Pajamas Media

71 Comments

1. Marc Malone:

Hmm, bottom of the page comes up blank….

Oct 28, 2008 - 1:22 am 2. African Moonbat:

Indeed it does

Oct 28, 2008 - 2:06 am 3. Bob scales:

Stupid bloodthirsty insane americans…

Oct 28, 2008 - 2:34 am 4. The Shimshon:

Not should the US, but more importantly, could the US, do this successfully? I doubt it. After all the Iranians have learned enough to run their half-open half-secret program at multiple sites and in ways that would make a quick surgical strike a fantasy rather than a policy. While I thought both writers raised important points, the realities on (and under) the ground suggest that pre-emptive military action to stop the nuclear program “cleanly” is not a viable strategy. I just hope nobody (except for El-Quaida) is considering nuking Iran to prevent them from joining the nuclear club….
All that said, Iran is very dangerous, and a nuclear Iran is more dangerous.
The Shimshon

Oct 28, 2008 - 3:41 am 5. An iformed Israeli:

Meir & Melman represent only tiny and lunatic – but sadly, highly vocal – minority here in Israel. Mr. Melman, Javedanfar’s co-author, is on a payroll for a leftist post-zionist biased mouthpiece called “Ha-Aretz”.

There will always be reasons to not to engage Iran. Economy, insufficient troops, oil prices’ (groundless) predictions, etc.

At the bottom line – this is simply fear and appeasement.

And, in the case of Meir et Melman, the not-so-well hidden agenda of rationalizing the annihilation of the State of Israel – a schizoid raison d’etre of these worthless little self-haters.

Oct 28, 2008 - 3:50 am 6. Sha:

Which of these dire consequences will NOT occur following Iran’s use of her nuclear threat capability? That is the true dilemma.

Oct 28, 2008 - 4:05 am 7. SAF:

It is a rare human characteristic for someone to react to something in a timely manner. Mostly people wait until its too late. Whether taking care of a dental cavity, selling a loosing stock position etc. Countries, being composed of humans do the same thing. No one thought Sadam was that bad until he took over Kuwait. They could have stopped him much earlier with much less blood shed but didn’t.

And so it is with the Iranians, not enough people take them seriously. And we are effectively powerless to stop them. The world does not have the will to effectively blockade them. The fallout from a nuclear weapon hitting Tel Aviv will have little effect on the US. If the Europeans want to contain this mess let them belly up to the bar and do it. Its their back yard, not ours.

Oct 28, 2008 - 4:25 am 8. cfbleachers:

No. In a word, no.

We should allow Iran to continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas unfettered and we should embolden them with limp-wristed Jimmy Carter sychophants genuflecting before them in full appeasement prostration.

We should not only allow them to become a nuclear threat, we should encourage, aid and abet them. We not only should meet with the Lilliputian sock puppet, but with the mullahfia that pull his marionette strings and bow and scrape before them, begging for forgiveness that we don’t have any hostages currently, but 444 days in the future have been reserved on the calendar.

We should turn our back on Israel, because frankly…it’s a bit of a headache to be championing a race of 16 million when we can make a play for a billion or two. I mean, really…what kind of odds are those? As long as our Constitution isn’t a good enough document any longer, why should our word be any more of a nuisance? I say, go with the majority opinion…a billion is better than 16 million…because more voices mean better decisions. Louder voices mean greater clarity. More strident voices mean solid logic and reasoning.

Attack Iran? Absolutely not. We should exalt Iran. Because virtually everything I read and see reported on TV suggests that the entirety of that region is a victim of malevolent intentions of us and a tiny strip of land with its back to the sea. I looked at a map in order to gain a better picture and now see that the Arab nations have been surrounded. Amazing feat, those tricky Israelis.

Look, I’m all for simply surrendering and letting the Mideast turn into an Iranian lovefest of good intentions. Syria, Iraq, Israel…will be much the better if we simply come home and put our feet up for a while. I’m weary of these wars against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas…it’s really too much effort and frankly, if we leave the bees alone they won’t sting us. I’m sure of it. Let’s lick the boots of tyranny, if it buys me a corner I can cower in for the rest of my days.

hell, we want peace and quiet, so they must want peace and quiet. We play by the rules, so we can simply assume they play by the same rules. By the way, I also believe we should leave the land of Mecca and Medina. We should just come home, relax and find a way to give money to the poor here at home. Let’s leave Korea, leave Germany, leave all of Europe in fact, leave the Pacific Rim…just come home and give our money to the poor. In fact, most of our salary. I’m ok with that. Just like me, and don’t call me names.

If I give you all my money, if I beg you for forgiveness…will you simply leave me alone?

I’m ok with working until July or August until I have money for myself, if then. I’m ok with turning our back on Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan. I don’t care about the imposition of Shari’a laws here, as long as we are rewriting the Constitution, we might as well let it be based on something concrete that we won’t be changing for a few thousand years. They don’t like homosexuals? As long as they leave me alone, I don’t care.

They brutalize women and make them wear nunnery outfits in public? I don’t care, I’m not a woman.

They crush free speech and put down dissent by secreting documents, imposing sanctions and thuggery, giving the people only one point of view? It won’t be that much of a change, and it least it comes without the pretense of “fairness”. If the truth is going to be brutalized as well…why waste energy on the false hope of changing it?

Let’s be done with it all and simply roll over and let the chips fall where they may. I think democracy has run its course and isn’t worth defending any longer. Let’s start the revolution today. I’m tired of being beaten to death by our own rule book. Saul Alinsky has won. William Ayers has won. Bernardine Dorhn or whatever the hell her name is, has won. Jeremiah Wright has won. Louis Farrakhan has won. Michael Pfleger and Michael Klonsky and Noam Chomsky have won. I quit. I concede. Let’s go…get on with it.

Open the borders to Shari’a and Khalidi and let the Palestinians have all of Israel, let Iran drive her into the sea. How could a billion not be a better deal for us than 16 million? The mathematics of principles by plebiscite simply do not comport with our current post-modern values. I vote No. I quit, I will be quiet and not raise my voice in objection. I will be silent and obedient. Just everyone please like me…or, pretend to like me and leave me alone. Being liked and being left alone are my only goals…and guide all my principles from today on. The UN can protect the world, after all the General Assembly has our best interests at heart.

There is no American flag worth saluting, I am a citizen of the world now. I salute the world flag, raising mine is the wrong kind of patriotism.

