Democrats & Liberals Archives

Draw The Line

I agree with this guy. We are already in trouble with Iraq. Whatever we there, we should be sure to tell the president that the Bush doctrine ends in Iraq. We should not allow Bush to just arbitrarily spread this war to Iran.

Some on the right assume that it's some sort of vague, abstract hatred which drives us to criticize Bush's plan so much. The reality is, and always has been that our prime motivation for our withering critique of his failures is to make it politically difficult for him to pull the same stunts all over again.

What has this all been worth if once again, these clowns have us going into another preventative war, if once again, they're trying to inspire democracy at the point of a gun?

Is it not a well known tendency of societies to defer to a leader in times of war? Most Iranians freaking hate Ahmedinejad. But if it comes to a war, people are going to rally to their country's defense, and Mister Ahmedinejad is going to gain support he didn't have before. And what better reason to develop a nuke than for home defense?

According to reports, they're having trouble getting the means to purify the fuel off the ground. The centrifuges that refine Uranium to reactor, much less weapons grade are notoriously touchy. A smudged fingerprint can throw them off-balance.

I'm no pacifist. I have no problem in seeing this country go to war. The world's imperfect. Not everybody's going to work and play well with others. We cannot avoid all wars. Tensions will build up, and there will be times when it is a good thing to get militarily involved.

The trouble with a reliance on military means to solve problems can be a stated as threefold:

1) First, the military is a specialized profession, and that specialization is violence. Sometimes violence is called for, necessary, and the military is useful for delivering that. Make no mistake, though, the military's main purpose is to kill or threaten to kill people. The military is a vehicle for the delivery of force, of coercion towards of one party or another. You have to plan for its use accordingly. People who want to employ it creatively must be careful, because it doesn't operate efficiently when called to do what it wasn't originally designed for.

2) Military force has its costs in both money and opportunities lost. Every tank, helicopter, and jet costs something, and it's something we buy at the expense of getting something else. Do we want our society to become centered on its military, for that to become our main growth industry? Eisenhower didn't warn about the Military-Industrial complex for nothing. We can look at Russia, and see one country where the need to keep a massive military and set of occupational forces going long term essentially reduced the country to just that.

3) At what point does the use of military force become such a common option that it's naturally provocative effects on people begin to blowback on our own safety? Or, put another way, how much war can we make, before the wars start making it difficult for us to do anything else but secure ourselves? Peace is the rest that allows our commerce, our culture, and our security the breathing room they need. While we have to face down the lawless and the belligerent to maintain all those, there's a point where our violence perpetuates the problem rather than resolves it.

Those who perpetuate wars indefinitely practically ensure that they will lose. Nobody can keep a war going forever at their costs and with their consequences. The bargain with warfare is that there's some threshold you can cross where the force is no longer necessary, and you can end that expense and cut short the grief, the aggravation and let time heal the wounds. As Sun Tzu said, nobody ever brilliantly protracted a war.

The Bush administration believes it can win by perpetuating the war, disregarding problems with manpower, public support (both here and in Iraq), equipment, readiness, among other things. To Bush, losing is mental. You don't lose until you quit. But in real life, losing means being in a worse position after you've tried something than before. If Iraq is supposed to be a part of the war on terror, then it's been a very counterproductive part. Supporters of the war note with alarm that if we go, we will no longer be able to fight them there to avoid fighting them here.

But I ask, what kind of screwed-up result are we talking about if after years of this war against terrorism, we can't walk away without them attacking us somewhere else? Almost four years into this war, we're still screwing around with these people, swelling their ranks in fact. Any truly successful strategy would be attenuating their ranks for the most part, destroying their ability to fight. We're not doing that. Therefore, we're doing something wrong. Admitting that sort of thing, though, has not been the administration's strong suit. Instead, they try and bluff the world and the American public about it, though with appalling transparency that defeats the purpose of such bluster. It's like watching a drunk driver refusing help while getting into a destruction derby trying to parallel park. They'll keep on bashing into one car after another, all the while asking for folk's patience.

Patience, in such cases, should have reasonable limits. You can't wait forever to stop screwing up, to realize your mistakes, nor can you do that for somebody else. If you want something better than what you've got, you've got to be willing to sacrifice the efforts that have come before for the efforts you will undertake now, taking the loss for the sake of what you want out of your future.

We're suffering for having let Bush do as he pleased. It didn't matter that he decieved us to get what he wanted. We still bear responsiblity for things. We can't change the history that's come as a result. The future, though, is different. Bush wants a war with Iran, or at least thinks it's necessary. But he's not talking about getting in the way of an attack on America, but rather about escalating Iran's small influence on events into another case for war.

This time, we have the opportunity to say no to Bush's next poor choice. After all we've said and done, it is time to use the powers given to us by the people to end Bush's losing streak, and get us back into a position of strength in the world. It's time to make it clear to Bush that he can no longer operate by his sneaky, cowardly fait accompli, that he has to answer to somebody other than himself and his fellow ideologues. It's time for the American people to get their votes worth out of us. Iraq was an overwhelming reason for getting the Democrats into office. What good will our election to the majority have done if we can't even prevent this presidents next foreign policy screwup?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 3, 2007 10:22 PM
Comments
Comment #206546

Stephen,

That was a great article.

David Remer’s article in the green column yesterday caused me to start reading and doing more research which lead to some info, a bit of which I just posted on Rowan’s last thread.

Iran is scarey, we’ve made it more so thru our destabilizing Iraq. It’s a real mess and I can’t find any good news about this $h!t. I’m convinced that we mean to strike Iran. The only question is “when”?

If so I don’t believe it will bode well for us. One need only factor in Russia’s involvement in recently supplying Iran with nukular goodies and anti-aircraft missiles, along with previous opposition to sanctions, to know which side of this they’ll fall on.

I recently heard some ‘wing-nut” on FOX news say that we could take out all of Iran’s military capability in two days. It just left me slack-jawed, if mom were still living she’d have asked if I was trying to catch flies.

IMO right now we truly are our own worst enemy.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2007 12:05 AM
Comment #206550

I do not agree. We must attack Iran to prevent a bigger problem from arising. We have the Troops needed and with the Stop-Loss program, our GI’s will be on the job for a long time.

Attack Iran now before its too late.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 4, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #206555

If Iran is having trouble with their nuclear program, why do you suppose that is, and how do you suppose we know it?

