in advance of that strike in order that the civilian population has its chance to evacuate targeted areas and the entire city of Teheran.

Our attack won't come by stealth, but only after we do what's feasible to save innocent lives; including those of all their clergymen and even Ahmadinejad himself. We don't wish to kill him or anyone else. But anybody who sticks around will die, that's already decided.

We should hope this language is plain enough and incites the Iranians to JUST DO IT-- revolt. It says to THEM, We have the weapons, we'll bring them; you'll come to terms. Otherwise we'll bomb you into pomade.

dreadnaught
Just to be clear, this is the scenario you believe will happen.

A. Israel doesn't do anything to stop Iran from having a nuke.

B. When they get the nuke, the blow Israel and the Palestinian to kingdom come.

C. The US retaliates and wipes out 90-100% of Iran, Muslims, Jews (the second largest number in the world) and Christians.

D. Iran is happy-they get the virgins

Shells
I knew someone would jump in and call me an anti-Semite for mentioning Gefilte fish. Thanks for helping make my point.

But seriously, what is the great benefit that Israel provides to the United States? I really can't think of anything -- especially now that the cold war is over. Please enlighten me. I don't get it. I know I only pointed out the bad stuff about Israel, and sure, to be fair, they are a functioning democracy (albeit a bit on the theocratic side), but that doesn't mean their interests and our interests coincide. Really, answer my question, why afford Israel special treatment and not India? India has nukes pointed at it right now -- probably from both China and Pakistan -- not to mention ongoing border disputes with both of those nations. My God, the world's Hindus are under threat of annihilation! Bush must pledge our unwavering support immediately!

As far as I'm concerned, Israel owes us big for what we've already done for them! Every American should be getting a lifetime supply of free bagels, lox, and cream-cheese delivered fresh to our doorstep each morning for all the spent money, spilled blood, and grief we've endured for their benefit.

Diplomacy
I read a pretty good article on the possibilities of diplomacy at Foregn Affairs 0n-line.
" Likewise, at present, the costs, uncertainties, and risks of waging an air campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear sites are too great to make it anything but a measure of last resort--the hopes of some in the Bush administration notwithstanding. Because Tehran has managed to conceal major nuclear facilities, it is unclear by how much even successful bombing could set back the country's nuclear development. Moreover, no matter how little damage it suffered, Iran would likely retaliate. It has the most capable terrorist network in the world, and the United States would have to stand ready for a full onslaught of attacks. Perhaps even more important, a U.S. military campaign would probably prompt Tehran to unleash a clandestine war on U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iranians are hardly omnipotent there, but they could make the situation far more miserable and deadly than it already is. Without better intelligence about Iran's nuclear program and better protection against an Iranian counterattack, the idea of a U.S. air campaign should be kept on the shelf as a last-ditch option."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301faessay84204/kenneth- pollack-ray-takeyh/taking-on-tehran.html

Putting the 12 Imam nonsense to bed


"This incorrect take is a variation of the idea of “hot-wiring the apocalypse,” first devised by Professor Reuven Paz. 8 It posits that there is a strain of Islamic eschatological thought which hopes to force Allah’s hand in sending the Mahdi, as it were, via sparking a major conflagration (nuclear, or otherwise) with the West (either the U.S. or Israel). This may be true of some of the Sunni jihadits with an apocalyptic bent, but there is very little evidence that such an idea is operative in the upper echelons of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The ayatollahs may be cut-throat, anti-Israeli and anti-American—but they are not stupid. They know full well that any nuclear attack on Israel of the U.S. would be met with a crushing retaliation. (Besides, what good would it do for the Mahdi to come and establish his global caliphate over smoking radioactive ruins?) Rather, the Iranian regime, through its spokesman Ahmadi-nezhad, is stoking the very real Mahdist yearnings in both the Shi`i AND Sunni world as a means for Tehran to grab the mantle of ecumenical Islamic leadership. And so far, it seems to be working."

Mr. Furnish, Ph.D (Islamic History), is Assistant Professor, History, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, GA

Iran
Israel will bomb Iran.

They aren't going to sit there and wait to get nuked.

I am wondering if that will trigger EZ 38/39. Those events are probably not far off. The attack is clearly not nuclear. It is not led by Iran (Persia), but Russia.

Israel will never be destroyed. They will continue to exist until the return of Christ and they will in the end recognize their Messiah.

Hey, these left
wing loonies consider Christians and America to be the biggest enemies of the world while defending and downplaying every barbaric regime in the world. No wonder Islamists, Communists, dictators and tyrants love them so much.

Anna
I've been asking what it is that Israel does for us? What makes them so special? And nobody answers my question. But I think you just did... it's not what they do for us, but how they fit into the warped religious views of Christian Zionists that's important. According to Dispensationalist theology, Israel must be supported because they think it says so in the Book of Revelations. It doesn't say squat about India, thus we don't give a crap about them, or Darfur, or whatever other cess pool happens to be melting down right now. Ah, the Dispensationalists, you gotta love 'em. As soon as the apocalypse gets started, they'll all be raptured and go straight to heaven, probably in their recliner's with their flatscreens still on. No need to die! That's why we've got to get the ball rolling on the next insane military intervention that has absolutely nothing to do with our national interests. Look, some of these guys are getting up there in age! Falwell had to take one for the team, but why should any other true Christians have to suffer the pain of death before salvation?

Anna just hates the jews
Why?

Because they don't recognize jesus as the savior.

So she'll FORCE them to!

Tyeler2
Israel is a friend and an important successful democratic society. They may have there radicals but so does everyone. They also make my favorite shoes, Naots.

Buck--A verbis ad verbera
Even the most ardent supporters of Israel would agree with your observation that "Israel is a foreign nation with an agenda of it's own,that does not necessarily coincide with United States National Interests." Spying takes place at all levels, military and industrial, and even between allies. That fact neither supports nor detracts from our arguments about liberal or conservative foreign policy prescriptions.

