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 18, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Who's Behind the Proxy Wars
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Iran is conducting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq, declared Ambassador Ryan Crocker last week.

How? Gen. David Petraeus explained. The Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah are arming, training and directing the Shia militia fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces in Basra and firing rockets into the Green Zone. Said Petraeus, the Quds Force is responsible for killing hundreds of American soldiers.

If true, these are acts of war from a privileged sanctuary. And Bush would be as justified in attacking these Iranian base camps as was Nixon in ordering U.S. forces to clean out the North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia.

While there is no reason to question the truth of what Petraeus and Crocker allege, this proxy war raises a question. What is Tehran's motive?

Iran, after all, is the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion that dethroned its enemy Saddam, ended the Sunni Baath Party's monopoly of power and opened the door to Shia politicians with strong ties to Tehran. The regime in the Green Zone is the same regime that rolled out a red carpet for President Ahmadinejad.

Why, then, would Iran bloody it up? Why, when things are going Iran's way in Iraq, would it risk war with the United States over Iraq?

The April 16 Los Angeles Times offers an answer. Iran's proxy war against us in Iraq may be Tehran's response to a U.S. proxy war being waged against Iran. Ahmadinejad may be exacting blood for blood.

According to Times' writer Borzou Daragahi, Iran believes the United States is behind groups that are systematically killing Iranians along the border.

One such group is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, or PEJAK, which is linked to the PKK that has conducted a terrorist war in Turkey and is considered by the United States a terrorist organization. The founder of PEJAK is Osman Ocalan, brother of the founder of the PKK, who is now serving a life sentence in a Turkish prison.

As Turkey retaliates against the PKK with artillery fire and raids into Kurdistan, Iranians are now doing the same.

A second group, regarded by both the United States and Iran as terrorist, is the Mujahedin Khalq, a cult-like group, operating inside Iraq on the Iranian border. Iranians also believe the United States is behind attacks in the oil-rich and Arab Khuzestan region of southwest Iran.

And, as Daragahi reports, "Baluch militants have killed dozens of members of Iran's security forces, including 11 elite Revolutionary Guard in a car bomb attack last year in Zahedan, a town near the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan." Jundallah, or God's Party, claimed responsibility for that attack.

Last year also, a Kurdish woman killed several Iranian officers and soldiers in a suicide bombing. According to Daragahi, "Iraqi Kurds say perceived U.S. support for PEJAK and other anti-Iranian groups prompted Iranians to reactivate Ansar al Islam, a Sunni Muslim group with ties to al-Qaida that has been launching attacks against Kurdish officials."

The danger here is that these proxy wars could explode into U.S. air attacks on the Quds Force, followed by Iranian retaliation against U.S. troops, followed by U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and a third U.S. war in the Middle East, dropped into the lap of an overstretched U.S. military and onto the desk of the next president.

In his speech last week, Bush warned that the regime in Tehran "has a choice to make," and if "Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners" -- i.e., this is Tehran's last warning.

Query: Where is the Congress of the United States? It alone has the power to authorize or declare a war of the magnitude toward which we may be headed because of proxy wars about which the American people know next to nothing.

Up on Capitol Hill, GOP Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina is seeking to rewrite the War Powers Act to ensure that -- if the United States goes to war again -- it be the "collective judgment" of both elected branches, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Needed now are congressional hearings to determine if President Bush has authorized a proxy war against Iran -- by funding or arming guerrillas to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and if that is what is behind the IRG-backed attacks on U.S. forces.

Even before such hearings, both Houses should pass a joint resolution declaring that no appropriated funds may be used for any pre-emptive U.S. air strikes on Iran -- unless and until Congress has authorized such acts of war. If we are headed for war with Iran, it should be the collective judgment of all the nation's elected leadership, and not done on the whim of a lame-duck president unsure about his place in history.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
What, not Israel's fault?
I honestly was expecting, after each paragraph, for Mr. Buchanan to work his way around to blaming Israel, somehow, for Iran's hostility. I'm glad to see it didn't happen. Instead he finds a way to blame the U.S.
Might I ask, who the heck is Daragahi? Besides being Mr. Buchanan's sole source, he appears to be a free lance journalist of Iranian descent. Great.
In the meantime, the Iranians have been killing American soldiers and diplomats since 1988. Remember the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut?

Not the Wizard of Oz.
There's a fair chance Bush could launch an attack against Quds forces. I don't know the extent to which this would include an attack on Iranian government or nation itself.

I believe our government has been placing more crude oil in strategic reserves. Is this due to realization an attack on Quds forces would result in skyrocketing oil prices certain to sink our economy into a much more severe recession? Iran is certainly capable of roiling oil markets by threatening shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz. Bush would not want to upset the applecart by presenting McCain with much higher gas prices at the pump, and falling economy, just as November elections occur.

Maybe utilization of petroleum reserves here would limit oil price spikes resulting from the attack.

Or, Bush may wait until after our election to launch the attack on the Quds.

There is no doubt our invasion of Iraq greatly benefited the Iranians.

This proxy war matter is worrisome, given the trackrecord of unimpeachable ignorance characterizing this administration's "comprehension" of what would unfold in Iraq once Saddam was deposed.

I hope it knows what it is doing this time.

Impotent
Our Congress and Senate are impotent and Pat knows it. The Democrats and Republicans could not even agree on a pay raise for themselves, certainly agreeing to war is out of the question. Should we attack Iran? If they are killing our troops and we can prove it, that is an act of war and there is but one answer. Yes!!! In my view it should be limited to a nuclear strike at the very heart of the country, no boots on the ground, no follow up---just do what armies are supposed to do---tear up stuff and kill people. Will we? Never!!! We are too sophisticated, too civil, too educated, too human and we fear the terrible blow world opinion would deliver.

Not a single
comment regarding his point about the constitutionality of who gets to declare war?

None?

This is the MAIN point Pat is trying to get across. Whether he agrees or disagrees with the war is beside the point.

So, we have mongrels defending Bush possibly BREAKING THE LAW simply because they agree with WHY he is BREAKING THE LAW!!

You fake republicans sure do love to create shortcuts to the law when it is in your interest. And then you cry like fools when these new fangled powers are used by the democrats AGAINST you.

How about if we simply follow the law, folks? If war is needed with Iran, then declare it, damnit! If warlike actions have ALREADY been taken by Bush to drum up war with Iran, then he needs to be tried for treason.

Any self-respecting conservative should understand this.

Here's MY prediction, save this article and see how accurate I am in a year:

When the democrats get their hands on the war and start a war with Iran, the pages of Townhall will be filled with republicans screaming about the cost of war, and how the democrats are warmongers and we need a "humble foreign policy" (remember that classic?)

People tend to forget that we republicans were opposed to Bill Clintons "war on terrorism" not so long ago. Even Cheney had the good sense to say invading Iraq was a stupid idea. Of course, this was when a Democrat was in office.

Don't bother attacking me. Just save my prediction until next year and see how accurate I am. If I am wrong, call me a fool. I will eat my words. If I am right, I really hope you people start waking the hell up.