Let’s do all of it…just as long as I don’t have to spend one more day listening to the propagandists and their smarmy little sophistries about “loving our country”. If our principles are no longer worth fighting for, then let’s not abandon them by halves.

Sell out, cop out, roll over. Whatever you do…don’t fight for what you believe in. America isn’t worth the effort.

Oct 28, 2008 - 4:54 am 9. Bogdan of Australia:

SANCTIONS!!! One has to laugh, of course that after almost six years of equally ridiculous as futile diplomatic chicanery and so called “sanctions” someone can still be tempted by the idea of even more diplomatic chicanery and more sanctions. As the example of North Korea teaches us, the murderous regime of Iran will be willing to starve hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens in order to achieve its aim of having a NUKE. According to some estimations (like the “Debka File” for example, Iran is expected to have a working prototype as early as in February next year. Armed with a NUKE, mullahs will simply become imune to any persuasion, threats, sanctions or even a military action. What all those advocating patience and “prudence” will be saying then? In such new circumsatences, the only “prudent” approach will be never ending concessions, retreats, back-offs, surrounders. Cowardice and appeasement will become a wisdom. Since the end of WW2, we have been witnesing the so called civilised world looking the other way as the consecutive acts of genocide were being perpetrated in China, Cuba, Rwanda, Soviet Union, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, and in so many other places by communist or communist-like fascist, or islamo-fascist regimes (together some sweet 100 million victims) that there is ABSOLUTELY NO ASSURANCE that the Western countries will do ANYTHING to protect Iran’s first obvious victim – Israel. After all, it will be much cheaper to build another holocaust memorial or a museum than resist the spread of islamofascism militarily. And under the leadership of CRETINO-MARXIST BHussain Obama… just forget it…

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:01 am 10. Kirk:

I just read a lot of little reasons why we as Americans should allow a mortal enemy to obtain a lethal parity with us.

Some reasons why we should not allow that :

The Iranians have tested detonating a missle at apogee , that is, at the top of the arc of flight.
The Iranians have tested firing a missle from a seaborne vessel comparable to any of the hundreds of cargo ships that approach the US coast every day.
The Iranians could deploy a terrorist EMP attack against the continental US killing millions from starvation, lack of sanitation and transportation. Imagine being thrown back to 1915. The attack would not necessarily be tracable back TO them.

They have demonstrated intent and developing capability. To allow them to have the capability is akin to signing a suicide pact.

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:15 am 11. Craig Thompson:

This would be the perfect timing for an attack on Iran. They just announced what we have known for some time…that they have been supplying arms to those who hate Democracy…Turn Iran to glass, they probably don’t get to see mushrooms much there anyway

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:41 am 12. Terry Gain:

If Bush bombs Iran he had better resign and have Cheney pardon him. In fact if I were Bush and Obama is elected I would pardon Cheney and then resign so that Cheney can pardon me.

The ambitions of the coming Obama Thugocracy should not be underestimated.

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:52 am 13. Douglas Bogle:

Never fear Obama is here.

Do not do anything to Iran. Let them do what they will. We will talk, they will act and we will again talk.

Israel prepare to defend yourself, your greatest friend is about to sell you down the river.

Never fear Obama is here.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:08 am 14. TexEd:

Yes, absolutely! Because, if Hussein is elected, we certainly WILL be attacked after January 20th.
If Hussein is president, his fellow Muslims will attack ala 9/11 to “force” him to the negotiating/surrender table, all within three months. They will have preconditions one of which will be that the US have no preconditions. Israel will be alone a nd US troops will be out of the Middle East, including Saudi.
So, if we don’t, they will!!

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:14 am 15. Mickey:

No. Attack.

1) For Pete’s sake…haven’t we had enough pre-emptive war? Let’s not abandon miltiary action as an option, but please let’s make it a last resort. We’re not anywhere near “last resort” territory.

2) The Iranians are not a significant threat to us at the moment…while Pakistan HAS weapons AND extremists. I mention Pak just to keep things in context. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regime of inspections and control of the fuel cycle is working, albeit imperfectly…lets continue the pressure, it’s working. Remember Libya gave up their weapons, too.

3) To keep Iran in the NPT regime, we need Europe, Russia, and China. All three are actually helping us at the moment re: Iran nukes. A military strike jeopardizes that significantly.

4) Iraq is finally making political progress and the other Arab states are finally joining in…a military strike would look like a US defense of Israel and complicate our recovery in Iraq by alienating the Arabs….notwithstanding their loathing of the Persians.

5) “Lethal parity”? Please. We have THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons and can devastate Iran and they know it. Even a handful of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands is not a significant threat to us…to their neighbors, perhaps, but not to the US.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:14 am 16. Kirk:

Mickey wrote…

“”"5) “Lethal parity”? Please. We have THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons and can devastate Iran and they know it. Even a handful of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands is not a significant threat to us…to their neighbors, perhaps, but not to the US.”"”

Mutual Assured Destruction , i.e. the deterrence of death, does not impact the mullahs. They have publicly stated they welcome martyrdom. Your statement is an example of old thinking not adapting to new realities.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:25 am 17. Doc99:

The point is moot … Obama’s election will provide a small window for Israel to launch. That is the threat to which Biden alluded. Something wicked this way comes.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:32 am 18. Ex-fetus:

“The U.S. still has the opportunity to win the struggle against the extremists in Tehran without going to war.”

Evidence please!
This fallacy has been around so long that anyone rational kissed it off long ago. The People of Iran ARE NOT going to raise up and remove the Mad Dog Mullahs (hereafter MDM). Even if they did, they don’t have the power to do so. Dictators that can fine thugs to use their machine guns against the mobs cannot be removed thru non-violent means. The MDM have no shortage of thugs with Machine guns.
Economic sanctions don’t work because the MDM don’t care what happens to the people and smuggling takes care of their own needs.
In fact, the Military option is the ONLY option that will prevent the MDM from building an atomic bomb.
So if you remove the military option, you give the MDM nuclear weapons.
The idea that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) can work with the MDM shows an ignorance about MAD. Dr. Kissinger, who gave the world MAD in his book “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy”, postulated that MAD required BOTH sides to be “rational actors”.
Anyone that thinks the MDM are rational , isn’t.
How will a death threat stop a suicide bomber? If that suicide bomber has a nuke, then he can’t be stopped.
The solution is to keep that suicide bomber from getting his hands on a nuke.
Strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities will stop that, for a while. NOTHING else will. If those strikes set the Iranian program back 3 years, then in 3 years we do it again.
The MDM cannot do anything in response that they are not doing now anyway. Closing the straits is beyond their military capabilities. They can block them for half a day at the most, which isn’t enough to be a bother.
Turn Hezzebollah lose? Been there, done that. The Hezzies need an arse whoopin every 6 months or so. It’s easier to cut the grass if you don’t let it get knee high.
What is needed is regime change in Theran, but that will have to wait.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:32 am 19. cedarford:

Javedanfar’s reasons for not letting Bush do a sneak attack without the next Administration allowing him to be hauled off the the Hague in shackles are good ones.