As to the particulars about Israeli spy efforts that aided or jeopardized US military or diplomatic efforts in the past, my guess is that you're not privy to this information, and cannot provide a definitive accounting. What's leaked to the press and available to layman such as ourselves cannot fully inform the debate on blog sites like this one. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have no real basis to agree or disagree with your interpretation of the events you describe.

You are free to reject the Biblical mandate where the Almighty affirms his blessings to those who bless Israel, and curses to those who curse her. But Americans--at least historically--have largely embraced this perspective, and they are certainly entitled to vote for a President who shares their affinity for the Jewish state.


Think-through
First, it is simply unacceptable that the world's greatest power allow a rinky-drink state to fetch nuclear weapons with which to threaten us. Second, Mr. Krauthammer has overestimated Iran's rationality. Self-preservation is not their goal, even if they did believe our threat. They do not even possess the minimal degree of rationality to be competent enough to steal nuclear technology like the Soviets. Further, a people that tolerate that kind of language in their leader is essentially on board with his philosophy, even if they claim otherwise. When it comes right down to it, they will back him up. And a single nuclear strike against Israel would be an unmitigated disaster for all of civilization.

The reason for an invasion of Iran (yes, it would have to be an invasion; an air strike would not suffice) is not pre-emption of nuclear weapons. The reasons are that Iran is the source of Islamic totalitarian doctrine and support (and thus directly or indirectly responsible for just about all terrorist attacks on earth, including 9/11), and it is killing American soldiers in Iraq. Either justification is all that is needed; but in order for such an effort to succeed, it must be made with full moral authority and not the kind of wishy-washiness that we are seeing in the Bush administration lately. We must stop pretending that the "Iranian people," as against their leaders, are our friends. No one is buying it, especially not the Iranians.

I call B.S.!
As if our politically correct nation, given our fear of offending Muslim and African Americans, would EVER even think about supporting Israel in this way! Damn fools -- we are more concerned about offending the Reverend Jeremiah Wrights and Jesse Jacksons than protecting our interests in the Middle East. Forget this plan. Leave it to Israel. They still no how to be successful on occasion and need not pander to insane, foolish, and ofen plain envious and evil minority groups. Not yet. We, on the other hand . . .

Feed your head...
Robert evidently isn't a willing citizen of these United States and therefore does not "get it" when Mr. Krauthammer summons up the non-imperialistic, selfless sacrifices we, as a nation, have made for the advancement of man's freedom here and abroad. Feed your head? Now THAT'S a throwaway bumper-sticker slogan that ranks up there with "War is not the answer" and "Give peace a chance." Robert needn't worry though. Plenty of REAL Americans will willingly put their lives on the line and many will pay the ultimate sacrifice, as we have since our earliest days, so he and his ilk can continue to denigrate this greatest nation on Earth. Just cringe behind the man with the gun, Robert, and try not to soil yourself when the shooting starts.

Taft
OK, point taken. They make Naots. I've never heard of them, but hey, whatever. My mind could be changed ya know. If the Israelis promise to bring me fresh bagels everyday, I could get behind nuking all their enemies. Just a few little extras can go a long way with me.

But have you ever had Chelo-Kabob at a Persian restaurant? Ohhhh, that's good. You'd have to bring me a lot of bagels to outdo that!

Isn't wobbie entertaining?


He makes a lot of people laugh... even people he doesn't know about. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha








Truelib
writes, "Obama's Response
When Israel is a glowing hole in the ground and Tehran is a glowing hole and the Straights of Hormuz are closed and oil is $1000 a barrel and unemployment in the US hits 25% what will President Obama do? "

I know, I know, me waving my hand furiously. Raise taxes?


Boomers carry 192 MIRVs.
Savage 99,

Boomers aren't as lightly armed as that. Add to them you have to figure that the Third Flight 688 boats (advanced Los Angeles Class fast attack subs) with their 12 VLS tubes can each fling a dozen warheads larger than the MIRV weapons on the boomers. A TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) used to carry the W-80 warhead with about 220 kilotons nominal yield which is either 10 Nagasakis or 20 Hiroshimas depending on which estimates of those blasts you want to believe.

The first blow struck in Operation Desert Freedom was a conventional warhead fired by a Los Angeles class fast attack sub.

-Ray

Forgot to mention
that the MIRV is an overgunned TACTICAL nuke with about a 55 kiloton yield. ONE can effectively erase a good sized metropolitan area. The "big" missiles are so effective because they "ring" the target city with a combined yield of about 550 kilotons. Much more practical and effective than the famous 20 megaton "city killers" of the early Cold War years.

-Ray

Wendy writes:
"And a single nuclear strike against Israel would be an unmitigated disaster for all of civilization."

Yeah, it would be bad, a terrible tragedy, but an unmitigated disaster for all of civilization??? Are you serious? That's like saying, "If the Earth opened up and swallowed San Marino, the consequences would be devastating for the world!", or, "If a giant wave washed away all of Monaco, mankind would surely never recover!!", or "If an avalanche buried Andorra beneath a blanket of frozen snow and ice, life on Earth would be forever devastated!"

Israel is a postage stamp! There's nothing of value there but a bunch of old ruins that the worlds religious fruitcakes will fight over to the end of time. Ok, that, and as Taft pointed out, some Naots. It'd be a load off the world's collective shoulders if a giant volcano sprung up there and destroyed the place, washing away forever, beneath a river of molten lava, the whole shebang: the wailing wall, the dome of the rock, and the church of the holly sepulcher all if one fell swoop!

heresyarch
Goodbye!! Don't let the door hit ya' in the rump!

Actually, NO, he's NOT entertaining
Anne writes: Friday, April, 11, 2008 10:16 PM
Isn't wobbie entertaining?


He makes a lot of people laugh... even people he doesn't know about. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


But he does make people laugh, at how patheticly ignorant he is.