Boutte
You seem to know a lot about what is going on in the Middle East.

What are your sources? Do you have any sources, or are you just psychic?

Arguments like this when one person says one thing and a TH poster comes along and says "No, that's not right, it's like this" and then proceeds to tell everyone what the REAL story is would have a lot more credibility with a reference or documentation once in a while. Otherwise, it simply sounds like guesswork or opinion.

Nothing is as cheap as an opinion. It costs nothing, absolutely everybody has at least one and most people have dozens.

Warrior
Yes, let's kill MILLIONS of innocent civilians for the actions of their government. That's nice. So much for trying to bring freedom to them. Could you at least convert them to Christianity first so they can enter heaven when you kill them?

Genocide
BTW, that's not war, that's genocide, warrior. Would kinda make it difficult to claim America was the moral authority, wouldn't it?

Not only
is warrior advocating genocide, he wants our President to do it unilaterally and against the laws of our land.

Did you vote for Hitler, by chance, Warrior?

Do not of
the warmongers here understand what would happen if we dropped a nuke on Iran? The ENTIRE WORLD would turn against us. Certainly Russia and China who happen to be friends with Iran.

That's exactly what I want for a President, some psycho with his hand on the button destroying all life as we know it.

Warrior, you probably aren't an American citizen, are you?

King Liberal
Do not be foolish enough to think your liberal heros aren't going to get in on this action once elected.

Warmongering isn't partisan, my friend. We can count on your saviors to carry on the war and start new ones.

Are you really stupid enough to get fooled twice after your supposed MANDATE in 2006?

The war will NOT be stopped. Period.

There is money to be made
and new powers to be created during war. Remember "war is the health of the state?" No democrat politician is going to pass up on these new powers.

Nay. The only REAL objection the Democrats in office have against the war is that it isn't THEIR war and they aren't ones with the powers created by it.

Mark my words. Write them down, and store them in your desk. Stumble on my prediction in a year and see if I was correct. Then break yourselves out of this stupid matrix you are in.

Hillary Clinton will be your next president. Nobody recalls how Bush was telling us that he thought she would make a great president? Nobody recalls the talk about working with her to transistion the white house OVER A YEAR AGO? Nobody remembers this? Do you REALLY believe your vote counted?

Like I said... write it down. Laugh at me if I am wrong, but swear to yourself now that if I am right, you WILL wake up once and for all and help put a stop to this deliberate destruction of America.

Where do you guys get your info??
So far, no one posting here has the slightest idea of what is real or lawful, or even constitutional. You are ignorant of the facts, or refuse to smell the camel dung.

Since when was the title of commander-in-chief taken from the president? Since when does the constitution say that only congress can take us to war? Only the president can send troops into battle, and he doesn't need anyone else's approval. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF means what it says.
Only congress can declare war, but the president makes war at his discretion.

Why would Iran want to mess up a good thing like the US ousting Sadam? They don't want to mess it up. They want to take advantage of it by sending their army in, as soon as we leave, to destroy whatever government there is left and occupy Iraq with the purpose of re-establishing Persia as the seat of the Caliph, the future ruler of the world. A Muslim world with no USA or Israel, only Islam. Sound good to all of you? Go for it. Keep griping about the president murdering millions when the only murderers out there are wearing turbines and praying to Alla. When Alla gets his bomb he will use it, guaranteed by Iran's whacked out president.

Apology to Warrior
I didn't see your post for some reason.

Glad to see another person who still thinks clearly and wants to remain a free man.


Ooooraahh.

glnflwrs
The constitution is quite clear about the separation of powers and the responsibility of the congress. It is a shared responsibility. The purpose is to prevent a President acting unilaterally without the permission of Congress to engage in war. It's called checks and balances. Bush was authorized by Congress to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, and to attack terrorists. Without that authorization, he did not have the authority to act. This may seem to tie the Presidents hands, but it is also prudent. Today you have Bush - and you may support him, but tomorrow it could be someone else - and you may not. War's a serious business, and the founders wanted to make sure that their was a concensus before we acted.

glnflwrs writes:
"Since when does the constitution say that only congress can take us to war?"

Since 1792, jackass. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. consitution.

I know, you've never read it, right? Never to late to start!

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Wow...


King Liberal writes:
"Warrior is a former military man who served in Europe during the cold war and for the most part knows what he is talking about when it comes from thing of a military perspective and tactics-don't always agree with him but he's got a well oiled mind."

A well-oiled mind? Hitler was a genius. Didn't stop HIM from comitting genocide. I'd say Warrior left something in Europe if he thinks nuking Iran is even the remotest of good ideas. The neccessity of going to war with Iran is beside the point. Dropping a nuclear warhead on them and killing MILLIONS of innocent civilians is a crime against humanity. It will be open season on nukes. The Chinese and Russia will passing out nukes like candy to all of our enemies.

Well-oiled mind. Maybe he should lay off the sauce.


Why does everyone
want a dictatorship?

The Constitution
I bet not many of you realize that the constitution was designed PURPOSEFULLY in a way to make the executive branch THE WEAKEST branch.

The founders intended for Congress to be the most powerful branch of government. Why do you think they did that? Were they just stoopid libruls or sumptin?

Why does everyone want a dictator? Is it because media creates this big show basically telling you the President of the U.S. is an elected king?

If you really don't BELIEVE and TRUST in America, please don't tell people that you love America. It takes more than just saying it.

Chess moves
I disagree with Mr. Buchanan's assessment that Iran is a beneficiary of the US invasion . Iran has everything to lose if the US has a democratic ally right next door to them. That I think, would be worse than Saddam for Iran. However, it would be a tremendous coup on the world stage if an Islamic theocracy were installed there, not to mention the fact that, as a largely Shiite country, the bond of alliance could potentially be stronger than any such partnership with the US. There, after all, no guarantee that Iraq will back US policies even if their democratization is successful, as many other so-called friendly nations in the region have demonstrated. Also Iran has a much deeper understanding of the specific tribal politics involved. Our only successful confrontation with tribal politics was achieved through means that still weigh heavy on our nation's conscience, and to this day has left many issues unresolved. There can be no question that much animosity was present before our presence in Iraq, and that we have been actively engaged in operations that target Iran's theocracy. Iraq is merely the latest battlefield in an ongoing war of ideals. The 'you started it' mentality is, I think, irrelevant. The collision of our opposing ideals was, I feel, inevitable in our ever shrinking world. I don't feel this view to be cynical or pragmatic, just realistic. I think we need to be realistic when confronted with a nation that speaks casually of "wiping off the face of the earth" any nation whom it deems an enemy (specifically Israel), and will happily "martyr" themselves in a mutual nuclear exchange. The clear and present danger demonstrated here serves to render philosophical arguments somewhat moot.

nukes
I am all for the unilateral destruction of enemy air bases. The longer we do nothing, the greater their confidence and esteem grows. Other enemies are also emboldened. Attacking civilian centers is unjustified and I do not want it done in my name. Read some Japanese accounts of the firebombing of Tokyo; perhaps they will cure your bloodlust for the blood of children. It worked for me. Have a nice day, all.