Even the transperancy we have now is a result of pressure placed on the Iranian regime, made possible not by UN bureaocrats but by American aircraft carriers nearby and embargos of technology, which the rest of the world will only be serious about if they there’s the threat of a military response.

We’re not “relying on military means” in Iran at all. We are using diplomacy. But with no military component in place, we have no diplomacy either, which in the long run means just one thing, war.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 4, 2007 1:36 AM
Comment #206556

Juan of the Cross
What branch of the service are you or your children in? When are you going to sign up? What is your commanders name?

SD
Did you read the NYT article about contractors today. Seems Lockeed Martin gets more money than the Dept.of Justice or Energy.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2007 1:47 AM
Comment #206559

So what if Iran developes a few nukes? All that means is that the US is not likely to attack them. If the US makes it clear that Isreal is under our nuclear umbrella they are not likely to attack them.One Trident submarine has more nuclear firepower than the entire arsenal of India, Pakistan, NK,and France and how many Tridents do we have?Persians are not stupid.They may not even be particularly determined to come up with a nuke program. This does ring bells about Saddams WMDs.As their president said,para phrase “What good are nuclear weapons? If they provided stability the Soviet Union would not have crumbled, If they provided security 9/11 would not have occured…”If US saber rattling does anything it is to strenghten the resolve of the opposition.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2007 2:09 AM
Comment #206561

BillS:

I take offense at your insinuation. As it happens, I have other priorities than military service. I also have a cyst in a certain part of my body that disqualifies me from serving. Top it all, I am actively serving in the Boy Scouts that exempts me.

Really BillS… there are more ways than one to help this war and I do most of them. I have that yellow sticker… I shop… I even think sad thoughts when I see the violence on TV. So you don’t have anything on me!!!

Liberate Iran now!!!

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 4, 2007 6:30 AM
Comment #206569

“As it happens, I have other priorities than military service. I also have a cyst in a certain part of my body that disqualifies me from serving.”

Sounds like Rush Limbuagh.

Posted by: Rocky at February 4, 2007 8:19 AM
Comment #206570

So you got a little yellow sticker Wow… Take the money that sticker cost send it in the form of a calling card and somebody serving could make a phone call home to there loved ones. You being in the boy scouts scares me I hope your not filling there little heads with B.S.

Posted by: Jeff at February 4, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #206571

BillS,

Juan’s posts make sense if you see the satire. And if he’s not being satirical, then I’d feel as if I just asked a fat lady when her baby’s due.

Stephen D.,

Well stated.

Posted by: Trent at February 4, 2007 8:23 AM
Comment #206572

BullS,

Our own worst enemy? Stregthen the opposition? So what, if Iran has nukes?
If you want to blame America first, how about blaming all the political hacks in Congress. They make us look spineless and weak-kneed. If you want to put pressure on the Prez, you should be asking,”Mr. President, what are we doing to win the war?”
How about we give Iran what they need to build reactors for energy. This will bring peace, just as it has with North Korea. (Just in case you are not sure, Im being satirical, here.)
BTW, I am a combat veteran. I served with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq and Haiti.

Posted by: JoeRWC at February 4, 2007 8:47 AM
Comment #206577

JoeRWC-
America can do wrong. Being free and being a Democracy doesn’t exempt us from making mistakes, or making fools out of ourselves.

It’s matter of what forces we have available to us. We don’t have the volunteer forces left, which means that our attack will be ineffectual on the larger, more populous, more rugged, and much less softened target of Iran. As Vietnam illustrated, a nation that’s sufficiently low tech can respond to air supremacy by escalating the ground campaign, and Iran has plenty of soldiers for that, regular and irregular. Any plan that doesn’t handle those things will be destined to fail.

And what if, having won this war at great expense on all fronts, we find out again that we were wrong? Well, Jeez, that will shoot our credibility to hell. Or at least a lower circle of it, given our current debacle.

The thresholds that this administration use are ridiculously low, and apt to let their imaginations run away with themselves. In the run up to Iraq, they grabbed at anything that would indicate the threat they thought was there, no matter how dubious. Like the guy in the article says, I don’t trust these people’s judgment, especially if they’re pulling the same kind of crap they did the last time around, especially at a time when they’ve already degraded our strength so seriously. These people don’t know how to win a war. Why let them escalate it? You don’t give a kid a Bentley after they’ve crashed the Beemer.

Let our enemies make the mistake of breaking the peace. If they make that mistake, we can make them pay for it with clear consciences, and clear purpose.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2007 10:18 AM
Comment #206583

“It’s matter of what forces we have available to us.”

Stephen,

It sure is. I just heard McCain this morning on ABC’ This Week when questioned by George Stephenopolous if he (McCain) hadn’t said we should send in even more troops, McCain said he would prefer that but we don’t have them, this “surge” puts us “all in”.

Given any number of emerging or potential threats to our security how smart is it to go “all in” on Iraq? I hope I can find a link later of McCain’s exact words. I’m not far off.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 4, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #206586

Stephen,
Great post; much truth.

J.O. (the cross),
keep those posts coming. Breath of fresh air.

Joe R.W.C.,
Thanks for you service. You have my respect. I am NOT a combat veteran, cause there wasn’t any combat when I was in.

To all,
Understand that the official doctrine of the Bush/neocon administration is pre-emptive warfare. I.E., only the perception of a threat needs to exist to justify attacking any nation. War should be waged ONLY after all else has proven fruitless. Or in the face of an attack. No, Bunky, 9/11 did not mean we could attack Iraq. That threshold that Stephen mentioned in his last post isn’t just too low, it’s almost non-existent.

Posted by: steve miller at February 4, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #206587

Juan

Got me!

JoeRWC
Insults do not answer my question. Again,so what if Iran has a nuke?

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #206589

Sounds like the makings of World War 3 ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 4, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #206596

In their hearts if not quite in their minds yet, the American People know what has happened to this administration and the polls reflect that. While George Bush was reading My Pet Goat, Dick Cheney self appointed himself to the position of Commander In Chief of the armed forces. It was he that was giving commands to our military on that fateful day. He has not relinquished that position. This is not an Imperial Presidency but rather a Imperial Vice Presidency. Bush is only trying to save face by proclaiming himself the decider. Cheney told him to say that.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #206612

I favored removing Saddam, or at least demolishing his regime, but not any of this nation building that’s happened since.