Wobbie is like Barak Obama, and so many others that can sit in a pew and listen, week after week, month after month, year after year, listening to a fanatic like Jeremiah Wright talk about hating America and "whitey" and say he never heard it.
OR, you could say he one of the type of person who could be standing someplace talking to someone like Bill and/or Hillary Clinton and watch them take out a gun and shoot someone down in cold blood, then when asked say he didn't see them do it.

OR, in regards to his 10:36 PM post, he could be standing in the middle of an Iranian nuclear command post after watching them launch one of the nuclear armed missles he says they don't have and as it explodes over, oh, say Jerusalem (as an example) he'd still say, "they don't have nuclear warheads or missles to launch them, so what the frack is the hurry?"

In other words, he's a FRACKING(to use his words) MORON who by choice has NO contact with the real world since it doesn't fit his dream world of willful ignorance and stupidity.

jerabaub
No, I'm not wrong.

You understand nothing of accountability and responsibility when you do not understand that a power such as the United States undergoes the grueling process of war to support those who wish freedom, democracy and pursuit of one's personal happiness and civil liberties - the very foundations our nation is built.

When you are the more capable nation that can support other nations in finding their voice, it represents enormous courage and fortitude to stand up to other world wide bullies who seek to destroy individual civil liberties of others.

ALL PEOPLE ought live in freedom.

You are responsible for what you do and for what you don't do.

How many times would a woman fall into the street after having been beaten by her husband before you stepped in and said "enough".

Apparently, you reveal that you would just stay in your house, watch, but ignore action.

scooternyc
There is a difference in thinking all people ought to live in freedom, and shedding the blood of American troops to accomplish that "noble" goal.

I daresay a majority of African nations have regimes who deprive their peoples of freedom.

Are we to send in the marines, get Americans killed, so they can enjoy the blessings of liberty.

I sam not so sanguine about bleeding our nation dry so others can have their freedoms. Let them fight for it.

Encourage the development of freedom, yes. Military intervention simply to bestow freedom, no.


Israel has nukes, Wendy
A *LOT* of nukes.

Where do you think some of that "missing" weapons-grade material from the US has ended up, hmmmm?

Israel.

Iran would be foolish to try something.

jerabaub
So, there you have it - freedom for others as long as you don't have to get involved.

Sidestep accountability, responsibility and the very foundations that you get to live by.

Nothing could be more ANTI-AMERICAN.

I stand by my original statement of your hate toward America. Your further writing only reveals as much.

And aren't you glad that France and Spain didn't have such thoughts during the birth of our nation, you might not have the opportunity to write down your hate so freely and without consequence.



Priority
"I daresay a majority of African nations have regimes who deprive their peoples of freedom."

Yes, perhaps they are next on the list.

Imagine, if you will, that if every nation that endorsed noble goals as that of our own foundations, banded together and one by one we challenged nations to end their slavery, torture, murder, rapes, starvation, et.al. of their people and allow them to live free lives, how quickly it could be accomplished.

It is self-interest that keeps it going.

How quickly do you think other nations, once observing the strength and courage of America and other powerful nations taking up this challenge, would not surrender to the challenge and allow their people freedom.

It didn't take 5 years to reach this point in history; it wont' take 5 years to get past it - but to do nothing is cowardice, irresponsible and lacks patriotism toward the nation that gave it to you.

scooternyc
Perhaps Americans ought to demand that their sons and daughters join the army, fight and die, so that all peoples who live under tyranny in this world can enjoy the blessings of freedom.

I think you ought to tell your neighbor that the sacrifice of their sons and daughters lives, to free the oppressed peoples of Tibet or the Sudan, is a fine example of what good American patriot should do.

I am sure your visit to his home will be of a most brief duration.

jerabaub
Again, you want to invoke some emotional distraction to elicit some emotional reaction.

No son or daughter can FREELY JOIN the military until they are an age of consent - freely and willingly they take up the cause.

Any noble American who would step up to take on such a quest is not ignorant of the risks and consequences.

Families that don't understand or want to scapegoat their President because they didn't like a decision made, ultimately, freely, by their child, are families who seek to be victimized and looking to be abused.

No self-respecting family who supports the brave men & women of this nation who give their lives for the ultimate nobility of freedom, civil liberties and life, would ever have issue with such an example of their loved one giving in service.

Victims. America haters. Human haters. People like yourself, are the ones who don't understand our nation's foundations, therefore, cannot understand the reason and desire to fight for such.

It's interesting that you don't address the statements or comments that compel answers, you just flit off to new directions when the situation doesn't support you.

I hope so many on the blog are observing who you truly are and not influenced by your ANTI-AMERICAN hate speech.

Military
BTW - Any American that would join the military and not be forced by draft speaks volumes to how incredibly noble such an individual is from within that she or he would seek such goals.

There's a huge difference in being drafted and crying that you don't want to go and being of such character from within that you would cradle our nation's foundations in your arms by taking up arms to defend it.

You could take a lesson from such honorable, outstanding, courageous and fortitudinous individuals.

Answer this, Mr. Krauthammer.
If Israel was destroyed, what would be the strategic implications for the United States?

gerster
The more interesting question is, "gerster, if Israel was destroyed, what would your strategic implications be for America?"

scooternyc
No, the greater question is the arrogance and presumptuousness of you to view as "patriotic" the sacrifice of America's sons and daughters in far-away campaigns where the interests and security of our Beloved Republic are not at issue.

Granted each American has the right to decide if his son or daughter should participate and be sacrificed in a campaign in another land to promote freedom for another people, but for you to couch their sacrifice as "patriotism" to the United States, is bizarre.

In some convoluted, distorted and half-baked sense, it may be a noble sacrifice to humanity, but that is not patriotism to the United States.

I think you would make an excellent United Nations bureaucrat.

This will be my last post. Have a nice day.

I am needed back on the planet Earth. Bye

jerabaub
Again, you are not patriotic and clearly Anti-American as you don't assimilate the foundations of our nation and you want to run in cowardly fashion from your responsibility when it comes to bringing this liberty, freedom and choice to others.