How can
you claim to be a republican when you don't even understand what a republic is? How can you claim to be a conservative, when you have no knowledge, no respect, and no interest in learning about our history, the intent of our founders, and our laws?

It takes a little more than a bumper sticker to be a patriot. It means realizing that following THE LAW even when it seems inconvenient for you is absolutely a must. If the law is wrong, change it! We have a system for doing just that, as designed in the infinite wisdom of our founders!

If the government gets to break the law whenever it is convenient for them, why can't I? You know, the individual is supposed to be the most important person in this nation. So why do *I* have to follow the law and my government doesn't?

Why are people just clamoring for a dictatorship? I really can't understand it.

CVN65
Amen

Sluaghterhouse 'Six'
CVN65
The firebombing of Dresden is another fine example of the moral monstrosity of 'total war' against civilian targets. Sometimes it takes folks who've served to remind us of this. Our enemies, however, do not appear to share our mutual concern for civilian lives. Curing the disease by killing the patient is, of course, a less than intelligent (or moral)response. Never thought I'd agree with a 'skimmer'(lol).

windex
just hang in there windex. We will educate you sooner or later

Just a theory
Correct me if I am wrong. People are clamoring for a dictatorship because they are afraid. Their fear is causing them to lose faith in our system of government. Yes, yes. That MUST be it. That's how ALL tyrannies form. Fear. A big mean monster that we want the government to protect us from regardless of the cost. We don't VALUE freedom anymore. What good is freedom to a dead man, right? (Who said that?)

It does take a rare form of patriot to stand fast in the face of fear, choke back emotion, and do the pragmatic thing.

You know, much of the population in America were afraid that the war against the british would not be successful. That fear caused them to narc and spy and double-cross the patriots of the revolution at nearly every turn. It wasn't a pretty picture folks. These men were great patriots because not only were they fighting the british, they were also fighting the weaklings and traitors. And of course, these traitors still got to enjoy the fruit of our founders' efforts. Yes, they were all patriots then.

Read a history book. It might change your life.

Typical typo
That's what I get for trying to type at any great speed. "Slaughterhouse" looks much better(and intelligent). I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would endorse a dictatorship. Maybe you should lend some windex to the libs so they can clean their glass stomachs. With their heads so far up their butts, that's the only way they will be able to see anything.

UncleB
Windex?

let me guess, you don't know what Vindex means either, do you? Take my advice in my last comment.

I don't think you need to be doing ANY educating.

USNbubblehead
I wish I could say it were only the libs clamoring for a dictatorship. That would make it pretty easy to stop.

Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan and nonpartisan deal.

I really, really, really would love to just blame everything on the libs. I swear I would. It just isn't that simple, I am afraid.

USNbubblehead
Thanks. Don't let anyone ever tell you that we don't sleep much better knowing that we have an attack boat out there covering our 1/5 mile long as$. Fair winds and following seas.

Vindex
I have to agree to some extent. It does not seem to matter one whit who is in the White House. The last thirty years have seen a concentration of power and intrusion into our lives by the Federal gov't. that is unprecedented. In many cases, a disaster is used as justification to increase gov't. power. I think GWB should not initiate any further wars in his last year as POTUS, unless we are attacked, of course. He has done nothing about Iran so far- why do it now?

Vindex
It pains me to say that you are quite right in that thought. I think Mein Kampf, and the Communist Manifesto should be required reading in public school. Throw in Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" and William L. Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for good measure. Government should have a very limited role in our daily affairs and no involvement whatsoever (excepting obvious criminal activity, of course) in our private lives.

Our real enemy
is much more powerful then the muslim extremists. Much more capable of destroying our country and our way of life. Much more dangerous than the global warming boogeyman, the healthcare crisis boogeyman, and infinitely more frightening than North Korea and Cuba boogeymen.

It is us. It is the media. It is our government. It is our willingness to vote ourselves into slavery, dictorship, and fascism. To be distracted by partisan BS. It is our willingness to capitulate to fear and big government.

Those that entertain the fantasy that hooded muslim warriors will somehow one day be walking down your streets chopping off your heads and forcing your wife or girlfriend to wear a burka are victims of a wild, reckless, and dangerous imagination.

We stand to lose our country far sooner than this scenario could EVER play out. And we'll gleefully vote for it!

CVN65
I served on a Permit class, a Sturgeon class, and a first-flight Los Angeles class. Fast boats all, and it was my great pleasure and honor to watch your haze-gray back. To our enemies: Silent But Deadly: Death From Below!!

Vindex
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

USNbubblehead
Absolutely! I think people would be frightened to look at the communist manifesto and realize we are two items away from it's completion. And that those two items are currently being talked about in the present presidential race.

We are THAT close, folks. And to think they warned us that they would win without firing a single shot.

I am FAR FAR more afraid of that than I am of a muslim boogeyman. I'd rather die free.

Boogie Down
All the boogeymen you mention seem to me to be a means to an end. A sad end.

USNbubblehead
Still in the Navy?

Keep your head above water :) and be on the look out for enemies both foreeign AND domestic.

The Constitution
Vindex, I'm glad to see I'm not the only Constitutional Crank around here. You're correct to insist that warmaking is supposed to be a joint responsibility of Congress and President. Unfortunately, in this as in so many other areas of government, the Constitution is a dead letter.

The Founders made one large error when they wrote the Constitution: they presumed that most of the people in Congress would be honorable. That is no longer true. Not only is there a paucity of honor on Capitol Hill, but party power and individual aggrandizement comes before the greater good of the nation for all too many of our "representatives".

We are slouching toward the dictatorship of dependency and apathy because We the People are now sheep.

Vindex
No, Ive been out for some time now. I'm still involved with naval technology, however. Like many folks, my service has left a profound impact on my life and I still strongly identify with it. It also imparted upon me, through the exposure to other countries and their governments and people, an undying love of my country. We truly are an exceptional nation!

Off topic
(not like I haven't already skewed off topic) I was reading an article the other day that was claiming that illegal immigration had dropped dramatically. I was ecstatic. Well, until I read the source of their conclusion:

It said arrest rates on the border had dropped dramatically. Right... can I get a show of hands from those that believe that actually equates to a drop in illegal immigration?

After what Bush and the gang did to the last two border guards, I can just imagine they are saying "screw this." Especially when they see all three presidential candidates from both parties supporting open borders. I'd be looking in the help-wanted section and working on my resume if I were them.

USNbubblehead
Served on BigE 98-01, then Fleet Hospital 15 in the ME for the shootin' war in '03. Thanks for your lenghty service.

USN
I can imagine, and I thank you for your service.

You are correct, we truly are an exceptional nation. I only hope we can keep it.

With brave men and women like you, however, I have faith that if or when the shiite hits the fan, you will be standing right beside us. Nay, leading us neophytes. :)

Upland William
Like I said on another thread,

"sometimes it feels like you are the only one the titanic screaming 'iceberg' and the captain has you locked up for disturbing the rest of the passengers."