1. We have no allies. Israel, the “Special Friend” of movement conservatives – is unusable as an ally. Until we get allies, a sneak attack may result in the loss of most of our basing rights in Europe, ME to enable us to resupply and fight effectively.

2. If we go solo, and a global depression is the consequence, the full blame for that will fall on the USA…and blame for a complete cutoff of Gulf Oil and Nat gas, which the Iranians have the capacity to do with mining straits..could last for 2-3 months. If the Sunnis in the region feel America blindsided them and went to war just for Israel, they may trigger an oil embargo against the US and any country that supports them – with Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia and other suppliers outside the Gulf pleased to join the embargo..

3. As Javedanfar said, attacking Iran may very cause the loss of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as we lose logistics and may face Shiites from both Iran and Iraq massing and killing our troops. Right now, the US is structured in Iraq for counter-insurgency, not defeating a highly motivated nation pouring regular and irregular mechanized forces into Iraq and with Shiite Iraqis joining them, perhaps having a 10:1 force advantage and Americans losing resupply. That could cost us more casualties in a month than we have had since 9/11. In Afghanistan, we are dependent on permission of Russia and Pakistan to maintain a troop presence there. If that permission is rescinded, we have no choice other than defeat and retreat.

4. Politically, starting a 3rd war when that is not what the President-elect has set for US policy would be seen as usurping the People’s mandate. Defying Congress. The whole Constitutional process as in the Presidential election and Congress, the Democrats scored decisive victory. The ramifications could be very ugly – Secretary Gates and several military leaders resigning rather than follow orders. Consequences may well rise to full criminal charges against the Bushies, arrests, even a gang headed by Bush and Neocon leaders headed for the Hague in irons to face war crimes charges. With most Americans endorsing it.
(Bush purportedly has been warned of consequences if he attempts to negate the mandate of the 2008 election, attempts to launch pre-emptive war without Congressional approval absent a clear and present danger of imminent attack on the US or it’s forces abroad. As of now, he has acted to thwart a Zionist attack that would make the US complicit and drawn in – no Israeli planes permitted to cross Iraqi airspace, no refuling tankers, no more JDAMs.)

*********************
The Iranians have tested firing a missle from a seaborne vessel comparable to any of the hundreds of cargo ships that approach the US coast every day.

Garbage. Every modern Navy has the ability to mount missiles on any floating platform. None could utilize such an approach to inflict a military victory on the US – just sneak a couple in. Same garbage said about the “awful peril of Iraq” because they could, along with Gaboonians in Africa or the Cambodians launch a seaplane off a cargo ship and likely get a few bombs in..Then get crushed like a bug..

The Iranians could deploy a terrorist EMP attack against the continental US killing millions from starvation, lack of sanitation and transportation.

More garbage, to do an EMP attack you need a thermonuclear device and an ICBM capable of getting the weapon up 160 miles or so. Nor would an EMP attack do more than cause temporary, serious disruption. With lots of fried electronics, high cost. But not millions dead. PS – Iran has neither a thermonuclear bomb nor any ICBMs.

Imagine being thrown back to 1915. The attack would not necessarily be tracable back TO them..

Assuming the Iranians were someday capable of getting both a ICBM capacity and 12 or so hydrogen, not simple fission bombs and get 12 detonations above the USA – it would not throw us back to 1915 and we have tons of plans for civil recovery of what we would lose. Besides it being crazy, we would have a pretty good idea of the source of launch and the warhead origin, and the ability to totally destroy any aggressor on the planet.

They have demonstrated intent and developing capability. To allow them to have the capability is akin to signing a suicide pact.

What intent? What suicide pact?
Iran is a problem, but one that awaits President Obama – not a discredited, repudiated President in his Last Days.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:37 am 20. R a Z o R:

Israel will consider their options and act to

protect itself .

Let’s hope we stand together against those that

want to destroy us .

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:40 am 21. Pat J:

Is there anything wrong with giving peace a chance? Maybe if we tried disarming some of our nuclear weapons, Iran would be less likely to think of developing weapons of their own.

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:48 am 22. tim maguire:

In the long run, America’s most important ally in the struggle against the government of Iran is the people of Iran. It would be a huge mistake to bring in the military and drive the Iranian people into the arms of the mullahs.

Oct 28, 2008 - 7:47 am 23. Mary Madigan:

The ’should we bomb Iran or should we appease them’ question ignores the fact that there are other solutions.

Just like Saddam, Ahmadinejad is braying and boasting about his WMDs. When we make threats, Iran will probably respond the same way Saddam did – they’ll continue to provoke us. They bray and boast because for the same reason Saddam did. It makes their friends think they’re cool, and, once they start bellowing, they can’t back down.

If we bomb Iran, we’ll embolden our al Qaeda supporting Saudi allies and we’ll empower Hezbollah in Lebanon. Instead of having to busy themselves bullying Lebanon, Hezbollah have a real war to fight. If we bomb Iran, we can’t count on any support from the pro-American Iranians (who will probably not be pro American anymore, since we bombed their country). And the price of oil will go through the roof – more benefit to Saudi Arabia/al Qaeda. We’d also be giving a great gift to Russia and Venezuela.

If the mess in Iran is ever cleaned up, Russia will probably start to support Syria’s nuclear program. Syria will pop up and say “I’ve got nukes and I hate America too”, and we’ll have to play this trillion-dollar whack-a-mole game again.

We should be dealing directly with the real players, and not with Ahmadinejad. We should also make it clear to the rest of the world that, despite his bellowing, Ahmadinejad is beneath our consideration, and not worth our time to deal with. Before the Iraq war, we made Saddam appear to be a lot more important than he really was.