Again, aren't you glad that France and Spain didn't feel the same about your ancestors.

We get it, you hate America and hate Americans.

You feign patriotism but it doesn't live within in you. How unfortunate for you.

Tylerer & TaftPod
If you have no clue what benefits Israel has not just brought to the US but to the entire world, then you certainly know nothing about Israel. The technology and the medical advancements alone are reason for us to throw free burders, french fries and pizza at them for life, rather than the bagel and lox Tylerer believes they owe us.

Can you ever put yourself in anyone's shoes other than your own. Imagine, you are a hated people living on a match box surrounded by 50 football fields of radicals that despise you and wish to destroy you.

What can you possibly drop doing to cover your own arse and instead cover someone else's?! Have you thought that by taking action against one of our enemies at this very moment would incite total jihad against them with no turning back? Israel's enemies are the same as our enemies, but they are not aggressive---they are extremely defensive and will retaliate if attacked.

They can easily destroy every single arab nation around them, with a flick of the wrist, and they don't. They don't. Why? Because they want PEACE you idiot. They are not warmongers, murders or killers. They want to survive, exist and live in PEACE.

Bush had s told them repeatedly not to defend themselves as they should, they have played ball with the US while every bit of strong hold they give away because WE tell them to. We are in essence screwing them while giving them money. It's ridiculous.

So what has Israel done besides technological advancements and medical advancements? They do what we tell them to do when they should just ignore us and take care of those murderous fools they are surrounded by.


Shells
I admire your post and would add that I would have suggested to Israel to thrust upon those who would attack its nation, anything it deems necessary to defend itself.

We should never leave the responsibility to others who are capable of defending themselves, who have created for themselves such ability.

It's the inconsistent NOT addressing of such behavior that becomes the problem as it continues to teach Iran and other insane nations that they can behave this way without consequence or very little consequence.

Iranian Oil Purchased By Israel
If Mr. Krauthammer sees Iran as such a terrible threat to his beloved Israel, then why isn't he upset by the fact that Israel buys Iranian oil circuitously through Europe even though Israel has an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian?

And then Israel is upset because Switzerland signed an agreement with Iran for natural gas over the next 25 years.

I guess it's "Do as we say not as we do," when it comes to taking orders from Israel.






The better course
The better course is to wait until Iran detonates a nuclear device on American soil, killing millions, devastating the American economy, and causing trillions of dollars in other damages. Maybe then the kooks who hide their heads in the sand will come out long enough to take a peek at what their timidity has wrought. Then again, they will probably just believe that the chickens have come home to roost...

Christian Zionism
Tyler2's response to Anna is right on target.

For more information on Christian Zionism, I recommend Stephen Sizer's book, "Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon?" It gives the history of how Dispensational Premillenialism has affected U.S. and British foreign policy going back to the 19th Century. We are reaping the whirlwind of those long ago decisions today, and we continue to be led down the path to destruction (Armageddon?) by the same mindset today.

Shells
First, thanks for your response. No need to get testy though, calling people idiots and anti-Semites. I never said they were war mongers. I never said they didn't want peace.

You write:

"We are in essence screwing them while giving them money. It's ridiculous." ...

"They can easily destroy every single arab nation around them, with a flick of the wrist, and they don't." ...

"They do what we tell them to do when they should just ignore us and take care of those murderous fools they are surrounded by."

Shells, I couldn't agree with you more. You also say they do just great making medical devices and other technology. Great! Then they should shove the money we give them back in our faces and say "Screw you!" As you point out, Israel is all grown up, both economically and militarily. They don't need to be under our nuclear umbrella. They don't need to abide by what we tell them to do. Time to cut the strings. No need for a special relationship. What is it buying us? They'd sell us medical crap and Naots regardless! It'd be the best thing for both our nations to end the "special relationship" instead of expanding it like Krauthammer is proposing. Let the Norwegians arbitrate peace talks between them and their neighbors. I for one am sick of it! Then we could tell the Saudis "What's that got to do with the price of oil?" as the mushroom clouds rise over Damascus and Tehran. "We don't have any influence with those crazy bastards."

Thanks for helping me make my point.




Shells
Sorry about the snide bit at the end my argument above, from "Then we could tell the Saudis..." on down.

Let me try again: It sounds like you thinks that the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel is screwing the Israelis, and I think it's screwing the U.S.. Maybe we can agree that we should terminate it rather than expand it.

Always Wrong
Krauthammer has been wrong on virtually everything: Iraqi WMD, Iraqi connection to 9/11; Iraqi purchase of Niger yellowcake, etc.

He is also sloppy and wrong in this article. Iran has every right to enrich uranium, since it is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT). Israel, by the way, is not. Israel also possesses many nuclear weapons already (the world's worst-kept secret).

Iran, as an NPT signatory, allows intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has found ZERO evidence of any nuclear weapons program whatsoever.

Enrichment of uranium to weapons grade requires a lot more than six thousand centrifuges. Weapons grade uranium has to be purified to approximately 90 percent U-235; power-grade uranium need only be 2 to 3 percent U-235. Any attempt to set up a weapons-grade enrichment system would be easily detected by IAEA inspections.

The only way in which Iran is a "threat" is that it stands for its own sovereignty, rather than meekly becoming part of the US/Israeli hegemony. Krauthammer and the Neocons have never forgiven Iran for dumping their favorite satrap, the Shah.

Every word Krauthammer says about the Middle East is a lie, including "a" and "the."

Israel Will Have to Do It
In November we will elect one of three candidates to be our next president, and that person will have the power to make a preemptive strike on Iran. One is patently dishonest and is more concerned with protecting Colombian trade unionists than in representing American interests. The second is not trustworthy in any respect to protect American interests—it is not even clear that he is on our side.
The third, Sen. John McCain, goes about happily imitating liberals. He opposes waterboarding, even to save our country from extinction. He buys into the Global Warming fallacy. He is OK with porous borders. At this vital time in our history, we don't need McCain—we need Curtis LeMay, George Patton or Douglas MacArthur. How does Charles Krauthammer, in his wisdom, explain why there are no such men to lead us now?

can someone explain...
... exactly how Israel is of strategic interest of the US?