Why do you people
keep bringing up the Constitution? After all, this is what el presidente thinks about it:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I guess that is ok, with everyone that a president can make statements like this and then continue on in office.

War this, war that, blah blah blah, when you have more dangerous enemies right here at home, destroying the very fabric of America.





Going to bed
I am a third shifter, so it's bedtime for me! Gotta stay fresh to keep those weapons and other equipment working for our brave soldiers in the ME.

I am an electronics technician for a military contractor.

Shooting 'cans'
Vindex

You hit the nail on the head with that one. After what happened to those border guards, a nasty drug war has erupted down there. Why? Geez why does anyone even need to ask!? Are we that oblivious to the obvious? If I were a border guard I'd say f--- this to the 10th power also!

Judgedredd1
As juicy as that statement is, unfortunately it is false. It was written at Capital Hill Blues as a parody. While I think we can agree that it is something Bush might be likely to say, it turns out it was false as admitted by the original author.

Actually, I could picture just about any politican left or right that would make that statement if they thought they wouldn't be heard.


Vindex
Thanks for your compliment. I don't feel deserving of such high praise, however. Just a regular guy trying doing his duty. No service member does any less. We The People are what's important.

Good day all!
NT

Vindex
That is where I got it from. It was not written as a parody, but as a news article and was reported worldwide? I have not read anything to the contrary, but will look into it. Shouldn't take long. Thanks.

Good thread
Very nice discussion. Gotta split for now. CVN65: Thanks for you service. The pleasure was mine. Vindex: You are not alone. The rest of us are just being drowned out by all the yuppies clamoring for more lattes. Besides, according to them, icebergs will soon be a thing of the past.
All ahead full!


Part of why we're in this mess.
The tragedy is that Iraq was cynically grafted onto a justifiable response to destroy the government in Afghanistan that provided a haven for the conspirators of 9/11.

The neocons advising Bush had always wanted to depose Saddam for at least two reasons. Reason number one was the threat Saddam posed to Israel, and reason number two was related to the first...and that was the neocons had decided Ahmed Chalabi, Iraqi expatriot, was their man to replace the deposed Saddam. Chalibi had promised the neocons that an Iraqi government headed by him would recognize the state of Israel. And the neocons convinced Bush that a "democratic" Chalabi Iraqi government would prompt the mideast masses to demand similar "democracies" in their lands, vitiating the appeal of the radicals.

Problem is, no one checked with the Iraqis on Chalabi's "bona-fides"

Once we deposed Saddam, the administration dragged Chalabi to Iraq, but the Iraqis would have none of it. He flopped. They could not stand him. He was a hit in Washington D.C. neocon circles, and a dud in Iraq.

And he was the only hope of the Bush administration and the neocons. They thought they could turn the government over to Chalabi, and we could leave, or drastically remove our forces.

But Chalabi fizzled; in the ensuing anarchy the insurgency blossomed, due to the stupid decisions by Bush administation to disband both the Baathist party and the army, instantly creating hundreds of thousands of unemployed, angry young men with weapons.

Jerabaub....You got it correct my friend
If the administration had given the Baathists back their Uniforms and replaced Saddam with a more reasonable fellow we could do business with then the Shiite resurgeance would never have happened.

However, Bush and his Neocon Neophytes for some reason could not understand this. Now what has become a disaster is the fact that all this Democracy building nonsense has given the Shiites control of the political machine that was created by the Bush administration...Similarily like Bush did with the Palestinians when he allowed Hamas to run and be elected in open elections...but now we will not recognize the democratically elected Hamas.

I fear its just a continuation of the right foot not knowing what the left foot is doing. They cannot have it both ways!

Any evidence?
Buchanan makes the charge that the US may be supporting illegal terrorist organizations carrying out lethal raids against Iran and Turkey. He offers not one shred of evidence that this is so -- he just lays the charge on the table, like a dead carcase.

Does anybody have any evidence suggesting that the US is doing what Buchanan alleges?

I would like to see the evidence if it exists.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Talking points a little behind the times
jerabaub wrote: "Now what has become a disaster is the fact that all this Democracy building nonsense has given the Shiites control of the political machine that was created by the Bush administration..."

You're a little behind the times. After Maliki sent the Iraqi military after al Sadr's Jaysh al Mahdi, the Sunnis rejoined the government.

Better update your talking points, boys.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Jerabaub
"There is no doubt our invasion of Iraq greatly benefited the Iranians."

So true! On 1/21/2001, George Bush was inaugurated, and oil was $21 a barrel. I just checked on CNBC and oil is now $115 a barrel.

Iran and Hugo are laughing all the way to the bank.

Ethanol subsidies only get us even more hooked on foreign oil.


Buchanan's Blame America First Tirade
continues in this column. What motive he asks, does Iran have in stirring up trouble in Iraq?

How about the fear that Iraq might just pull off establishing a democracy in the midst of the Islamic world? How about the Iranian leadership doesn't want such success because it will rile up its own suppressed population that would like a more open and demcratic society?

Why would Iran fear the U.S.? President Bush hasn't got a military strong enough (some people say so anyhow) to do much against Iran. The defeatist Democrats will stop any military action anyway, and the weakneed media will help to keep Iran safe. The lesson from Viet Nam has been learned well in the Islamic terrorist world.

Pat Buchanan may have legitimate concerns about a war with Iran. He is also absolutely correct in stating that America should not go to war without a congressional declaration of war as authorized in our Constitution. I agree.

What he ought to be doing is pounding our "lame" congress to find out if Iran is guilty as charged, not investigating the President who has the ultimate responsibility to protect this nation and its citizens. Those citizens include our brave fighting men and women.

Mr. Buchanan should not be giving the Iranians such an easy pass on their killing Americans.

Vindex
I'm still looking, but haven't found anything to the contrary. There was one little blip, calling it a fraud after it was reported 2 years earlier, due to unrevealed sources, but again nothing.
I'll just have to take the article on face value for now. Unless you can provide information or a link, from the author that it was a parody.

MDoggg
Your posts are all very lucid. Your answer to Iran is to simply kiss their a*s until they die. How many sons or daughters do you have at risk? None? You jerk.

Vindex
Why did you reach for Hitler? You could have stayed in this country. FDR authorized massive terror bombing of German cities and Truman used nuclear weapons on 2 cities of Japan. Ended the war, brought the peace, and created 2 Democratic friends. Poor innocent civilians were killed, tough dodo it was war.
My thought for you: When you live with, aid and abet, you are not innocent; you are an enabler.

You won't see this on TH
"Joseph Collins, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations in the Pentagon until 2004, couldn't provide a starker contrast to the vague interpretation of the status of our war in Iraq: It is titled "Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," and it begins:

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths--mostly at the hands of other Iraqis--may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel. "


Just thought I'd bring in
some fresh air from the outside world.

Okay, I'll bite
"Vindex writes:

Not a single comment regarding his point about the constitutionality of who gets to declare war?

None?"