I think there are a lot of different views out there in the body politic about Iran, and a major one is a reluctance to take on yet another Bush effort to build a Middle-eastern “democracy” with American dollars.

One thing that’s interesting to me has been how many on the left opposed the administration on Iraq even before the failure to find WMD, but later made that a main staple of their objections. I’m not saying that they don’t have a point (it’s a very fair one to make), but it’s important to remember that this group simply has a problem with any policy that includes facing force with force, and even the discovery of WMDs wouldn’t have made a difference.

Stephen says he’s not one of those, but I wonder if he would support fighting Iran under ANY circumstances, and what that threshold would be.

I don’t think we should have boots on the ground in Iran, but think we should be prepared for a complete naval blockade and continous targeted air strikes of military and nuclear sites that could last weeks or months.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 4, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #206622

Stephen:

Good post. My congressman, Peter DeFazio, is trying to get a bill through Congress that asserts that any military action against Iran necessitates a vote from the legislative branch. The AUMF passed in October of ‘02, DeFazio insists, was for Iraq only. Silly boy—he seems to have read the Constitution, and is laboring under the impression that we have a democratic republic or something.

Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons are going to have to come up with some gargantuan Gulf of Tonkin raison detre for military action against Iran to overcome 70%-plus negative polling on Iraq. They have a credibility problem of sizeable proportions. Put more succinctly, most Americans don’t trust them anymore.

I wrote a number of Congress creatures over a year ago about my concerns regarding a preemptive attack on Iran. Response was your typical government-speak pooh-poohing and minimizing, with bleats about ‘don’t you worry, I’m on the job’. I was much relieved. Not.

Now, whether that reassurance, along with the polls will preclude military action against Iran is a slender stalk indeed. All that is really needed is a successful terrorist incident here, and all bets are off. And, so will be the Constitution.

Keep watching.

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 4, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #206624

LO-
Defense. That simple. If Iran attacked us, we should make war on them. If they threaten our interests, we should defend them. If they defy the UN, and the UN decides for war, we should go with them.

But to simply go based on the ghost of a suspicion? We have to justify our actions. There is a price for every war fought. The price for this last one has been our credibility, and the leader’s credibility to most of his citizens.

Also, your suggestions reflect wishful thinking more than what could likely be managed. Attack Iran, and you will see ground attacks, and to not have boots on the ground prepared to deal with that will be military suicide.

In the meantime? Let’s not forget what happened with Bush himself. He was underwhelming in his first year, enjoyed the support of maybe half the country at best, and there was real question about his election that people continued to focus on. But crash a few planes into buildings, attack this country, and people rallied around him, made him a hero. It took an awful lot of screwing up on his part to take the shine off of all that war president status.

Unless there is real perception that the leader was at fault for the catastrophe, the usual reaction to being attacked is to gather around the leader.

Ahmedinejad is a lousy leader. He’s gotten mobbed at certain speaking engagements. He’s that unpopular. When you have an enemy who is as weak and as bumbling, you let him do damage to himself.

The nuclear program in Iran is roughly comparable to our war in Iraq in terms of its practicality, in terms of what it’s doing to their country in terms of the world. The technical complexity of making a bomb and getting the means of making that bomb working are considerable, and the word is they’re having trouble getting things to run right. The real focus of this endeavor is the psychological effect. It’s provocative. It’s a thumb in the eye socket. And guess what?

You guys are letting it do precisely what its meant to do: escalate the situation. Ahmedinejad is a war president, and he needs a war to be loved, or at least the seeming approach of one.

Like our president, though, most people think he’s nuts. Most people don’t find his agenda all that desirable. His actions, if we let them play out, could go a long way towards destabilizing the mullahs and the extremists, and turning a generation against them. Why should we do all the work of trying to prevent Iran from becoming a threat, when so many in the country could do the work for us?

We got to work smarter in the Middle East against our enemies, not get in the way of internal movements that would moderate the influence of the radicals.

Military solutions are not cheap, are not all-purpose, and are not easy to make work. We should give up on the myth that either military or diplomatic solutions are simple, and start looking to see where each one works most appropriately in the real world context of the situation at hand.

Like I said, I’m no dove. In fact, I’ve supported military operations since Panama pretty consistently. Iraq is one of the first times I’ve found myself facing an full scale war this ill-conceived. I was under the impression that no president would send troops to war without a very well conceived plan, and that our intelligence would be dependable in discerning whether Saddam had these weapons or not- or at least the intelligence the president would give us to justify the war. I just could not conceive of a president being this wrong on both justification and execution of a war.

But there you go. This is sad for me. This is what I always thought I would never see my country do again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #206625

I must still be totally dense. That’s what one of my Poly Sci professors called me. I asked him to explain WHY it mattered just HOW MANY times the US could blow up the world, verses how many time the Soviet Union could do so really matter. Once blown up, who’s going to be around to push the buttons to continue shooting off bombs. (Obviously some time ago)

I maintain that having nukes falls into the same category. Attacking Iran would really be a very stupid thing to do in MHO. If nothing else were to happen, it would certainly give them a reason, not an excuse, but a reason to start using their nukes - indiscriminately.

Our biggest problem is the arrogance our country is, and how we appear to the rest of the world. If we could possibly muster up some knowledge and respect for the Middle Eastern Countries, as well as other all the other countries in our world, their governments, cultures, and religions, we most certainly wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. It might also help us to keep from making the same mistakes in N.A., S.A., Africa, Asia, Australia,and the European countries, as well.

I do not necessarily agree with the ideas of the Islamic faith,or of the Hindu faith, or of the Buddhist faith, etc. but if I believe in the 1st Amendment, I should at least make an effort to try to understand them. With understanding, we lose our automatic reaction of fear. I rather like F.D.R.’s idea - “”the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.

As for Iran, let it make the first move (and if it does)- then not only will the rest of the world support the country\countries involved, but what ever kind of action would need to be taken. We may fill the pain ourselves, but the choices are clear - bully or victim, aggressor or wounded, offender or defender?

I bet my husband $50 in May, 2001, that we would be at war with Iraq in a year and half. I won, of course. I am sorely tempted to bet you folks here that we will be at war with Iran before the end of Bush’s term in office.