The only way to avoid the false appeasement/warmongering dichotomy is to bypass all of the terror-supporting Islamist pawns in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) and deal directly with people who are enabling Iran’s nuclear dreams – Russia, North Korea and Pakistan.

Oct 28, 2008 - 7:53 am 24. John K:

BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN NOW WAIT TILL THE ONE ARRIVES THERE FIRST THOUGH SO A CLEAN REMOVAL OF ALL SCUM ON THE EARTH ARE SENT TO HE__ DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS

Oct 28, 2008 - 7:55 am 25. patrick donahue:

president bush imposes martial law due to poor
economy,then nukes iran before they can harm
thier enemies.

Oct 28, 2008 - 7:55 am 26. Kelly:

Mushroom clouds are in order…..nothing left to say.

Oct 28, 2008 - 8:16 am 27. Ex-fetus:

“which the Iranians have the capacity to do with mining straits..could last for 2-3 months.”

No they don’t. They did that in the tanker war and the US Navy has seriously upgraded it’s mine detection and removal capabilities. Helos using specialized dipping sonar are very fast. Plus the helo can be carried on almost any naval ship, so there will be no delay while minesweepers steam around the world. IIRC, no tankers were sunk by mines during the Tanker war. Double hulls plus lots of flotation spaces.

As far as getting a nuke into a US harbor by tramp steamer, that is why we are bombing the sites, to prevent Iran from building nukes. Allowing them to build nukes won’t solve the problem, it will make it worse. Sinking the mine layers while they are in harbor will stop most of it. Any air strikes will go after the ADS first, THEN the Nuke sites. Israel would have to stage a 1 time raid, the US Navy could steam around offshore and bomb them as long as they wanted to.
I don’t think the Democrats would do anything besides whine and posture. If they tried to arrest President Bush in January, they open up a can of worms that everyone wants to keep closed. After all, things change. If President Bush get arrested, then when Congress switches back to the Republicans in 2010, then Cater, Clinton get picked up too.
Then in 2013, Ohhhh,,,,,,BAMA is off to jail.
No, threats to arrest President Bush are empty, no matter how much the Left hates him.
I don’t think Obama wil win anyway. I don’t trust polls, but I do trust trend lines;
10-24 +7.9
10-25 +8.0
10-26 +7.6
10-27 +7.0

Averages from RCP.
As you see Ohhhhh……BAAMA! is sliding. Considering that the MOE is 3 ( I think, it might be 3.5) this race is within the MOE if Obama bin Biden loses another point. He has lost .9 since Friday so another day like yesterday for him and it’s a tossup. Getting away from the polls, McCain has always been a strong finisher while Ohhhhhh……BAAMA! has been a weak closer. So this thing ain’t done. The fat lady hasn’t decided yet if she will be in blue or red.
I expect another 2000, with the Courts ruling on the results.
Considering ACORN, the fund raising issues and the fact that Ohhhh……BAAMA! cannot prove he is eligible to stand for POTUS, I like the Conservative’s chances in court.

Oct 28, 2008 - 8:23 am 28. AlexinCT:

Pat J says: “Is there anything wrong with giving peace a chance? Maybe if we tried disarming some of our nuclear weapons, Iran would be less likely to think of developing weapons of their own.”

I have never understood the people that are always willing to give evil people a pass and hope for the best. Optimism is great but it need not be suicidal. This is the same idiotic crap we heard from the left during the Cold War, and the result would have been the same then as it will be now if we follow their advice: the other side tries to wipes us out.

The situation is simple: we deal with Iran before it goes nuclear, or we deal with the consequences of not dealing with them before they go nuclear. These are people that tell us they worship death, welcome it, and would not mind dying to kill as many of us as they can. You can argue all you want that they do not really mean this, but I am going based off their actions and to me it sure as hell looks like they mean it. Even if they decide not to commit suicide they will use these weapons as a means to drastically alter the balance of power in the Middle East, and you can bet your behind that the result of that will be a lot worse than the ones of dealing with Iran in the first place. And I am not even considering the fact that every Arab country would then feel threatened by Iran and decide they too must go nuclear, something I feel needs to be pointed out they did not think they needed to do when Israel went nuclear. Think about that for a second.

And the above fails to address the most likely way Iran will use nuclear weapons: terrorists. Used in this way they probably think they might even be able to get away with it. Make it hard to detect where & when you plan to set them off and have a softy like Pat (or Obama) in the WH which will react to a nuclear attack by playing to the camera, the UN, and all the other groups that like victims, just like Bill Clinton said he would have reacted to 9-11, and the Iranians might think that at a minimum they can wipe Israel off the map. The consequences of that act alone should be enough to paralyze America and Europe long enough for them to do us all in.

There is a reason these nations like Iran never talk about attacking Russia or China, and it is not because they are accepted by them. The French whom would sell their own children into slavery to these people bend over backwards and still are not respected. The difference is that China & Russia still remember what brutal force is for and thugs like those in Iran understand that well.

Oct 28, 2008 - 9:17 am 29. USAF Vet:

Nuke em all, let God sort em out.

Oct 28, 2008 - 9:32 am 30. TomJW:

11. Craig Thompson:
Oct 28, 2008 – 5:41 am

I agree. Turn the place into one giant sheet of glass. Nuke Damascus while we are at it. The Middle East will never be at peace until they are taken out.

They are not he only places though.

Oct 28, 2008 - 9:49 am 31. Angry White Dude:

It doesn’t matter if we should or shouldn’t take out Iran’s capabilities. Bush doesn’t have the will to take the heat as he has thrown in the towel. He also knows that Obama and his minions in the Congress would certainly bring Bush up on messy war trials. At this point, Israel might try something but they will go it alone.

Bush basically pissed away years of valuable time doing nothing while letting the Iranians play mind games with the Europeans.

I predict that nothing will happen and Iran will test a real nuke soon. Then it will be MAD between Israel and Iran. The only difference is in Iran the leaders are indeed mad!

Oct 28, 2008 - 10:13 am 32. Meir Javedanfar:

Tim Maguire has observed the situation accurately. A military attack would drive the people of Iran into the arms of their leaders.