We have been expending tons of political and financial capital on Israel over the past 50+ years. I have never heard a credible argument as to why the wellbeing of Israel is interest to the US.

apollospeaks makes a good point...
How come the Moslem Arabs aren't fearful of being nuked by Israel when Israel ostensibly has nukes now? Could it be that they know that Israelis are civilized human beings that are constrained from murder by their religion?

Next question: Why does everyone know that Moslems Arabs WILL use nukes if they can?

Answer to Steve
I don't agree with your premises. Not everyone knows that Muslim Arabs will use nukes IF they can. I think we've fallen for enough faulty information with disastrous results.

I'm inclined to agree with the slogan, "If you want peace, work for justice." The Palestinians got a raw deal, and they've been living as refugees in extreme poverty ever since they were kicked off their land 60 years ago. I wonder how many Americans would like it if the world ganged up on us and kicked us off of our properties to give our land back to the American Indians.

MN Mary
Don't be an ostrich, Mary. The vast majority do believe that the Arabs WOULD use a nuke. Their annihilistic religion makes them more dangerous than the communists or the Nazis.

Your assertion that the Palestinians got a "raw deal" is also highly debatable. Have you studied the history of the region? There was/is no nation of Palestine. It was occupied by nomadic Arabs and Jews. The Palestinians had no distinct culture (apart from the Arab culture of all of Arabia) and the Jews were also there in great numbers prior to 1948. There was only Arabia with many distinct shiekdoms. If Palestine had been a country as is the USA, then your point would be valid, but alas, it was/is not.

Nevertheless, that is water under the bridge. The nation of Israel does exist and the nomadic Palestinian people are turned away from their Arab 'brothers' countries still today. Perhaps we should ask why fellow Arabs mostly shun the Palestinians?

What have you done for me lately!
Haven't we shead enough blood for Israel
in Irag already without allowing Israel to
drag us into a war with Iran. And enough
of this crap about Israel being the only
'democracy' and our friend in the region.
Ask any Arab living in Israel what kind of
democracy they're living in, more like hell
I'm sure. With friends like Israel, who needs
enemies. Israel is the only nuclear power in the region and has the most up to date and powerful
military, I say let's have Israel take care
of themselves for a change. This brain-washing
with a pressure hose about us having to take
on the responsiblity for the rest of the world
from establishing democracies to providing
security while many of these same nations are
leaving us in their economic dust is for the birds.

dunord
Excellent points, Dunord. I agree that Israel has exercised incredible patience in the face of naked aggression but it will not risk nuclear annihilation. A preemptive strike will very likely happen within a year. The USA will likely act in a supporting role on behalf of Israel.

Hamas and Hezbollah will launch their rockets at civilians and Iran will probably let loose a few long range missiles. No doubt the Arab world will rattle sabers but I don't think anyone but Iran and Syria will actively participate.

The Sunni world will be pleased that the Shiite hegemonic warmongers will finally get checked although the Sunnis will make the same old blustery comments against Israel just to placate the radical elements in their midst.

I'm curious to see how Russia and China will react. Will they supply munitions and logistical support to the Iranians and Syrians?

Paolo
Yes, Iran has every right to enrich uranium, since it is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT), but you failed to mention their clear verbal threats against Israel and their refusal to allow Russia to enrich the uranium. Aren't you just a little worried?

Your assertion that Iran is allowing the IAEA to make inspections and has found zero evidence is blatantly false. Why did you lie?

Your statement that 6000 centrifuges are not enough to worry about and that the IAEA would be able to detect weaponization is also patently false. What are you up to?

Then you accuse the USA and Israel of sabotaging Iran to maintain hegemonic power because the Ayotollah deposed the Shah. Are you nuts or just another enemy sympathizer or worse yet a shill for the enemy? The Shah was pro western during the Cold War. Would you have preferred a communist government instead? The Shah was a creep but he was less creepy than the alternatives at the time.

Wendy
Perhaps a well-targeted air-strike would suffice. We may not be able to be sure that we nailed all of the nuke stuff, but we can nail their few refineries. Iran would come to a standstill within a month with no gas if we blockaded it after wiping out its few refineries.

Heck, we could even warn them we're coming to minimize civilian casualties. We like the Iranian people and don't wish to harm even one. We just want to put the squeeze on the government creeps to back down. We would announce that if the Iranian people want to take their government back from the crazies then we would help them out.

NEOCON PROCLIVITIES EMERGING !!??
Here we go again except this time NEOCON Krauthammer wants it on paper that the United States will consider and attack on the Jewish State as an attack upon the United States. Perhaps Israel should have thought about that when they torpedoed and destroyed the American Naval vessel...the USS LIBERTY in 1967 killing over thirty of her crewmen. What a great way they repay their friends.

I would say that since Israel already has a Nuclear weapon and the Arab states have not gotten hysterical over it that things will be more balanced in the middle east with an Iranian Nuclear weapon...now, all Israel needs is for the United States to include them in a "Star War" shield for Europe.

Finally, I know Krauthammer reminisces about the glorious Kennedy days...its too bad he couldnt have gone a little further back in time and explained the consequences of two American Jews.. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg leaking the secrets of the Atomic Bomb to the Communists...he could have explained to them that one day they just might make it possible to exterminate most of their own kind...and it would be their fault...not Irans...or better yet...the fault of Albert Einstein....??

Buck ex cathedra
On April 11, 2:43pm, Buck writes: "U.S. National Interests Trump Israel's ! It's not in United States' National Interests to allow Israel Agendists,such as Charles Krauthammer,to dictate U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iran.. We,The United States, will deal with Iran according to Our National Interests and not Israel's."