I find myself truly afraid of this action. As Stephen pointed out, unless Congress were to DO something amazing NOW, our illustrious (sarcasm) leader will put us into another useless, wasteful, and unnecessary war.

I know I would rather die with dignity at home than as an invader in a foreign land.

Good article Stephen. I obviously agree with you.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 4, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #206632

LO
Another real possibility if we get in a war with Iran is we could lose our army. Sounds peposterious but a look at history shows that it often happens to great powers at which point they often are no longer great powers. Ask the French at Dien Bien Phu.Iran has a history of human wave attacks. Saddam was omly able to fight them off with WMDs. Our armies caught between an insurgency on one side,that may well coalese,and Iranian mass attacks onthe other with the porspect of Syria or even Turky intervening is chilling. Not to mention what the price of oil would do to the world economy. Pause to reflect the dangers.

Posted by: BillS at February 4, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #206640

BillS:

Good points. What makes the consideration of military force against Iran so scary, is the vast pararmeters for unintended consequences. If Iran is attacked by Israel, the US, or both, we don’t know what might happen. I just found out yesterday that Syria has a defense treaty with Iran—what will the Syrians do if Iran is attacked?

Our troops in Iraq, as you quite rightly point out, are in a precarious position, at the end of a very long supply line, a line that could easily be threatened by any number of irate Arabs—including Saudi Arabia.

But what really worrys me is what an attack might do to a very fragile and precarious Pakistan, who is armed with nukes, and has a very vocal and vehement radical contingent that has threatened Masharrif for some time.

Unintended consequences. As Mark Twain once said, “Holding a cat by the tail teaches you things that you can’t learn any other way.” I think the blowback from world opinion, Arab and Muslim outrage, and a long-term terrorist war (a real one, not a politically engineered one) on global US interests would be a given.

And one thing’s for sure—the days of easy motoring by Americans, and the fantasies of economic globalization would come to a screetching halt. And we would be severely harmed as a nation, because our industial production capacity has been hollowed out and dismantled, and shipped overseas to the the lowest bidder. As precarious as this nation’s financial situation is, with a declining dollar and massive debt, oil disruption and a long-term global war with millions of pissed off Muslims (and others) would be a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.

Iraq is a moderate irritant, with a long-term potential financially and politically of being more than that. With Iran, even the known consequences are prohibitive. And I can’t believe that preemptive war is even seriously being discussed, when you look at how stretched the military is now.

For over forty years, this country faced down a Soviet nuclear threat (one that hasn’t gone away). Even if Iran were to get a nuclear capability 7-10 years down the road, what have they really accomplished? A certain amount of security (no nuclear nation has been attacked, yet). If Iran were to use a nuclear bomb, they would be dust inside of 48 hours, and they know it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 4, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #206642

BillS, France was NOT a world class military by the time Vietnam rolled around, so I fail to see the comparison.

And in any case, if Iran launches “human wave attacks” they won’t be doing it against badly trained and equipped static lines of defense. A couple modern American gunships can literally evaporate into a red mist any “human wave attack.”
The only way to succeed in any way against the US military is to not expose yourself in concentrated formations like that ever.

Stephen, if we engage in large scale bombing of Iran, what are they going to attack and how? Are they gonna attack our naval war groups? Are they going to send ground troops into Iraq? That would be suicide. Their air force would simply not exist after the first couple hours of a war, and their air defenses and command-and-control and capabilites would be equally non-existant in very short order.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 4, 2007 10:44 PM
Comment #206646


L.O.: That is what we need to do, slaughter more innocent people. Let the whole World know that we don’t talk, we butcher anyone we don’t like, unless they have nuclear weapons and can fight back. We keep this up and no American will be able to leave the country without military escort.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2007 11:43 PM
Comment #206648

JLW, we should talk. We are talking. Talk, talk, talk. At some point, though, when the talk is about a nuclear-armed jihadist state who is threatening its neigbhors and arming terrorists, talk will lose its appeal.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 4, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #206657

BillS
What’s the big deal about Iran having a nuke?! Are you insane? Ahmedinajad has dedicated himself to annihilating Israel and you don’t see a problem with him having the most powerful weapon known to man?!

I do not favor an invasion of Iran. Rather, lets (re)build our army, maybe with a limited draft, and see if anyone wants to mess then. I wonder how long Ahmedinajad will continue down his present course if would could take most of his countries defenses down in a few days.

Kansasdem
Two days to knock out Iran isn’t all that unrealistic. Given enough troops the only real obstacle would be terrain, as our troops are far better trained and equiped than Iran’s. The only thing they’ve got on us is an incredible willingness to die while Americans value life.

jlw
Iranian soldiers theoretically involved in a war against us aren’t exactly innocent.

Posted by: Silima at February 5, 2007 2:04 AM
Comment #206658

I am a student of history, and for the west, major world wars in the past have started like this. With the left inventing a myriad of reasons why we should allow madmen to build their war machines and not intervene until the cost is global war.

In WWII the world lost somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 million depending on whose figures you believe. There was massive global suffering.

The president of France now says, or at least did say a few days ago, that it’s A OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons. A terrorist muslim state, a rogue nation calling for the wiping of Irael off the map, which supports multiple terrorist organizations, which demanded of Al Qaeda that Iranians be placed in leadership roles of Al Qeada. Just as the French took money from Sadam while his people suffered and died, now the French step up, along with most of old Europe and support Iran nukes. No one really believed they were willing to oppose Iran with a cut-off of trade and sure enough…guess what….europe thinks Iranian nukes are not to be resisted.

I beleive global liberals support the Iranian bomb because it represents defeat not only for Bush but for the America that liberals want to tear down and replace with socialism and a weak, defeatest foreign policy. Liberals in the US generally accept the global liberal agenda.

It’s doubtful that Bush wants to leave the Iranian problem to someone like Hillary. Shes too likely to follow the European model, play at diplomacy until the Iranians test their nukes then declare she did all that could be done. It’s doubtful that Israel would let it set too long if Bush does leave it to Hillary.

And it’s virtually a certainty that “Progressive” Europe will continue to support Iran against the US and never cut off trade with Iran to force them to dump their nuke program. We all know this, even if some want to deny it. If Europe so abhors the use of force, they could simply annonce they will participate in a total trade embargo….they wont announce that, they support Iran against the US.