Oct 28, 2008 - 10:50 am 33. myth buster:

We don’t need allies, and we don’t need bombs either. Park a couple of Ohio Class SSGNs off their coast and let fly with the Tomahawks. Each SSGN has 162 Tomahawks, each with a precision of +/- 3 feet. They can fly true and hit all the targets in Iran, and Iran can’t do anything about it. Shock and Awe was conducted with technology that is now obsolete. What took an entire battle group to do in Shock and Awe can now be done by a single submarine without nuclear weapons.

Oct 28, 2008 - 11:23 am 34. Sandy Salt:

This is a no win situation because regardless of what we sit hear and moan about Israel is in real danger. They are not going to let a nuke go off in Tel Aviv just to appease Europe and the liberals in the US. They will take matters into their own hands because they will feel that they have no other choice. They will strike and if the other kids start fighting dirty or they are on the brink of destruction they will use nukes.

They also know that Iran isn’t going to play the MAD game because it doesn’t achieve their end goals of destroying Israel and the US. Who thinks that Iran once they have the bomb aren’t going to try to sneak it into Israel and detonate it. Israel is playing a waiting and guessing game.Iran has no reason not to nuke Israel because it will be seen as what they have long deserved, so Israel is left with deciding when to strike and not if to strike.

Iran knows that this is the end game because they are already talking about a pre-emptive strike on Israel to justify a direct conflict vice their normal proxy war. This is going to end badly for the US regardless of how we side. Either we will get directly involved because of attacks on our troops in Iraq or we will be indirectly involved as we let Israel go it alone, but we still suffer from extremely high oil prices and attacks on Americans the world around since we will be seen as a paper tiger. Don’t count out our good friends the Russians or Chinese from the fun and games either.

Talk all you want because that is what we seem to be good at and in the end the results will be many many American dead.

Oct 28, 2008 - 11:42 am 35. Laurent:

Attacking Iran militarily would be idiocy. It would only serve to unite the Iranian people behind their otherwise doomed regime. What we really need is what McCain recommends: “Drill, baby, drill!” The very day that Bush ended the offshore drilling ban, the price of oil started falling. We need to bring on as much production as possible and conserve as well. Bring down the price, and bring down all the petro-tyrants: Ahmadinejad,Chavez, etc. To stop the Iranian nuclear program, bankrupt them by bringing down the price of oil and keeping it down. The naysayers argue that it takes years to bring new production on stream. But the markets are by nature forward-looking. That is why Bush’s announcement worked.

Oct 28, 2008 - 12:24 pm 36. Sandy Salt:

Laurent,

I like the idea of starving them into submission, but I think it might be too late for that as they have all the capital invested already for creating the nuclear materials. Now, it is just a matter of time to let the centrifuses work their magic, so they have enough material for several bombs. It will take no time to create a weapon once they have the material and actually very little skill if you go with a simple device that is truck or cargo container portable. If you need missile deliverable it get a little more tricky and will take more time to ensure success. But why bother when you can do the trick with a crude device anyone with a physics degree and the internet can build (physics degree might be optional thanks to a certain proliferator that is now dead).

Oct 28, 2008 - 12:49 pm 37. Jon Brooks:

Wow! Lots of very well written thought out posts above from both sides. We are only in the dawn of the new century and I think all above can see “The Century of Energy Wars” as this centuries motif. I personally think that no matter who comes into office that we are going to be in a big one within a few years anyways so the only decision we truly have to make now is based on…how many people do I want to lose?
If we go now, testicles to the wall, all out against Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria with limited theatre yeild strikes neutralizing Pakistans arsenal as quickly as possible then all
center of gravities of military power within the other above mentioned countries thru any retaliation we would lose possibly a division or two within a few days then not much more.
if we wait until all the forces are arrayed against us by giving them time to coordinate
a well planned attack on the homeland we could potentially lose hundreds of thousands. So go early..go hard, expect loses but not as many as if we wait till its to late. It would help if we had reached a secret agreement with China and Russia beforehand that we split all their oil, then send them back to the 7th century where they seem to want to be anyways. Once the world is free from Moslem interference it will definitely be a better place for all those who remain.

Oct 28, 2008 - 12:55 pm 38. Pat J:

A military attack on Iran would drive the people, who tend to like Americans, right in to the arms of the mullahs. And I’m not a softie. I highly considered volunteering for the marines when Iran took over the US Embassy. I can fight very deadly. But I know that killing is not the answer. The U.S. should take the lead in making war obsolete instead of letting these neocon assholes, and their enablers on this website, create a perpetual state of war.

The Iranian leaders are assholes. Their mentality is to beat their chests and look tough in front of their Mideast friends and allies. They live in a rough neighborhood. They are ringed by nuclear powers. They are responsible for a lot of mischief in the area. And they have had a chip on their shoulder since 1953 when the CIA overthrew their leader and replaced him with the Shah. Sure they’ll brag about wanting a nuclear capability, just like Sadaam did. That doesn’t mean they do.

No. Instead of bombing and killing, we open a dialogue. Remember, China was a rogue nation until Nixon opened a dialogue. Opening a dialogue is not a sign of cowardice. It’s a sign of bravery.

Oct 28, 2008 - 1:03 pm 39. thegr8_1:

If McCain wins I trust him to what is right for America. On Haaretz I read Sarkozy say Obama has an immature and naive attitude about Iran. Bush and or Israel would have no choice by Jan 20.

Oct 28, 2008 - 1:30 pm 40. Barrett:

The problem with Iran is that the mullahs do not care if people die. They want death, destruction and chaos. It is their apocolyptic vision.

Their world view is driven by the concepts of dar al-Islam and dar al-Har – the House of Islam and the House of War. You are either in one or the other. Google it. Conversion by the sword, subjugation as a second class citizen akin to slavery or death are the options.

How do you plan to negotiate with that mindset? I have no interest in war, but my fear is that it may be a question of when not if.

If we wait until we are attacked, America and many citizens will pay the ultimate price. There will ecomomic disclocation of huge proportions. 9/11 will seem mild.

If we attack, we will face another set of unsavory circumstances.

The 1960s generation of make peace not war, free love and drugs are now in control. It was a generation lacking in discipline, lacking in coherent thought and lacking in moral fiber. I fear for my family, my country and my fellow Americans.

Oct 28, 2008 - 2:14 pm 41. Mickey:

Kirk wrote: “Mutual Assured Destruction , i.e. the deterrence of death, does not impact the mullahs. They have publicly stated they welcome martyrdom. Your statement is an example of old thinking not adapting to new realities.”