Bloggers like Buck employ deceptive reasoning to suggest that Jewish spies--code amed "agendists"--are conspiring to reshape and exploit American foreign policy to benefit Israeli interests. Fascists, nationalists and political extremists typically manufacture threats to their country's sovereignty as a cover for their bigotry and prejudice. Buck should seriously examine his mind and heart, and repent of his bitterness toward the Jewish people.

Jeremiah 31:37 declares, "Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD." The Almighty shall not rescind his promise to regather the Jews (per Ezekiel's fig tree's analogy), and to safeguard them against all threats to deracinate from the land.

Notice the caveat "for all they have done." Despite Israel's misdeeds, God will not turn his back on the Jews. Neither should we, despite any real or imagined "spies" to which Buck alludes.

Correction to prior comment...
On April 11, 2:43pm, Buck writes: "U.S. National Interests Trump Israel's ! It's not in United States' National Interests to allow Israel Agendists,such as Charles Krauthammer,to dictate U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iran.. We,The United States, will deal with Iran according to Our National Interests and not Israel's."

Bloggers like Buck employ deceptive reasoning to suggest that Jewish spies--code named "agendists"--are conspiring to reshape and exploit American foreign policy to benefit Israeli interests. Fascists, nationalists and political extremists typically manufacture threats to their country's sovereignty as a cover for their bigotry and prejudice. Buck should seriously examine his mind and heart, and repent of his bitterness toward the Jewish people.

Jeremiah 31:37 declares, "Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD." The Almighty shall not rescind his promise to regather the Jews (per Ezekiel's fig tree analogy), and to safeguard them against all threats to deracinate them from the land.

Notice the caveat "for all they have done." Despite Israel's misdeeds, God will not turn his back on the Jews. Neither should we, despite any real or imagined "spies" to which Buck alludes.

Another bone for Buck
Buck and his philosophical comrades argue that the US should deal with Iran according to our national interests, not Israel's. All Americans should embrace this proposition, regardless of our differences with respect to US policy toward Iran. Buck errs when he implies that our national interests are subservient to the machinations of a foreign power if those interests happen to coincide.

When Buck says "It's not in the US interest to let Israel agendists dictate our foreign policy", he employs a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. It's a common debator's trick to mix truth with error, thereby making an opponent appear to support ridiculous or contradictory conclusions.

If the interests of both the US and Israel justify strikes on Iranian nuke facilities, that doesn't imply US endorsement of Israeli policy in toto. That's like you grouding your 14 year-old-daughter again, and she mouths off by saying that, at the rate you're going, she'll be grouded 'till she's 30!

Buck is proud of his Catholic school training. Perhaps he should dust off his old Logic textbook.


Iran and USA
Krauthammer has a good point here in the concept of protecting our allies, especially Israel. But I think after what Pres. Bush has had to endure politically over Iraq, I really do not think we stand a chance at having backbone enough to confront Iran over their threats to Israel. Iran is the major cause of unrest and instability throughout the Middle East, and the USA has done (almost) nothing about it. This is a real shame, especially since we have the greatest military in the world (thanks ladies and gents in uniform). But Iran works through its proxies anyway, Qods-led Special Groups in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So when Iran's proxy Hezbollah picked a fight with Israel a couple summers ago, you would think the USA would take the chance not only to help Israel annihilate this terrorist threat forever, but also not miss the chance to send a strong message to Iran and Syria that they have been put 'on notice'. Instead, we asked Israel for a ceasefire, and they delivered one to the world, and Hamas and Hezbollah continue to gain strength. I think we forgot that the terrorist organization responsible for killing the second largest amount of Americans is Hezbollah (remember the Beirut Marine Barracks?). So wasn't it in our best interest to fight alongside Israel against Hezbollah? Well, we didn't. Anyway, this lack of backbone (regarding standing up to Iran and their proxies) started with Carter during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and has continued all through the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations. And I certainly don't see any of the Presidential hopefuls having any greater backbone regarding Iran than the past administrations. Is it any wonder that Iran continues to view the USA as a paper tiger, even though we are in their backyard?



Steve
What we are really trying to destroy is not people per se or infrastructure, but the Islamic Totalitarian movement. We must destroy the notion that Sharia can be imposed on the rest of the world by force. Everyone involved in that movement who cannot be killed should be completely demoralized, with no hope that their agenda can succeed in the world. As long as they believe they can succeed, they will become increasingly aggressive. There is no evidence that demoralization can be accomplished by airstrikes alone. Middle East players have a habit of scurrying for cover and then coming out and brazenly declaring victory when the bombing stops.

VoiceofReason, I agree that the lack of backbone in our body politic today is a serious problem. What can we do? I only know to keep advocating what I know to be right. It is outrageous to me that U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq because of Iran's actions, and people in essence say, "Well, that's life."

Wendy
We agree more than disagree. However, I think we should remember that polls show that the Iranian people generally do not approve of their government's actions. If we invade them then they will hate us because there will be widespread destruction and civilian casualites. Let's help them to freedom; not make them our enemies. That's why I like the airstrike idea best. We can put the pinch on them while trying to keep Iranian popular opinion on our side. There are ways to topple regimes without massive military intervention.

The cultural changes you advocate are best accomplished by showing them the benefits of religious freedom and free speech - not pounding them into submission. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan would help a lot by providing a beacon of hope to oppressed women in the Moslem world. Look at Turkey as a good example too.

Question for all...
Krauthammer wrote, "This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert." I agree, but he didn't address the logical reaction of other countries in the region to Iran's nuclear emergence. Isn't Iran the catalyst to an arms race in the Middle East? If left unchecked, I predict that Iran's neighbors will develop WMD out of self-preservation. Perhaps you will recall that Libya recently agreed to give up its nuke program when we invaded Iraq. We found out that Libya was much much further along developing WMD than we knew! I wonder which other countries are starting up WMD programs to protect themselves from Iran's hegemonic ambitions?