So America is alone, does it have the courage to stop Iranian nukes? Or might it have to come up with the courage later to deal with the aftermath of Iranian nukes dropping on Israel as mideast nuclear war breaks out, or to face a nuke going of in New York City.

Funny thing about a nuclear weapon on a container ship going off at the docks in New York City…it comes with no return address. After the blast it’s just gone. You are left with millions dead, trillions of dollars of damage, and no one to ship a return nuke to. Was it a Korean nuke, a pakistania nuke, an Iranian nuke, did terrorists get it from Russia? No one knows.

But we do know a few things. We know Iran is a rogue state that is our enemy and supports terrorism around the globe. And we know they are digging deep holes to protect their nuclear program. And we know if we don’t stop them, the world could change for the worse for all of us.

Clearly there are many among us who do not have the will to stop them. Some who even want them to succeed.

I beleive that just one nuke, in New York City would collapse our economy, destroy our currency, and cause a major global depression helping to create the perfect invironment for the radical muslmim glogal Jihad to flourish in.

Posted by: Stephen at February 5, 2007 3:41 AM
Comment #206660

Stephen:

You a very funny man. You claim to be a “student of history” yet only give WW2 as an example? Must have cut a LOT of classes then, eh?

Perhaps it would help if you gave more “examples”? The Spanish-American War? The Tolkin Incident? Duke Ferdinand of WW1?

btw… Israel is far more likely to nuke Tehran than vice-versa. Ohmert is a strong believer in pre-emptive war, afterall. In fact, every neo-con is a certified Israel apologist. Explains where Operation Iraqi Freddom comes from, eh?

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 5, 2007 5:11 AM
Comment #206669

Silma,

“Two days to knock out Iran isn’t all that unrealistic. Given enough troops the only real obstacle would be terrain, as our troops are far better trained and equiped than Iran’s. The only thing they’ve got on us is an incredible willingness to die while Americans value life.”

Iran’s 25 million troops (according to our very own CIA) and the potential for up to 30 million can make up for better training and equipment rather quickly.
Unless we are planning to go nuclear against Iran, we may win in the long term, but we better be prepared to have our asses handed to us in the short term.

Posted by: Rocky at February 5, 2007 8:27 AM
Comment #206672

Stephen,

The president of France now says, or at least did say a few days ago, that it’s A OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

No. Chirac said (quite offly, but whatever) that the problem is not nukes BUT nukes technologies proliferation. Re-read the interview, the both of them. He even go to say if a nuke was launched by Teheran, the city will be erased before the missile will had made 200 meters.

A terrorist muslim state, a rogue nation calling for the wiping of Irael off the map, which supports multiple terrorist organizations, which demanded of Al Qaeda that Iranians be placed in leadership roles of Al Qeada.

You seems to confuse Iran nation with its current leader’s speeches.
Oh, I don’t blame you, I often myself do the same with Bush’s speeches.

Just as the French took money from Sadam while his people suffered and died, …

Yeah, we were alone, we’re that evil that we blocked anybody else from Oil for Food program. Wait. Not. Check your fact. There is at least as much american businessmen as former french politicians involved in the scandal which, I think, is not yet on trial.

… now the French step up, along with most of old Europe and support Iran nukes.

Step up? Support? If we were *supporting* Iran nukes, France will be selling its own nukes technology to Iran, in place of/along with Russia. Instead we’re trying since years to bring Iran *and* USA to diplomatic table. But “we don’t talk to evil”. Yeah, right. Better kill 70 millions of iranian than talk with their (unpopular) “evil” leader. Anyway, AFAIK Iran is not happy with Europe and France in particular. The same is also true with Syria after Lebano war last summer.

Anyway, do you happen to confuse France with Russia in this particular case? Hint: french don’t drink vodka. If it could help…

It’s doubtful that Israel would let it set too long if Bush does leave it to Hillary.

Here you’ve an actual point. It’s up to Israel to take their responsability in the region.
Afterall, why having an undeclared huge nukes stockpiles if it doesn’t help to have and secure peace in the Middle East?
Instead, they should a) use it on their most threatfull neighboor (Iran) and that way secure both peace and their status of #1 power of the M.E. for the decades to come or b) drop their nukes stockpiles to re-establish the balance with regional powers.

Outsourcing their foreign policy to US daddy is not taking their responsability.

And it’s virtually a certainty that “Progressive” Europe will continue to support Iran against the US and never cut off trade with Iran to force them to dump their nuke program.

I didn’t knew History students were trained to Nostradamus divination too. Meanwhile, where are your facts?

PS: “progressive”, is that another word for evil?

If Europe so abhors the use of force, they could simply annonce they will participate in a total trade embargo….they wont announce that, they support Iran against the US.

Then I guess Old Europe/Chirac just declared war to the US, following your logic. By mine, we follows the UN resolution terms on Iran economic sanction, AFAIK. Do you have any facts to back your claim that Europe is not? Would you share them with us non-historian students?

So America is alone, …

Oh, how poor thing. May I say Bush did its best to this end result. Remember the days right after 9/11? The world reaction? Remember Bush’s unilateral/preemptive war/axis of evil doctrine?

What don’t you understand in the “alone” attribute of any unilateral action?

Afterall, Bush was re-elected in 2004. Unilateralism was already the official doctrine since 2003. How could you be surprised now that the US, leaded by an unilateralist president, became isolated on the world scene?

Everyone is evil except the US?
Yeah, right.

… does it have the courage to stop Iranian nukes?

Currently, he needs none as nobody have any proof about Iranian nukes existence YET. Instead, he (and you, it seems) have war war war in its mouth since months.

Or might it have to come up with the courage later to deal with the aftermath of Iranian nukes dropping on Israel as mideast nuclear war breaks out, or to face a nuke going of in New York City.

Oh, look. A iraqian iranian mushroom cloud/smoking gun line!
Here the problem with trust. Lack of trust. Bush have lost all mine.
By luck (for him), he still have yours.

Funny thing about a nuclear weapon on a container ship going off at the docks in New York City…it comes with no return address. After the blast it’s just gone. You are left with millions dead, trillions of dollars of damage, and no one to ship a return nuke to.