This is a reasonable response to my assertion…but it’s incomplete and omits a couple of facts:

1-the mullahs may fear martyrdom a bit more than you realize, but we wouldn’t necessarily kill them. Incinerating Tehran is the wrong target set…industrial targets and suspected nuclear targets are the ones we’d go after, and the mullahs very much fear loosing those.

2-Our close allies in the Pacific, Japan and S. Korea, not to mention our largest trading partner (and the country that holds 1/3 of our debt) are the chief importers of Iranian oil (Japan imports 448 million barrels a day). Italy is right behind. An attack on Tehran would ultimately weaken the dollar in the Pacific since those economies, dependent on Iranian oil, would tank.

3-Because an attack on Iran wouldn’t likely kill the mullahs, innocent and largely pro-American Iranians would loose their lives for no reason. Not only is this stupid politically, it is immoral. BTW…its also against the Laws of Armed Conflict.

4-The US missile defense shield is operational…we have more than enough missiles to destroy theirs inbound (only a few anyway).

I am an American military officer and a lifelong Republican, so no raving liberal am I, but when I read comments clamoring for an attack, I am forced to wonder if Americans understand that war is killing. That real people, and not just the bad guys, die in war.

Killing millions of innocent Iranian families by nuclear fires to get at a few terrorist mullahs seems to be a poor trade that gains nothing politically and doesn’t increase our security one iota.

Really people…war is sometimes the answer, but not this time. Let’s think a little, and ponder the facts, not some wacko talking points, before we get a bloodthirsty lather up…

Oct 28, 2008 - 4:10 pm 42. J:

I believe we will not act before Jan.20, but my question is will Israel be ready to fight? If oil keeps going down and the mullahs start to lose real control over it’s younger generation, they will try and start a war with Israel through terrorist friends Hezbollah and Hamas. In that way we may have to enter another war.

Oct 28, 2008 - 4:16 pm 43. Ex-fetus:

“Attacking Iran militarily would be idiocy. It would only serve to unite the Iranian people behind their otherwise doomed regime.”

Evidence please!
The MYTH that the people of Iran are NOT behind the mullahs needs to be examined. Iran has the same Urban/Rural divide that all other nations do. The Urban Iranians are not real keen on the Mullahs, but out in the rural area, Allah is great. Allah is good. The Mullahs rule.
Nothing the US does will change any opinions on either side. If that was possible, don’t you think we would do it here first to end the Urban/Rural, Red/Blue divide in America?
And if attacking Iran does get the City slickers behind the Mullahs, SO WHAT? It’s not like the urban types are capable of overthrowing the government in the first place, so we have nothing to lose here.
As far as Iran cutting off OIL to China, SO WHAT? That is China’s problem, NOT America’s. If China wasn’t protecting Iran at the UN, there would be no need to bomb Iran. If China protecting Iran causes us to bomb Iran, then China needs to suffer too.
There is a way to use diplomacy to box in the MDM.
The USA should withdraw from the NPT. Nothing lost there, since it has been violated more times then Madonna. 6 Months after withdrawing from the NPT, the USA will be able to sell nukes to anybody it wants to. THAT is when we go to China and Russia and give them the chance to get on board with JOINT military action against Iran (regime change) or watch the USA sell all their neighbors nuclear weapons.
Give Puttie the choice between helping with regime change in Iran or seeing the USA sell Poland and/or Germany 50 nukes and guess which one he will pick.
You think China won’t get real helpful if we offer Taiwan 2 boomers complete with SLBM’s and MIRV’s?
If you think about it, Tyrants and Despots having nukes while peaceful democracies don’t is such a wacked out idea that ONLY the Department of State could produce it.

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:31 pm 44. pms:

Are all these people clamoring for mass destruction of Iran the same people who were horrified at Bill Ayres attending a meeting where some nut jobs were talking about killing 25 million Americans? What’s the story about “depending on whose ox is gored”? Fanatical Right meet the fanatical left.

Oct 28, 2008 - 5:44 pm 45. Roark:

QUESTION: Should the U.S. Attack Iran Before January 20?

ANSWER: WE SHOULD HAVE BOMBED THEM BEFORE THE DAMNED IMAM’S CAME TO POWER BACK IN THE 70′S!

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:55 pm 46. click212:

Obama is scary but you guys are just as scary. You don’t know enough as outsiders to determine what our secret service has on Iran. You all want to use hatchets when scalpels are what will do the job. We could have gotten rid of Bin Laden yet Bush pulled our troops back at the most opportune time. You all talk like neanderthals.

Oct 28, 2008 - 11:10 pm 47. Dave Surls:

We should have knocked out the mad mullahs when our embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979. Failing that, we should have done it in 1983 when Khomeni’s followers attacked an American embassy and then blew up a USMC peacekeeping force in Lebanon.

Every day that passes and we don’t do something about these bastards is a stain on the honor of this country.

Because we failed to respond to their previous attacks, the mad mullahs think they can attack us and get away with it, and the next time we bump heads, it’s a lead pipe cinch that they’re going to attack us again. When that occurs, and the Iranians or their terrorist proxies attack one of our embassies or murder American citizens, the Iranians are likely to be holding nuclear weapons in their hot little hands as a deterrent to us fighting back. And, that would be a real bad thing.

You don’t ever let someone attack you and get away with it. Bad plan. If you doubt the truth of this maxim, then consider the history of our relations with the Taliban/Al Qaida.

There’s only one way to handle this, destroy the mad mullahs and their subsidiaries in Lebanon, the same way we’ve destroyed the Baath state sponsors of terrorism and various terrorists in Iraq. Not attack their nuclear research facilities, but attack them and drive them out of power once and for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

In Iran it’s common practice to chant “Death to America” at political events.

My response is:

Mad mullahs delenda est. Death to Hezbollah.

Oct 29, 2008 - 1:18 am 48. Dirtyrottenvarmint:

It’s disturbing that the case against attacking Iran is so weak. This isn’t an argument. “It will be expensive?” “People might die?” And the kicker, “The U.S. doesn’t have international backing?” Since when do these questions matter when it comes to war? Javedanfar clearly doesn’t get it.