Care to examine how many times the US Congress has declared war? 5 correct? 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917 and 1941. And how many times has the US used military force? Hundreds, thousands? Were all these unconstitutional--Korea? Vietnam, the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis? The US incursion into Mexico?



Vindex
"Yes, let's kill MILLIONS of innocent civilians for the actions of their government. That's nice. So much for trying to bring freedom to them. Could you at least convert."

It did it to Japan and Germany during WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the Tokyo fire bombings. Why should today be an exception?

War
"Since when does the constitution say that only congress can take us to war?"

Only Congress can declare war, but the president as CinC can send troops and use military force as he sees fit and has done since day 1 of the present regime (1789-onward). Now after 1973, the Congress passed over Nixon's veto the War Powers Act--it is probably unconstitutional but it has never been tested and presidents since Nixon have followed its dictates even if they may not view it as legal.


Akagi
Given the anti-constitution actions taken by this president over the past 8 years, I don't think it makes much difference anyway.

Last thirty?
Big E:

Last 30? See War on Poverty (1960s), New Deal (1930s) and then of course what was done in WWII in the US. World War I inside the US--the Red Scare stuff, reconstruction (1870s), The war (1860s). There has been a concentration of power from day one. The framers never intended for the president to have this much power, power was supposed to be vested in the Congress, but it never worked out that way.

impeachment ?
If this President attacks iran without authorization from congress he shoud be impeached immediately. Unfortunately Pelosi and Harry Reid are two of the most comical figures to hold leadership posts in congressional history.

What grounds
The president as CinC can order attacks on anyone, how is that an offense that rises to the standard of impeachment? Now the Congress can ivoke the War Powers Act and if the president refuses to abide by the WPA--then that would be an impeachable offense as the president swore to enforce the laws which the WPA is one of them.

MDoggg
MDoggg writes: Friday, April, 18, 2008 2:11 PM
Joe Oliva says:
"The lesson from Viet Nam has been learned well in the Islamic terrorist world."

MDogg says:

And that lesson:

kill millions, destroy a nation and then leave...

Yeah - i'm sure Iran is just ACHING to come out of this mess the way Vietnam did our other GREAT invasion...

fools...

Hey Doggg,
It was the liberal Democrat controlled congress that cut off aid to SVN and let those people die on the vine.

You know which millions they are of course. The millions were the ones lost at sea trying to escape, put in re-education camps by Ho & Co., and slaughtered by the Cambodians. I am correct, right?


As for your other comments:

Even if America is arming and training Kurds to kill Iranians? Your Proof of this is what?


Even if America is an invading force on iran's border? Your proof of this is what?

Even if America's 'excuses" for invasion have yielded a handful of nothing? Define excuses and nothing.

Even if America has long messed with iran's inner politics, sold WMDs to iraq in THAt war against Iran? On this you are correct, and I have stated on my website (JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG) as well as here that America's foreign policy of minding everyone else's business is wrong, and as President I would change that.

Joe




Question
""Since when does the constitution say that only congress can take us to war?"


Since when has Geroge Bush given a flying fig WHAT the constitution says?

Oops
I thought my first post didn't get accepted.

Iraq war ‘a major debacle’ ?

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war ‘a major debacle’ with outcome ‘in doubt’?

The war in Iraq has become “a major debacle” and the outcome “is in doubt” despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon’s premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush’s projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.

READ MORE


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/pentagon-institute -calls-iraq-war-a-major-debacle-with-outcome-in-doubt

Ho Chi Minh (Hu Zhi Ming)
"The millions were the ones lost at sea trying to escape, put in re-education camps by Ho & Co., and slaughtered by the Cambodians. I am correct, right?"


When that happened, Ho was dead. he died in 1969.


Warrior
Like you would say: "You can't talk rationally to a pyschopath." So, I won't even try. :)

BTW, Japan attacked us on OUR homeland. Not that our response was great, but was at least justified. The point of this article is that we are ACTIVELY supporting terrorists to prevent Iran from having diplomatic relations with its neighbor. And essentially provoking a war with them.

So, with your pyschopathic reasoning, we went there to liberate them, and when they made clear they did NOT want to be liberated, we should just commit genocide on all of those ungrateful SOBs.

Is that how you deal with your mistakes at home? Just break it all with a chainsaw and sledge-hammer?

You are either childish or psychopathic, but you are free to your opinion. Certainly not a well-oiled mind, either way.


inkling revival
Asking Buchanan for evidence is usually a waste of time. He sees the world through Vladimir Putin's eyes on the average day.

My long experience with watching Iran through the prism of national intelligence informs me that Iran is manufacturing BS allegations again, with this "border attacks" thing. Iran always imagines itself to be under nonexistent attack -- at least for public consumption.

Buchanan dismisses nearly three decades of Iranian animosity to the United States (apparently not realizing that Shah Reza Pahlavi was removed in a coup in 1979), and chooses not to recognize that Iran has been attacking Americans in the Middle East by proxy since at least the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. USNbubblehead's analysis is much better (Warrior's too): Iran has both geopolitical and ideological reasons to attack US forces in Iraq, to force us to retreat, and to undo what we and the Iraqis have accomplished there in the last five years.

Buchanan reminds me of the old saw about the editorialist who crowed, about one guy, in an admiring piece, "Hats off, gentlemen! A genius!" Shortly thereafter he encountered someone who left him with a different impression, about whom he wrote, "Hats back on, gentlemen. An idiot."

Here comes Pat. Hats back on, gentlemen.

SemperVigilans
"My long experience with watching Iran through the prism of national intelligence informs me that Iran is manufacturing BS allegations again, with this "border attacks" thing."

And your job would be? Got evidence?

SemperVigilans
"Buchanan dismisses nearly three decades of Iranian animosity to the United States"

And you are not dismissing the entire 80's when we we were arming Iran?

You are not dismissing the public offering of help that Iran sent to us right after 9/11?

LOL... hats back on, gentlemen!

Here's some evidence
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/world/TIMESTOPICS_IRA N_TIMELINE/

September 13, 2001

"President Mohammad Khatami of Iran, a reformist who sought to restore relations with the West, offers condolences to the United States and condemns the attacks on the World Trade Center."

More
January 31, 2002
"In his State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush names Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of "an axis of evil" that threatens America. He puts those countries on notice, saying that the United States will not stand by and let them develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

How about this one?
February 11, 2002
"Galvanized by President Bush's branding of their nation as part of an "axis of evil," millions of Iranians march on the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic revolution, burning the American flag for the first time in recent memory."

And another
December 15, 2002

"The deputy speaker of Iran’s Parliament, Behzad Nabavi, offers to hold talks with the United States, saying that talks on such a level would not be capable of restoring diplomatic ties but would ease the tension and lay a foundation for the governments to reach out."

In case you were still in diapers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

How about
The fake broadcast supposedly coming over the radio from Iranian fastboats not long ago? All of the people actually involved said it did NOT come from the fastboats. Even a few said that the offending talk wasn't even heard at all at the time.

How about the publicity stunt not long ago with supposed Iranian EFPs showing up in Iraq? Yet, sources in the defense department claim there was NO evidence of this.