Wrong. Every nukes have a very distinct plutoniun signature. The NK one is the latest added in the bank. Any new one will be considered being from Iran, and me , you and them know it well.
Beside, didn’t Bush’s Iraq War securing New York City docks since 9/11? You know, “better fighting there than here”!?
What?!? WHAT?!?
NO?!

Oh damn french, it’s all their fault if we didn’t secure NYC docks in time.

Was it a Korean nuke, a pakistania nuke, an Iranian nuke, did terrorists get it from Russia? No one knows.

Call 24 Hours scenarists team, you’re a good teaser writer.

But we do know a few things. We know Iran is a rogue state that is our enemy and supports terrorism around the globe. And we know they are digging deep holes to protect their nuclear program. And we know if we don’t stop them, the world could change for the worse for all of us.

Nope, you don’t KNOW. You suspect.
Check “know” definition again. There is a difference. I promise.

I beleive that just one nuke, in New York City would collapse our economy, destroy our currency, and cause a major global depression helping to create the perfect invironment for the radical muslmim glogal Jihad to flourish in.

I believe that you let terrorism play on you.
I refuse to.

I also believe that radical muslim are not more nuclear fallout resistant than anybody else.

The only stuff that will eventually flourish after a nuclear war is wild nature.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 5, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #206694

“Two days to knock out Iran isn’t all that unrealistic.”

Silima,

That’s the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard. The best model would be the first Iraq war, which was very well executed. Just compare Saddam’s SCUD’s to what Iran has for missiles.

Sure our Patriot missiles would be perhaps 95% effective. Iran is known to have bio and chemical armed missiles. How many would it take striking even near our FOB’s in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill thousands of American troops and contractors.

You can bet Iran’s priority targets would be US installations in the area including our Naval fleet, and of course Israel. You might want to take a look at Iran’s Missile Forces:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces

Two day war? Not likely unless we nuke-em! Considering both Russia and China have been reluctant to even impose sanctions what might their responses be?

I’m not a gambler, but I’d say the odds are good with a dry drunk as CinC we’re likely to find out just what the outcome of a war with Iran will be.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #206704

“Liberals in the US generally accept the global liberal agenda.”
-Stephen

Hahahahahaha…. what in the hell is the global liberal agenda?

Posted by: darren159 at February 5, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #206709

LO-
In my opinion, the White House sensibility about a war in Iran is dangerously naive, built on the notions that we can repeat the Osirak air raid.

To secure Iran’s nuclear capability, we would have to invade. An air raid, particularly against a hardened target, has no guarantees of doing the job. We may not even know the full extent of their program.

To invade Iran, though, and do so effectively, we’d have to have a hell of a lot more troops on the ground than we do.

Don’t be overconfident about our technological edge. That hasn’t helped us win this current war, and I highly doubt that the Rumsfeldian approach you’re suggesting could be employed without the enemy finding means of countermeasure.

I don’t mind going to war when it’s necessary. I don’t mind going to war when the planners have taken care of business. Unfortunately, this administration record, of going to war half-assed, using just enough force to avoid having to commit to a draft, or a raising of taxes or some other politically incovenient measure.

You cannot win a war when you try to fight a limited war, when the enemy is willing to fight a total war. As much as Bush tries to wrap his notions of war in Iraq and war against Iran in the flag of WWII, his tendency has been to go for limited wars, rather than fully commit American power to gaining full control of the areas of concern.

He went into Iraq with the strategy centered not on a progressive conquest of key cities leading to Baghdad, but instead on encirclement of key cities and a thrust to Baghdad. He intended to decapitate the regime, then replace it with Chalabi. Bush and Cheney did not want to fight a full invasion, with the manpower costs, the casualties, and the all-out occupation that would entail.

Unfortunately, what came of that was a bastardized hybrid approach, with too much control exercised to avoid the appearance of occupation, and too little control possible to avoid the consequences of its absence, which we’re dealing with now.

I’m not going to belabor the obvious consequences. If Bush had prepared us for a total war of conquest, had recognized the degree to which the nation needed to be rehabilitated, and what this would entail on our end, we might already be on our way out, with Iraq at least at peace.

Now he plans to do the same, but even worse.

Despite Bush’s ambitions, despite the needs placed on our ground forces by years worth of fighting (more, in fact, than we had in WWII), Bush has been negligent in raising troop levels from their demobilized post-cold war levels. The toxic combination of focus on glamorous weapons systems, transformationalist disdain for large infantry and heavy armor batallions, antiseptic air warfare, and the politically motivated unwillingness to raise troop levels or admit the need to has essentially broken our ground forces, or brought us near to that.

At the very least, a war with Iran would bring irregulars from Iran’s various state supported terrorist groups, as well as organized insurgent elements into the mix. Imagine every major Iraqi city turned into a battlefield, with our already beleaguered and insufficient forces caught in the middle. Such warfare alone would neutralize many advantages. We would then have to do a draft to gain the soldiers to guard Iran’s border, to secure Iraq against incursion, etc.

That’s if Syria doesn’t get involved, or anybody else. We also have to deal with the fact that much of Iran’s territory is mountainous, changing the battlefield from pretty well-defined flat lands to rather rugged territory that does much to hide troop and supply movements.

And that’s if we don’t invade. If we do invade, then we will need numbers much greater than that, again drafted. We will need sufficient troops and armor to push through resistance leading to the main cities.

I don’t see any real talk about what really needs to be done to acheive this. All I see are people so enamored of our technological advantage that they fail to understand that to start a war like this with an exhausted army and weak political support at home is practically asking to lose the war, and I do not see the point in fighting wars in such a way that we’re bound to fail at them.

Iran is not nuclear armed yet. It’s nowhere near the Jihadist state that Taliban Afghanistan was. you can talk about talk, but ordinarily, in a world of people who can do what they like, talk is one of the key ways of getting action. The more action we get on our behalf with Iran, the better. If we can get action on the part of others, then the necessity of war, with all the chaos, perversity of outcome, and sacrifice that entails, can be avoided. If we get action from them, well then, they can solve our problem with them for us. Given how little respect the Iranian people have for their leader, why not let them do the deed? Then they will own the outcome, and we can present Ahmedinejad’s fall, and the fall of his radical agenda as the product of the will of the Iranian people.

Stephen-

I beleive global liberals support the Iranian bomb because it represents defeat not only for Bush but for the America that liberals want to tear down and replace with socialism and a weak, defeatest foreign policy. Liberals in the US generally accept the global liberal agenda.