Here are the questions one asks before going to war:

1) Is Iran likely to develop nuclear weapons and is Iran likely to use them?
2) Are all non-violent means of preventing Iran from using nuclear weapons proven impractical or ineffective?
3) Is a U.S. strike on Iran likely to succeed?
4) Will a strike on Iran’s nuclear program cause more death and destruction than Iran’s intended (if so intended) use of nuclear weapons?

It would be nice to see an argument along these lines that makes a real case for not attacking Iran, because no sane person _wants_ to go to war. As it is, the “yea” clearly won this debate. And that’s scary.

Oct 29, 2008 - 8:28 am 49. Ex-fetus:

“Are all these people clamoring for mass destruction of Iran”

No, if you re-read that article, you would understand that what is being discussed is the Pros and Cons of Air strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. All in theory, of course. A few wackos think that the Montefort solution is in play (Kill them all, god will know his own), but Wacckos are a small price to pay for freedom of speech. Censoring them is much worse.
President Bush would have done it in September, if he was going to do it at all. By law he has 90 days to run military ops without congressional authority. Somethimg the ignorant person that claimed he could be arrested for under the next administration is unaware of. So he would have started 90 days before the Christmas break and got bonus time until the new Congress is sworn in. No matter what we here think about it, nothing is going to happen.
Not for political reasons, but a lack of courage by President Bush.
That Lack of courage means Iran will have nuclear weapons. They will use them against the great Satan. Religious fanatics are incapable of not attacking their gods greatest foe. So it’s just a matter of where and hwen now, the chance to stop them is pretty much gone.
While the west has been contemplating their navels, the MDM have been working. I’m waiting for a pool to start.
I’m going with New York in the winter of 2010, after the mid-terms.

Click212, it was the insiders that got us into this mess, so having outsiders get us out is more of less normal for America. Most progress in America comes from talented outsiders ignoring the conventional wisdom of non-talented insiders.
SOP as they say in the crotch.
Any chance of ‘normal’ Diplomacy bringing Iran to heel ended when the CIA put out an NIE stating that Iran had stopped working on nukes. Factually inaccurate and designed to embarrass President bush, it got the CIA killed and might just get a few million Americans killed. The CIA is now part of Homeland Security and AFAIK, no longer a cabinet level bureaucracy. So they are dead in Federal Administration terms. Don’t even control their own budget.
In a decade, Turkey Run will be use as records storage by Agriculture or NIH.
Now if we can just get rid of State.

Oct 29, 2008 - 11:18 am 50. David F.:

Meir,
Have you ever read a book entitled, The Devil we know dealing with the New Iranian Super-Power?
It’s by Robert Baer. He has over 30 years of experience in the middle-east while in government service.

Are you Persian?

All you people that want war with Iran need to know something. They have silkworm missiles pointed at every refinery, shipping port and major drilling installation in the Persian Gulf. They could shut down gasoline production for the whole world in a matter of minutes. This is not a threat, but a fact.

This wouldn’t be like attacking Iraq. Persians have a strong sense of nationalism. Moreover, they could be our biggest ally in the region, as Shia’s don’t like Sunni radicals like Al-Qaeda. The new government in Iraq is Shia. They want to work with Persia and already have a pipeline in the works for Basra.

All you people need to look up Eisenhower and operation AJAX. The CIA coordinated Persia’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh out of power in 1953 because Eisenhower said we needed to protect American Interests. He was succeded by Western supported Pahlavi, who suppression was brutal and total. Khomenei was exiled because he critized the government(to popular to kill). Right here, The US transformed Iran from republic into a suppressive monarchy. The people took back power and under Khomenei, were critical and angry at the US. The US put Hussein into power and armed him with chemical weapons which killed 100,000 Iranians. During the US backed Iran-Iraq war, up to 1,000,000 soldiers and civilians were killed. Iran uses carbombs and suicide bombers, successfully. They are fighting an enemy, namely the US, that has superior technology. They have low-tech vs. High tech. The Persians actually want to be our friends. They also want a certain amount of respect. Amindinajed doesn’t help and is in fact on his way out because he is considered a radical. He isn’t even the real seat of power. the Ayatollahs are. In Iran you have to be 18 years and a citizen to vote. That’s it. That sounds like a democracy to me, why are we against a democracy? Every thing I put down here is the truth. Read the book and look up the History of Iran in Wikipedia. If there is anyone who is calling for war after all this info, I would like to know the reasons.

Oct 29, 2008 - 5:16 pm 51. David F.:

Meir,
Are you Israeli? That would put your writing style in a new perspective.

Oct 29, 2008 - 5:17 pm 52. Meir Javedanfar:

Hi David, yes I am. I live and work in Tel Aviv. I have heard of Robert Baer’s book. He has done a good job of looking at Iran’s behaviour, but from what I have heard, he has gone way overboard with his opinion about its leadership. Feel free to contact me. You can find my contact details on
http://www.middleeastanalyst.com

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:19 am 53. TomJW:

46. click212:
Oct 28, 2008 – 11:10 pm

If any of our beauracracies were doing anything in Iran, we would have read about it in the NYT. The mullahs are just waiting to get a few nukes, then the show is over for them. They are willing to die for what they believe in and are probaly happy to take out any ‘apostate’ Iranians when they die.

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:08 am 54. Pat J:

Hi Dave. Didn’t we have this argument in my livig room that an attack on Iran would be very bad for us?

And you are absolutely right. Iran could become our biggest ally in the region. If we’d only lighten up!

Keep in mind one other thing Pajamalings. Iran DOES NOT have a history of attacking other countries. Bombing Israel therefore would be very uunlikely and suicidal. No what we need to do is clean up the mess Bush/Cheney have made in the region. Get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan, with Iranian aid as part of opening a dialogue. An attack on Iran, would be very very bad for this country and the world.

Oct 30, 2008 - 12:33 pm 55. michael:

Bomb them back into the stone age. Problem solved, Period.

“Peace through superior firepower.”

Oct 30, 2008 - 1:31 pm 56. David F.:

Tom,

Are you suggesting that if something happens in the world only the New York Times would have the story?

Are you willing to die for what you believe in?

Oct 30, 2008 - 1:46 pm 57. Allan Erickson:

LOOKS LIKE THEY’LL ATTACK ISRAEL FIRST?

IRAN TESTS NUKE UNDERGROUND?

Link here and related stories:

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/best-election-video-hands-down/

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:00 pm 58. Pat J:

michael:

Bomb them back into the stone age. Problem solved, Period.