VoiceofReason
I think u are correct that Iran sees us as a 'paper tiger.' The question is why do they perceive that about us?

Could it be the rhetoric of the Democratic Party in the USA and their accomplices in the MSM which has pushed public opinion in the USA and globally against the war?

Iran is killing US military with impunity as well as undermining Iraq's progress in every way imaginable and yet we do little about it. Why? Gen. Petreaus tells congress and Pres. Bush that Iran is doing and all we do is.... Useless sanctions.

Almost all of the Democratic Party is so invested in winning the presidential election that they are willing to sell out our troops in Iraq to be murdered by Iran. The Dems want bad news out of Iraq. They want the death toll to rise and they want the Iraqi people to fail until after they take office. Their behavior is reprehensible and reveals that they care little for this country and only for their own personal wealth and power. Strong words, I know.

Krauthammer's dismay
I must note the dismay in Krauthammer's writing about how there will seemingly be no military strike on Iran. He must be so upset that we can't send our marines for their 4th and 5th tours to the middle east. Boo hoo.

No wonder the GOP is so mixed up. Is anyone else sick of Krauthammer's gruff lugubriousness?

More from the Scriptures
Romans 11:23

"And IF the Jews abandon their unbelief, they will be put back in the place where they were; for God is able to do that."

As far as I know, the people of Israel have not abandoned their unbelief. Therefore, the U.S. is premature in giving them unconditional support. I think we had better wait until they have abandoned their unbelief lest we suffer from the Old Covenant curses too, by stumbling badly over Israel.

MN Mary
I usually leave religious post alone but I'll bite on this one.

Have you considered the Abrahamic promises from God? God promised to bless those that bless Abraham (and his descendants, Isaac and Jacob too) and curse those that curse them. That promise was never rescinded. Since Jews are the heirs of those promises, don't you think that those that believe in the Old Testament covenants should back the Jews for purely reasons of faith?

The Promise
Steve,

I will respond to you with another portion of the New Testament--Galatians 3:16.

"Now, God made his promise to Abraham and to his descendant. The scripture does not use the plural "descendants," meaning many people, but the singular "descendant," meaning one person only, namely Christ."

Today, Abraham's heirs to the promise are those who believe in Jesus Christ(Gal. 3:7). A certain portion of the Jewish people will be grafted back onto the branch when they convert to Jesus Christ before the end of the world. The call is there waiting to be accepted.

Show me in the New Testament where Christ or any writer urges the Jews to fight for the promised land in Palestine. I've made the wager to give $1000.00 to anyone who can show me this in the NT and so far no one has come up with a verse.

I am opposed to our nation's foreign policy in the Middle East being driven by those who have a faulty, narrow interpretation of Old Testament prophecies which they claim to be yet unfulfilled before Christ can come again.

The Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant, and the new promised land is eternity with the Lord in Heaven.




More on the Promise
Galatians 3:29

"If you belong to Christ, then you are the descendants of Abraham and will receive what God has promised."




Israel a cruel hoax?
As a proponent of mainline Protestant escatology, MN Mary's believes that Jews who rejected Christ were deracinated from the Abrahamic covenenent, and that New Testament Christians inherited their promises. For generations, Catholics and Protestants alike embraced this interpretation of the "olive tree" parable found in Romans.

In Romans 9:6, the writer further declares, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." In Mary's view, this scripture implies that Christian believers and converts embody the "new" Israel, which no longer comprise an ethnic community of Jews following Christ's proclamation the new covenent. Modern day critics of Mary's interpretation derisively label this teaching "replacement theology."

If Christian orthodoxy is correct in promulgating replacement theology, then one is forced to accept the emergence of the State of Israel as a cruel and bitter hoax. The ingathering of the Jews to their ancestral homeland--in fulfillment of Ezekial's "dry bones" prophesy--should inspire Christian traditionalists to rethink their escatology (the study of end-time events).

According to Luke 21:24, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." If Protestant mainliners and theri doctrine of replacement theology are wrong, then beleivers must consider the implications surrounding the city of Jerusalem and our dear Jewish friends.

Replacement theology has been under attack since the mid-1800's, and for good reason. The Almighty will not abandon the chosen people, as Jeremiah 31:37 proclaims that “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”




Correction to comment for MN Mary
As a proponent of mainline Protestant escatology, MN Mary believes that Jews who rejected Christ were deracinated from the Abrahamic covenenent, and that New Testament Christians inherited their promises. Generations of Catholics and Protestants alike embraced this interpretation of the "olive tree" parable in Romans.

In Romans 9:6, the writer further declares, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." In Mary's view, this scripture implies that Christian believers and converts embody the "new" Israel following Christ's proclamaton of His new covenent. (Presumably, we can now safely dismiss the Jews of "old" Israel as an historical footnote.) Modern day critics of Mary's interpretation derisively label this teaching "replacement theology."

If replacement theology, then one is forced to accept the emergence of the State of Israel as mere coincidence or a cruel hoax. The ingathering of the Jews to their ancestral homeland--in fulfillment of Ezekial's "dry bones" prophesy--should inspire Christian traditionalists to rethink their escatology (the study of end-time events).

According to Luke 21:24, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." If replacement thologians are wrong, then beleivers must consider the implications of the actual city of Jerusalem and our dear Jewish friends.

Replacement theology has been under attack since the mid-1800's, and for good reason. The Almighty will not abandon the chosen people, as Jeremiah 31:37 proclaims that “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”

Distortion and lies
Compos_mentis completely misunderstands or distorts what I have said. The Jews are heirs to the promise when they are grafted back onto the vine, which is Jesus Christ. Some will choose to be grafted back on to the vine, and some will not.

Yes, Replacement theology has been under attack since the Darbyites of the mid 1800s. Does that mean that the Darbyites today have the corner on truth and that the Christians before them had it all wrong? I think not.