Do you support stupid wars that don’t get the job done? I sure don’t. Bush seems prepared to lead us into another half-assed venture that will draw us into another war he’s probably too chickenshit to fight fully.

I don’t want America’s military so degraded that we’re forced to give up our widespread interests to avoid endangering the country. I don’t want America as a garrison state. Our international alliances and prestige are on the line here, and you’d have us once again invading a sovereign country on little to no confirmed evidence to fend off a threat not yet materialized, at greater expense than your people are willing to admit.

If we had fought WWII the way Bush has fought Iraq, we would be nation encircled by Axis interests, because they would have gone cheapshit on every operation, hoping for the best outcome instead of applying America’s resources to the point of ensuring victory. America cannot defend itself by squeezing blood out of the stone of an undermanned army already too overwhelmed by the mission asked of it.

As for any nuke that goes off, your knowledge of Nuclear Weapons leaves something to be desired. Every nuclear weapon has a isotopic signature, one created by the reactors and facilities that refined the nuclear material. We would know who set off that bomb, and would quickly send a message of some kind in return.

America would certainly unite in the face of our enemies, as it has already against al-Qaeda. Unfortunately Bush and company have made waging war against the neocon’s rogue states higher priority than the actual enemy we all started out wanting to defeat.

America will not win by falling victim to its own paranoia, to becoming myopically concentrated on military action as a means to look after American interests. It will win by creating peace in the world that allows Americans to once again do business and mingle with the rest of the world as a respected power. Anything less just loses us in a world of enemies, our nation hardened and shrivelled to a ghost of its former glory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #206711

The president’s actions on Iran could lead to a serious constitutional crisis

I think Congress should move as quickly as possible to make sure that any attack on Iran by Bush will have to pass muster in the legislature in order to go forward. If we have to defend ourselves against Iran, we should, but short of that, this president needs to respect the will of the people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #206713

The surge plan is bad military doctrine.

This is the kind of screwed up planning we get when the Bush administration is involved. Do we want more of this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #206723

Philepe,

You have made so many errors It’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps your biggest problem is that you simply felt you had to deny everything I said, even when I’m clearly correct.

Take for instance my comment about Iran being a terror supporting nation calling for the elimination of Israel…your counter was that I was “confusing” Iran with the leaders. Apparently meaning that Iran does not support terror or the wiping out of Israel

No, I’m not confused. What is IRAN doing and has Iran been doing for many years? Hezbollah, a rabid terror organization dedicated to the total destruction of Israel gets money, weapons, training, and support from Iran. Hezbollah is an militant military arm of Iran also connected to Syria, another rouge state supporting terror. This is a wide open relationship acknowledged around the globe by the most liberal and progressive nations in Europe. No one is “confused” about Irans support of Hezbollah and other terror organizations dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Iran enjoys the same relationship with Hamas.

But you seem “confused” about this relationship. Why? Why would you make such an obviously false retort?

How about another one that you apparently INTENTIONALLY are trying to spin away? Take Chiracs statement about it not being a problem for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Chirac clearly stated he had no problem with an Iran that possesses nuclear weapons!

If that’s not stepping up and SUPPORTING Iranian nukes what is? No, you do you have to hand Iran a nuke to support them. You can obstruct for them, trade with them, oppose the use of force agaisnt Iran, oppose any meaningful trade embargo…you can support them the way the French support them. Please, we all think above that level you pretend we operate at., we know there are all levels of support beyond simply handing them the bomb or the technology to make the bomb.

Read the times? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=world&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And this goes to the point. A nation that feels Iran having a few nuclear weapons is not a problem…is not a nation that will stand with anyone to stop Iranian nukes..much less hurt their their own economy by embargoing nukes. It goes directly to my point that Europe is not going to oppose in any meaningful way, the development of nukes in Iran.

Now you can take and you can SPIN his comments in any fashion you want. But clearly THE WORLD knew what he meant and Chirac quickly tried to retract them. But it’s too late, he’s said it! We KNOW where he stands, we know where France stands. It wasn’t just a bungled simple slip of the tongue, it was a very clear policy statement that he realized went too far, it revealed French support of the radical far left, anti US agenda. He openly supported Iran having nuclear weapons….he said what liberals in the US support but dare not say.

I know you don’t like the things I said and wanted to rebut them. These are things that are hard for you to accept. But rather than deny them with spin and falsehoods perhaps you would do better to use facts, or simply not address them at all if all you can do is use falsehoods and meaningless spin to counter them.

Also, the idea that it’s ok for Iran to have “just a few” nukes because someone would nuke them back is ridiculous. When a nuclear weapon goes off in New York City that was smuggled in, there is no return address. Who do you nuke back? Where did it come from. What nation do you take revenge upon? What compensation is there for the total destruction of our economy and the millions of dead?

Europe is just as weak now as it was when Hitler was building his war machine (Which he did in VIOLATION of agreements Germany has signed). Today France and Europe are showing the same weakness, Even as Iran is now building nuclear weapons in VIOLATION of agreements they have signed.

It’s foolish of the left to support the building of nuclear weapons in Iran thinking it will lead to peace.

In my opinion the best way to resolve this is for the entire globe to cut off Iran. Say to Iran, you get nothing, no money, no oil sales, no food, no medicine, no assistance, nothing, until you surrender your nuclear bomb program and allow unlimited inspections. They would be on their knees in a week.

But it’s not going to happen is it? And why? Because Europe, Russia, and China support Iran against the US and that support will be there no matter who is president. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, claiming the oppose them while dragging, delaying, and refusing to impose sanctions that most likely would work.

I, like many democrats, believe violence is a LAST resort. Unfortunately, the global progressive liberal movement is against us on this one, and that means many of you on the left in the US are against us too. And you will declare victory when and if Iran tests it’s nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Stephen at February 5, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #206731

Stephen,

First, sorry for my non-native english. Maybe it’s one reason behind some of my errors in previous post.

your counter was that I was “confusing” Iran with the leaders. Apparently meaning that Iran does not support terror or the wiping out of Israel

Yep. The current Iran president is very unpopular among iranians, and the religious leaders is not followed by every iranians either, which are more moderate than radical islamists, a vision some warmongers are actively trying to push.
You’re asserting all iranians agrees with their leaders. They’re not. As a majority of americans (now) don’t agree with their leader regarding Iraq War, for example. If I were following your logic, all americans would be war profiters and torturers who can’t care less with human rights?