How about the DHS getting caught creating a propoganda press conference just last year?

You really trust this Administration about this stuff? Why? Because Bush is a Republican? Did you "trust" Larry Craig, Vetter? How about Foley? Hastert?

Political criminals come in all flavors. Bush and the gang have caught WAY too many times lying to us for me to trust him. And I DID vote for him in 2000, and begrudgingly voted for him again in 2004.

How about
Bush saying repeatedly, that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we would? How about the fact that the last two governments HAVE asked us to leave?

How about Bush replacing generals when their opinion doesn't exactly line up with what he wants the American people to hear?

Go read the last reports each of them gave before being "replaced."

Gen P.
Has been saying some things lately that I bet doesn't make Bush happy? Wanna bet that he will be "replaced" this summer?

How about Powell's characterization of the Bush administration?

Short term memories, laziness, or unlimited excuses? Which one is it for you?

Don't Need Congress to Nuke Iran
Since Congress has been too cowardly to declare war since WWII, all we need is a courageous President to nuke Iran.

I don't know what happened to Buchanan to make him such a weakling, but it seems to be a national disease.

Millions of Americans will die if we do not take out Iran NOW!

Thoughts
The US is not going to use nuclear weapons on Iran. We did not use them in Korea or VN, and the threat of the Irani clerics does not justify the killing of hundreds of thousands or more Irani civilians. No president will do this. Our options are limited to 1) surgical air strikes - assuming we know where to strike - and that is not clear; 2) International pressure - not likely to result in any great successes; and 3) direct invasion - which we do not have the ground forces to pursue. Those talking nuclear are simply frustrated with the impotence or unreliability of the other three options. But that's the world we've lived in for 60 years, and that's the one we have to continue to live in. Those that go back to the overthrow of the Shah would do equally well to remember that we imposed the Shah on the Iranis' at the expense of an elected government. Dulles, in the 50's, practiced the politics of reality. He wanted reliable leaders, and didn't care much about how he got them. In order for us to have kept the Shah, we would have had to put forces in strength into Iran. Carter chose not to do so. There's no small irony in the fact that Bush and Carter share one common perception - and that is that they thought that ultimately, the rise of democracy in the ME would be a good thing. The jury is still out. As the young people who currently are frustrated move into power in Iran, and the clerics/military who remember the revolution die - it might well change. The ultimate picture in Iraq is also not clear. The regime we support today could change given how people may well vote in the future. It's a crap shoot played out over decades, not over a few years. Korea looks wonderful today, but started out as a personal dictatorship. Just as Bush may be vindicated by history - so may Carter's refusal to put the dictator back in the rulers chair in Iran be vinidcated - or not.

Redlac
Thank you for some actual analytical comments. There is in truth another option with Iran, and that is conducting crippling air strikes to take out not only her nuclear program facilities, but her air force, air defense, naval, coastal defense, and western-deployed ground forces. This could be accomplished with a combination of airpower (Air Force and Navy) and special forces. That is, it could be done with the forces we have readily available, which a ground invasion could not.

The benefit of such a strike campaign would be rendering Iran too vulnerable to further retaliation for Tehran to contemplate attacking Gulf shipping and oil infrastructure, or to launch ballistic missiles at Israel or Iraq, etc. Iran is, moreover, already a sponsor of terrorism; we should be as much concerned today about that as we would be after a crippling strike.

Iran has reached the point in her nuclear program at which we can't conduct strikes without some unmitigatable possibility of releasing radiological and chemical contaminants into her atmosphere. We will be crossing a political Rubicon with any strike on those facilities. It's also the case that we can't permanently shut down Tehran's nuclear program with "surgical strikes" solely on her nuclear facilities. All we can do is delay Iran's progress by that method.

As the cost of a "surgical" strike goes up, its benefit goes down. But there IS an option short of invasion, one that repays the high cost of the strikes. A more comprehensive strike campaign is, however, a harder political decision to make.

blame america first
pat has become an expert at blame america first.

Sempervigilans
What you're describing is in fact an element of Dulles threatened in the 50's when he used internal Irani connections to their then military to conduct what was a relatively bloodless coup. At the time, we instituted a blockade, demonstrated that we had the capacity to render Iran's ability to move oil moot, and elements of the military fell in line. Granted, many were then still steeped in historic loyalty to the Shah, which doesn't exist today. Blockades, as well as the disabling of refineries, ports and pipelines are, after all, realistic options and do not generate the civilian casualties others options do. We are not, after all, at war with the Irani people, many of which are unhappy with the current regime, and the majority of which are under 40 and were not alive at the time of the so-called revolution. Never forget the candle light vigils subsequent to 9/11 that they held in sympathy to us that so shocked the Clerics.

I'm a firm believe that the single great vulnerability of the Irani Regime and Clerics is their oil - translated as their economy. Dissatisfaction with this groups mismanagement of the Irani economy is rising - and is obvious. Yesterday we listened to their leading idiot complain that prices on oil weren't high enough, and recently saw rising dissatisfaction over his decision to raise the cost of gasoline internally - because he desperately needs foreign income to try to keep the Irani economy afloat.

We have all the tools necessary in our control to bring Iran's economy to a grinding halt - without declaring war on the Irani people - and that should be our focus. Clerical states are clueless about modern economic systems - and they are increasingly showing this.

Also
We should never forget that Iran is not - repeat not - a democracy. The clerical councils struck 2000 candidates off the recent election rolls precisely because they knew the public would not elect the candidates they wanted in power - if people were given the options. There is clearly an increasing disconnect between the so called "elected leaders" and the Clerical council, and the Irani people. The Clerics would lose power if they permitted real elections - so they don't. It's a sham. Without such a manipulation whereby the Clerics decide who will run, the current President would not be in power. Indeed, he would've lost badly.

It's in our interest to get rid of the clerics and their undemocratic system - not to war on the Irani people. Right now, the Clerics control the levers of power. They dictate who can and cannot run for office, and they are allied with the military and the secret police system. However, their hold on power is tenuous as they are increasingly having to manipulate who runs to keep power. This is their achilles heel. We need to be focussed on the next revolution, not the last one, and facilitate it.

Redlac 1
In a sense, I agree with you that we can weaken the regime in the eyes of the Iranian people, with whom we do not have a reason to be at war. However, what I am talking about is not disabling Iran's oil infrastructure, but her military. The most effective thing we could achieve with the very high-cost strikes we might mount (and their cost is high no matter how small our objective) is prostrating Iran in terms of military defenses.

Iran should be left unable to mount an effective air defense -- at all. At least 70% of her navy should be sunk, including the submarines and missile patrol boats (the PTGs, not the whaleboats). All her coastal defense assets, all her regional command and control, and every ground formation in western Iran (near the Iraq border) should be "k-killed": destroyed beyond repair.