That being said, my main point is that our nation's foreign policy should not be driven by those who subscribe to a narrowly held interpretation of OT Biblical prophecies ala Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and Tim LaHaye. Over 4,000 American lives have been lost on this Iraq war not to mention the over 33,000 Americans who have been maimed and crippled because of a war that we were told was about weapons of mass destruction, when there were none. Then we were told it was to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, which is obviously not feasible, and now we are being told it is for oil. Will the lies never end?

More on Replacement Theology
"But now, Jesus has been given priestly work which is superior to theirs, just as the covenant which he arranged between God and His people is a better one, because it is based on promises of better things.

If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one....

By speaking of a new convenant, God has made the first one old; and anything that becomes old and worn out will soon disappear." Hebrews 6:6-13.

The Old Covenant Levitical Priesthood system of worship passed away in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple.

MN May has perfect hindsight...
MN Mary is quite facile at accusing those who question her scriptural understanding of misinterpreting and distorting her beliefs. If dogmatism leads to a sanctimonious disposition, we should all pray for the grace to overcome this proclivity.

Oliver Cromwell once declared to the Presbyterians of Scotland, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Like Cromwell, readers must entertain the shocking possibility that, following a thorough examination of Mary's rationale--or mine, for that matter--inquiring minds might soundly reject it!

Personally, I've left open the door that replacement theologians might be wrong, but feel the urgency to inspect their claims more earnestly by confronting evidence not available to past generations of believers. In playing the Devil's advocate (so to speak), I'm simply using a form dialectical reasoning to pursue, as objectively as possible, our investigation into escatology (the study of last things). I suspect that Mary could also benefit from a little more openmindedness.

It's no surprise that Mary's intense opposition the Iraq war reflects the same implacability she demonstrates toward those who disagree with her scriptural exegisis. Yes, it would appear, based on popular consensus, that no WMDs were found in Iraq. It still remains conjecture at this point whether the Bush Administration lied after manufacturing erroneous intelligence. There is some reason to suspect, based on the testimory of a former Iraqi Air Force general, that WMDs were skirted to Syria before the US invasion. If that were truly the case, our war in Iraq might have placed in greater peril than any of us imagines.

The moral of this story is to simply keep an open mind.






Correction to earlier comment...
MN May has perfect hindsight...
MN Mary is quite facile at accusing those who question her scriptural understanding of misinterpreting and distorting her beliefs. If dogmatism leads to a sanctimonious disposition, we should all pray for the grace to overcome this proclivity.

Oliver Cromwell once declared to the Presbyterians of Scotland, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Like Cromwell, readers must entertain the shocking possibility that, following a thorough examination of Mary's rationale--or mine, for that matter--inquiring minds might soundly reject it!

Personally, I've left open the door that replacement theologians might be wrong, but feel the urgency to inspect their claims more earnestly by confronting evidence not available to past generations of believers. In playing the Devil's advocate (so to speak), I'm simply using a form dialectical reasoning to pursue, as objectively as possible, our investigation into eschatology (the study of last things). I suspect that Mary could also benefit from a little more open-mindedness.

It's no surprise that Mary's intense opposition the Iraq war reflects the same implacability she demonstrates toward those who disagree with her scriptural exegisis. Yes, it would appear, based on popular consensus, that no WMDs were found in Iraq. It still remains conjecture at this point whether the Bush Administration lied by manufacturing erroneous intelligence. There is some reason to suspect, based on the testimory of a former Iraqi Air Force general, that WMDs were skirted to Syria before the US invasion. If that were truly the case, our war in Iraq might have placed in greater peril than any of us imagines.

The moral of this discourse is simply to keep an open mind.

Cromwell's words
Cromwell's words, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken," are good words for all who incite wars today based on narrowly held and inconclusive interpretations of the Scriptures.

It is one thing to keep an open mind and an entirely different thing to send men and women out to fight and die for a dubious cause.

God bless you MN Mary...
MN Mary is undestandably concerned about the disturbing implications to our preemtive invasion of Iraq. The President,in concert with a cabal of neoconservatives, initiated the Iraq conflict based on faulty intellience, and the rationale for war--which Mary calls "dubious"--has continued to evolve. But overshadowing the Iraq debacle are the frightening prospects of war between the US and Iran.

Two months ago, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, released a National Intelligence Estimate indicating that Iran discontinued its nuke program. Since then, McConnell has retreated from that position, and the US has moved inexorably closer to preemtive action against Iran.

Intelligence analysts have widely confirmed that Iran is pursuing enrichment of U-235, and developing longer-range Shehab missles (two out of three components of an offensive nuclear strategy). Iran was judged to have terminated the third leg, a warhead design program (or certain aspects of it), which it can either resurrect or may not longer require if engineers already have a workable design in their possession.

We will soon reach a point where the West must disable Iran's nuclear program if Iran genuinely poses an unacceptable threat. The poignant question of the hour is whether we should more afraid of President Bush or the Ayatollahs.

Correction to prior blog...
MN Mary is understandably concerned about the disturbing implications to our preemptive invasion of Iraq. The President, in concert with a cabal of neoconservatives, initiated the Iraq conflict based on faulty intelligence, and the rationale for war--which Mary calls "dubious"--has continued to evolve. But overshadowing the Iraq debacle are the frightening prospects of war between the US and Iran.

Two months ago, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, released a National Intelligence Estimate indicating that Iran discontinued its nuke program. Since then, McConnell has retreated from that position, and the US has moved inexorably closer to preemptive action against Iran.

Intelligence analysts have widely confirmed that Iran is pursuing enrichment of U-235, and developing longer-range Shehab missles (two out of three components of an offensive nuclear strategy). Iran was judged to have terminated the third leg, a warhead design program (or certain aspects of it), which it can either resurrect or may not longer require if engineers already have a workable design in their possession.

We will soon reach a point where the West must disable Iran's nuclear program if the Iranians genuinely pose an unacceptable threat. The poignant question of the hour is whether we should be more afraid of President Bush or the Ayatollahs.
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.