Chirac clearly stated he had no problem with an Iran that possesses nuclear weapons!

He said he would not be overly worried if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon. Which is not the same as saying “I’ve no problem with a nuclear Iran”. It’s just real politik, not plain rethoric.
Today oldest nuclear powers are trying to say the rest of the world “do what we say, not what we do”.
Except that under NPT terms, both parties have duties. In particular, nuclear powers agreed to disarms, which none did, while non nuclear powers should renounce to get nukes and to proliferate technology, which some did.
With today crisis in Middle East, a crisis that US blind unilateralism in Iraq didn’t help, it’s no surprise Iran could want nuclear deterrence for its defense. I’ll bet all other nations in the area wants it badly too.
Am I (or Chirac) happy about that?
No.
Am I (or Chirac) ready to use nuclear weapons on them to stop it?
No.
Am I (or Chirac) ready to use nuclear weapons on them if they dare to use their nukes?
Yes.

Nuclear containment works. And, yes, it’s total madness, but M.A.D. is the only current solution that interblock nuclear war(s) ignition. May the oldest nuclear powers had disarmed since years, we won’t have this discussion about a possible nuclear Iran.
May the most powerfull of them had not choose alone to abuse its power to (re)build nations as her will at the point of guns, we won’t have this discussion now.

If that’s not stepping up and SUPPORTING Iranian nukes what is?

Nope. It’s talking real politik, not plain rethoric.

A nation that feels Iran having a few nuclear weapons is not a problem…is not a nation that will stand with anyone to stop Iranian nukes..much less hurt their their own economy by embargoing nukes.

It goes directly to my point that Europe is not going to oppose in any meaningful way, the development of nukes in Iran.

If by “meaningful” you mean unilateral wars which only accomplishment so far is to unite the muslim world against western civilization, you’re damn right.

Also, the idea that it’s ok for Iran to have “just a few” nukes because someone would nuke them back is ridiculous. When a nuclear weapon goes off in New York City that was smuggled in, there is no return address.

Isotopic signature gives the returns address.
If UK’s MI16 could trace polonium poison back to Russian embassy in Germany, you could bet the US could do it too for plutonium.

What nation do you take revenge upon?

Iraq, like for 9/11?
Or France, like for Iraq War unilateralism failure?

What compensation is there for the total destruction of our economy and the millions of dead?

What, doesn’t another total destruction of another economy and millions of dead somewhere else enough compensation?
Welcome to MADness.

Today France and Europe are showing the same weakness, Even as Iran is now building nuclear weapons in VIOLATION of agreements they have signed.

Show PROOF of that, first.
Sorry, but some of us trust your governemt when you said Saddam was building WMDs when, in fact, your government had no proof, none, zip, zero, nothing to back it. Now, we want PROOF before agreeing on possible threats.
Sorry, but that’s what happen when trust was broken. Badly.

It’s foolish of the left to support the building of nuclear weapons in Iran thinking it will lead to peace.

As it was too for the Cold War’s arms race. Still, peace was there.

In my opinion the best way to resolve this is for the entire globe to cut off Iran. Say to Iran, you get nothing, no money, no oil sales, no food, no medicine, no assistance, nothing, until you surrender your nuclear bomb program and allow unlimited inspections. They would be on their knees in a week.

Like North Korean. Didn’t work that well. They have nuke(s). Meanwhile, millions of people died of starvation. Fool leaders don’t care much about sanctions and their people dying, particulary when what they only care are getting nukes.
Plus North Korea don’t have resource we deadly needs. Iran does. The *other* Iraq neighbor on the west does, too.

I, like many democrats, believe violence is a LAST resort.

I wonder what’s your definitions of “last” and “resort”, then. Is Iran attacking the US already?
Is a proof than Iran had or is developing nukes available? Is everything was already attempted?

Violence is never the last resort. Violence is the failure of trying another way.

And you will declare victory when and if Iran tests it’s nuclear weapons.

Now, you’re putting your words in my mouth. Stop it please. I’ll declare victory if Iran nuclear program is found to be a civil one or Iran leadership - whoever, hopefully a more moderate one - decides to change its plans.
And, usually, I don’t rejoice myself when people died. Whatever their nationality.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 5, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #206732

If somebody sets off a nuke in N.Y maybe we can bomb Canada sort of like going after Iraq after 9/11.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #206736

Stephen-
You can’t make everything out to be WWII all over again. Ahmedinejad is no Hitler. He doesn’t enjoy the support of his people. He can’t deliver on his threats. Most of the Reports out of Iran indicate that they are incapable of producing the amounts of fuel they need for the bomb within a reasonable time frame. The busting up of the A. Q. Khan network has left them short on parts, short on just about everything.

Please don’t regale me with the need to invade to prevent Iran from getting the weapon. That’s a circular argument. War is not our only means, nor the best in this situation. It’s better if we let the internal and external pressures squeeze Ahmedinejad like a pimple. If we push hard enough on other fronts, we achieve the same goal, with fewer dead, and with the demonstrated ability to actually manage a situation instead of pushing it out of control.

America’s power needs to be demonstrated by its ability to get things done without having to follow through on every dire warning. When is America more powerful: when we flinch everytime somebody talks, or if they flinch everytime we do?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #206748

“sorry for my non-native english”

Philippe Houdoin,

No apology needed. You do quite well. I always appreciate your views and comments.

At least you’ve taken the time to learn a second language. Fewer and fewer American’s bother to even try. We are, after all, superior :-/ ,eh?

Posted by: KansasDem at February 5, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #206752

Stephen,

If you are truly worried about nuclear capability, I think you should worry more about Pakistan, a country that has already demonstrated it’s nuclear weaponry, and whose leaders are a mere IED away from the technology falling into the REAL terrorists hands.

But maybe it will turn out all right, after all America is going to sell F-16s to Pakistan.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1969406&C=airwar

Posted by: Rocky at February 5, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #206768

The absolute best way to keep Iran in check is to go full tilt to achieve independance from foriegn oil.

Posted by: BillS at February 5, 2007 11:11 PM
Post a comment