It is worse than useless to approach Iran indecisively -- and that is what a "surgical," nuke-facilities-only strike would be. I don't actually share your view that we can effectively embargo Iran (given that no one will join us in such an embargo), nor do I think an embargo by itself would provoke a popular uprising. It's worth further discussion, but I don't see it as a decisive approach. (A sea embargo of military cargo is something the US could maintain unilaterally, but we have no way to interdict even just military shipments across Iran's eastern/northeastern land borders, or the Caspian Sea.) Nor do we have the means available to invade and regime-change Iran, before she can develop a nuclear weapon.

Redlac 2
But we can administer disabling strokes with enduring effect. It would take years for Iran to restore her defenses after such a strike, and doing so would have to take priority over her nuclear program (whose facilities we would also destroy). Even Russia and China would be given pause by such an attack, in their rush to sponsor Iran.

As mentioned, though, it would be a hard political decision to make. I think a key reason Bush hasn't done anything yet is precisely that the cost of anything we do will be high, and while that should drive us to prefer taking decisive action rather than an indecisive display, the only decisive options are a huge political step.

Yes
That is the issue. Bush does not have the ability at this point to mobilize meaningful international nor domestic opinion in support of such an action. Regardless of the outcome, it would be highly controversial. Further, the greater the collateral damage, the greater the outcry. At the same time, it could be very difficult to demonstrate, for example, that we'd actually crippled their nuclear capability - given our intelligence agencies have stated on several occassions that the Iranis' have learned the lesson of the Israeli strike on Iraq, and have buried and dispersed many of their critical facilities. Indeed, we are told that we don't know where many - or most, now are. This action could also affect Iraq, and the leadership there. We like to believe that this would not be a factor - but little happens in that region that does not play across all borders. An attack on Shia's in one country could well be viewed by Shia's in another country as an attack on them. The Shia's in Iraq do not see the situation in Iran as we do - indeed, they may be secretly proud of it and support it. The ascendency of the Shia's is sectarian, as opposed to the Sunni's. Then, we have our own elections. If such an action was not well received domestically, or did not provide something decisive that could be made to appear as a victory, it could shift the elections.

I'm not convinced, however, that either Russia or China would be deterred by such an action. I don't think that either believe they have much to fear from the US in the way they once did. They know our domestic political scene quite well, and will pursue their self interest as they see it.

Redlac writes:
"Indeed, we are told that we don't know where many - or most, now are."

Slight correction: We don't where ANY are, because we have absolutely NO proof that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons. None.

We can say we "suspect." That would be more honest, and our suspicion may even be true. Then again, we "suspected" that Saddam had the doomsday machine that would produce a "mushroom cloud over manhattan" sitting on his coffee table with a remote that looked just like his TV remote.

I'm just not sure I trust our "intelligence" anymore. Trust is supposed to be earned.

Sempervigilans
I like the way you think. To use nuclear could and would effect allies almost all over the globe, look at Russias mishap. There were readings detected as far as California from that, minute yes but they were there. I could see Isrial having problems with health problems from exposure. The whole reigon is nothing but sand and a nuke blast would put quite a lot of particulate into the air. However, the kind of strikes you aqre talking about would have a very lasting effect on the whole nation. Weakened as they would be, a friendly nation in the area could then possibly take out the nuke facilities without the undesired effects.

Soft Headed Thinking Like the Above
WILL KILL US!

We can't fight a conventional war against Iran because the politicians have not funded a large enough military to do everything we need to defeat Islamic Nazis.

Iran is killing our troops now by proxy. They are developing nuclear weapons or pretending they are. However there is evidence they have obtained various aid from China, and Kahn to develop weapons. Iranian scientists and engineers are top notch, with American and British educations. We cannot wait to see if they will send a missle against Israel or not. That is the worst illogic since fighting "limited" wars. We either totally defeat (wipe out) the enemy or we lose, in this case. Our enemy is insane. They will not be rational.

A pre-emptive nuclear strike is our only option to preserve our country and keep the Islamic Fascists from taking over Europe and then the rest of the world. If you are willing to wait and see, you are willing to risk the lives of your children and grandchildren, at a minimum condemning them to Islamic slavery.

I think
my problem is just with the casual way we all seem to be talking about war as if it is come abstract thing that will bring no consequences at all to us.

American soldiers will die. American civilians will die. Innocents will die. The world will be forever changed as a result.

War is at times necessary. I am just not convinced that it is neccessary in this case.

Pre-emptive wars are the domain of psychopaths and dictators. Those advocating it as if nothing bad will come of it are dangerous individuals.

How much of this is propaganda? I urge caution and pragmatism when it comes to war. It's NEVER a cakewalk and it is crime against our pact with our soldiers to put them in harms way uneccessarily. It also has a chilling effect on the voluntary enlistment of brave Americans into our military.

shubi writes:
"We cannot wait to see if they will send a missle against Israel or not."

If this is simply about Israel, then why not let Israel deal with it? They do have nukes and an extremely formiddable air force, you know.

And yes, we CAN wait. And we must if we are to be just. Pre-emptive wars are the domain of psychopaths, cowards, and dictators.

America loses ALL empathy when they strike first blood. What nation wouldn't ask themselves if they were next on the list of pre-emptive strikes?

Consider this: If my neighbor were to take pre-emptive strikes on my other next door neighbor, you think I am not going to be just a little concerned that I won't be next?

Justice. I am not sure how one could consider themselves a conservative or a Christian if they have no faith in it.

NUTS!
I was in Vietnam. You don't know anything about war. Nuking Iran is the same decision as nuking Japan. It is to save the very lives you purport will be saved if we continue to fight ineffective limited wars. Our soldiers would never be in danger using nukes against Iran.

You are probably a peacenik disguised as a concerned citizen. Pre-emptive wars are rational when you have maniacs threatening use of nuclear weapons. We need to teach every country in the world that if they threaten to use nukes, they are obliterated first.

NUTS!
I was in Vietnam. You don't know anything about war. Nuking Iran is the same decision as nuking Japan. It is to save the very lives you purport will be saved if we continue to fight ineffective limited wars. Our soldiers would never be in danger using nukes against Iran.

You are probably a peacenik disguised as a concerned citizen. Pre-emptive wars are rational when you have maniacs threatening use of nuclear weapons. We need to teach every country in the world that if they threaten to use nukes, they are obliterated first.

Shubi
Yawn...


Shubi
And you are probably a pyscopath disguised as a rational person.

Nuking Iran is the same decision as "nuking" Japan (we didn't nuke Japan)? Japan declared war on us and ATTACKED us. We responded in defense, it was not pre-emptive. Japan was not innocent. And really, we didn't need to "nuke" them to win against them, we did it because we wanted to try out the new weapon.

Were you in vietnam last year?

You sound more like a coward.

Pre-emptive wars are NOT rational.

With Iran, you *might* be able to argue that they are attacking our soldiers (with no actual proof) but how do you explain that the Iraqi government actually WANTS Iran to be a part of their country's restructuring?

It's interesting that Iran hasn't actually threatened *US* and from the translations I have read, they didn't actually "threaten" Israel either. And what proof do you have that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons? You should really bring it forward, because it could make a huge difference in the world dialog. Just a gut feeling, right? Talk radio told you so? Where's the evidence?

YOU sound like a coward. I bet you weren't even alive yet when the Vietnam war ended.

Shubi
You sound like you might attack ME if you figured out where I live. Maybe I should do a pre-emptive strike on you to prevent that? I don't really need proof, just a gut feeling. Right? It just might save all the people that your psychotic rage might kill in the future.

Rational? I don't think so.

Mom is calling you for breakfast. Time to get off the computer.

Shubi
My history book must be outdated. Tell me again what nation Iran has attacked that provides the precendence for your claim that they harbor irrational, suicidal, and psychotic tendencies?

Absent actual proof (which we are notably lacking) maybe some "precedence" would justify a pre-emptive strike.

Your case wouldn't even make it to court, and yet you want to commit genocide regardless? Who's the psycho, again?

Just one (well, two for the price of one) "serious" question:

Are the Iranians not equal as humans? Are they not God's children?

Your answer to that question will provide all we need to know.

I think
We should drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan. They actually HAVE nuclear weapons, and Osama Bin Laden is hiding out there. They also have proven Anti-Western tendencies and harbor great animosity towards Israel.

Let's drop a bomb on Pakistan to show Iran that we are willing to do it if they get nukes. The lives of the innocent in Pakistan would be worth the complete end of the war on terror.

What do you say?

Correction above
The bombs that were used on Japan were "technically" considered nukes. So, we DID in fact nuke them. Of course, they are quite different from the nukes we use nowadays - good, bad, we don't know -- we haven't dropped any on anybody.

Buchanan, really a true American
Yes, if Americans doesn't wake up soon and should McCain get into the Oval Office, he will give America the gift of WWIII! If not a shooting war, for certain another cold war that will make the previous one look like peanuts by comparison! Imperialism now has a complete shoke hold on America. Completely in constravention to why America was born in the first place. Yes, my party treating Ron Paul like leprosy, when in reality his the man the would most certainly pickup where Ronald Reagan left off.

I am honored to be familiar with these words, as a legal immigrant of 52 years: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most 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 the few". By James Madison.

Yes, choose ye this day whom you will serve? America is at a crossroad, whether to continue on the road of self-destruction with all its inhumane horredous war machinery on its back, or return to full liberty and security handed down by the Founding Fathers in advise etc.!


eastlake joe
I agree with you and anyone else who has commented here that we don't want to nuke Iran. There is quite a cottage industry going, on the Web, trying to "prove" that it's the only way to destroy Iran's own nuclear program, and that we are, in fact, planning to do it.

But it's unnecessary. We could actually damage Iran's two main uranium processing facilities, Isfahan and Natanz, very substantially, just using our 5000-lb "bunker buster" conventional ordnance in air strikes. R&D facilities near Tehran, and the Arak heavy-water installation, would be easier to destroy. It's the Isfahan and Natanz facilities where we could not guarantee no release of radiological or hydrogen fluoride (byproduct of the uranium hexafluoride) contamination. However, in the quantities of processed/enriched uranium Iran has so far, the effects of the contamination would most likely be limited to the areas immediately around the facilities themselves.

The Bushehr reactor -- not critical yet anyway -- doesn't actually need to be struck, to prevent nuclear weaponization in Iran. Assuming it does go critical this spring, as Iran has announced, and if we do want to disable it, a special forces operation would be the way to go. The reactor should be shut down and disabled outside the core.

We could also, as you suggest, render Iran completely vulnerable to attack by destroying her military -- but not attack the nuclear facilities, and leave that for "someone else" to do. My concern about that would be that Iran already has enough low-enriched uranium to use it, via terrorist operation, in retaliation -- Israel, the US, Iraq. I would prefer to at least try to address that possibility up front.

Why your ideas won't work
1. Pakistan has not threatened anyone yet. However, should the radicals take over Pakistan, we would immediately have to nuke them to wipe out everyone. We then would have to go in and secure the nuclear weapons they have and destroy them.

2. I fought in the Vietnam war. I am not a snot nosed kid like some of you. We nuked Japan for several reasons, the foremost of which was to save 500,000-1 million lives of our soldiers, sailors and marines, so that no more families would lose their sons, fathers and brothers. Japan was radicalized similar to the Islamic Nazis today. They fought to the death and did not care if they died or not. The suicide bombers today are copycats of the kamikaze.

3. War is the normal condition of man. Peace has never really been a permanent condition in the world. Even during the Pax Romana there were various small wars all around the borders of the empire. Today, the U.S.A. is in a similar condition to Rome. The barbarians are at the gates and the principles that led to our greatness have been corrupted by the liberals (relativists, atheists, living Constitution morons etc.). Similarly, Rome was corrupted by the hedonistic excesses of the emperors that violated the founding principles of the Republic.



Why Part II
4. War has kept us free. Never in history has a country without the will to fight for freedom been allowed to survive. Some of you talk about the cost of war. War is the cost that brings us peace, but only if we ruthlessly defeat our enemies. In WWII we would only allow unconditional surrender, because we learned the lesson that any mercy to facists merely results in allowing them to rebuild their war machines.

5. It is old warriors like myself who must try to cut through the haze of lies of the leftist weaklings to tell the plain truth. We can only hope enough will listen before our country is destroyed. It will not matter to us, as we will be dead long before the U.S.A. passes into the graveyard of history. Our grandchildren will suffer from the peace at any price traitors.

Bread and Circuses
Also, like Rome, we seem to be increasingly self-absorbed with pop-culture, and whatever "kicks" we think were entitled to, that a great many of us appear increasingly out-of-touch with what's really going on. The internet, besides offering forums for discussion such as this, also provides enough BS to support any delusional belief system, however off-the-wall it may be. It will only get worse with this next generation. Example: My stepson's Boy Scout troop is gearing up for their 50 mile hike. This only happens once or twice during a scout's tenure. Out of a troop of 32 members, only 9 are going. Why? I asked one of those that aren't going. His answer: Why would I want to bust my butt on a fifty mile hike and waste my vacation when I can be playing HALO on my X-box. Pretty much says it all. God help us!!

shubi
A lot of the people who would like to condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't even be here today if we hadn't. Their parents/grandparents could have been among the estimated 500,000 - 1,000,000 casualties. For my part, although I don't like the idea of escalation that could lead to horror that is equal to or surpasses WWII, at the end of the day we should all be resolved to win, whatever the cost. I just don't believe that any course of action with the possibility of excessive civilian casualties should be undertaken lightly. Not if we truly want to say that we, as a nation, act with noble purpose. On the other hand, to agonize over such things when the gloves truly come off, is to risk defeat. I don't think Curtis LeMay had many sleepless nights. Let us only do what is necessary.

Not taken lightly
I agree we should not take civilian casualties lightly. If we allow one nuke to go off in NYC, for instance, our civilian casualties would be some 10 million people. However, our whole country would go into a deep decline resulting in untold civilian suffering.

Thus, I compare wiping out 40-100 million Iranians and others who threaten the use of nuclear weapons to losing our whole population. To me the choice is obvious. Soft-headed defeatist liberals would agonize until it is too late.

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.