“Peace through superior firepower.”

——
Righhhhtt! It sounds so easy doesn’t it. I can see you pumping out your chest now. So much for “Thou shalt not kill.”

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:20 pm 59. michael:

Pat J.

You can’t see the danger because you’re eyes are closed.

Keep talking to them while they slit your throat or severe your head, then you’ll be asking for help from the guys who lay their life on the line.

Leftist, bleeding heart liberals like you will be the end of all of us.

“The corridors to the halls of freedom are lined with muskets.”

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:36 pm 60. Dave Surls:

“Every thing I put down here is the truth.”

No, actually, it’s pretty much all nonsesne.

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:41 pm 61. Ex-fetus:

“They could shut down gasoline production for the whole world in a matter of minutes. This is not a threat, but a fact.”

No David F., it’s Bullsh1t. Gasoline burned in America is refined in America. At the HFC ( Houston Refinery Complex) for the most part, about 60% IIRC.
For Safety reason, most petroleum shipments are of crude OIL. It is safer to ship crude OIL, since gasoline is very volatile and the vapors are explosive. Not that many refineries in the ME for that reason. It is cost effective to refine the gasoline where the market is. Iran and the KSA both IMPORT gasoline. Or they did back when I was in the business in the mid 90’s.

Second, the Silkworm is about as dangerous as that boogyman under your bed. No silkworm ever managed to hit anything as small as a ship 30 years ago , when it was current technology. In today’s world of chain guns and point defense Lasers that can hit targets 1/10 the size of a Silkworm moving about 6 times faster then a Silkworm a Silkworm is NOT A THREAT.
In ‘91 Silkworms were launched at the Saudi’s. 1 hit out of the dozens launched, IIRC. The target was a CITY.
Arab taxis are MUCH more dangerous then Silkworms.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:53 pm 62. Emma:

cfbleachers, I love your posts. They’re what I would say if I could articulate it.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:48 pm 63. Connie:

Many comments to read and give serious thought.

Very early into this campaign I decided I would listen openly to both sides. I do know one thing, I do not want someone entertaining the thought of corporate table negotiations when the lives of our soldiers and the American people are hanging on a limb.

The United States throughout history has maintained the position that we are not vulnerable. Even with the horrific losses of 9/11, it seems that we have forgotten how vulnerable we really are.

Why cannot people simply understand that these people do not care about us (realistically hate us)? Yes, the economy is a major problem. However, if and when we are the recepient of another vicious attack on our country, who do you want making a decision which is hinged on minutes? Someone who has never even been in the battle field or someone who has been in the battle field and understands the logistics of war?

I suppose when we are all gone this all really will not matter. But what are we leaving behind for our children and their descendents? Corporate negotiations? I think Wall Street has demonstrated enough of that.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:55 pm 64. Paul:

I stumbled onto this page following election stories, but decided to read some of the blog…it is scary that you are even having a discussion about pre-emptive attacks and dropping nukes. The one guy who posited that we’d only loose a division or two, are you crazy??? That could be up to 40,000 US lives! It seems to me we wouldn’t have been having these types of way out of control discussion when President Regan was around. He understood the concept of “speak softly and carry a big stick”. You bloodthirsty type seem to have no regard for the collateral effects of military action.

Oct 30, 2008 - 8:12 pm 65. David F.:

Where does the oil come from that is refined in Houston? Where is it shipped from? 60% is not 100%. Destroy shipping and drilling and there is no oil to refine. Think about that b4 you respond Ex-fetus.

Who shot missiles at Saudi Arabia in 91′? “The target was a CITY.” What city? Where are these chainguns and laser point systems deployed? What are they called? What are the divisions and battalions called?

Even making the assumption that everything you said is true,(and that’s a big assumption), are you making a case to attack Iran based on the premise that Houston refines 60% of our crude oil imports and silkworms are not reliable based on the 100% protection of the oil drilling, refining and shipping infrastructure of chainguns and laser point systems? Are you saying that?!!!!!!? Do you smoke marijuana or drop acid? I thought this was a right-wing site? Who let the hippie in?

Oct 30, 2008 - 8:55 pm 66. David F.:

Now, let’s use the peas inhabiting your right wing m&m shells you morons call brains. If there is no petroleum to ship, and the shipping lanes are destroyed, that means that gasoline production will be shut down.

Oct 30, 2008 - 8:59 pm 67. David F.:

John Boehner, Boehner, the guy’s name is Boehner. He should meet Dick Army.

Oct 30, 2008 - 9:01 pm 68. David F.:

I’ll just be happy when all right wing criminals are in Jail, like Ted Stevens. YES!! Criminals don’t belong in government. Another victory for the American people, putting scum behind bars. Hey, do you think we’ll see him on FOX? Bad Boys, Bad Boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when we come for you? No more oil companies bribing republican politicians for favors. The people are taking back our government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 30, 2008 - 9:11 pm 69. B Dubya:

Facts and suppositions:
1. US oil reserves (Bakken formation and others) give us the ability to achieve strategic independance for oil and oil products. Just knowing that, and just shouting Dril! Drill! Drill! was enough to shut Putin down in Georgia.
2. Oil (OPEC) based political and ecomnomic extortion only works when your intended victim has no other options. We have several.
3. Falling oil prices are doing more to unseat Aminadinnerjacket and the Mullahs than anything short of a military strike could hope to produce. As his economy is pegged to oil, the Iranian’s political future declines as he continues to fail to deliver the goods to his supposed nation of martyrs.
4. My expectation is that Israeli on-ground intell in Iran is vastly better than the American Left and the Iranians believes it to be. Even if the Iranian nuke effort is dispersed, its points of interest are now known, for future strike planning purposes.
5. The US will not first strike Iran. There is no benefit to be had by a pre-emptive strike by us. Israel will act as our proxy in this matter.
6. Israel has already demonstrated that they can defeat the Iranian air defenses.
7. Nuclear weapons need not be employed to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities. Current generation conventional weapons (loaned to a helpful proxy) would be more efficient and less messy on the PR front. Collateral damage would be limted appropriately to Iranians actually occupying the targeted facilities. It is important the the Iranian leadership should survive the strike in order to maximize loss of face.
8. Sugical strikes and a living Iranian leadership will not result in a mass realignment of Iranian popular sentiment to them. On the contrary, the leadership will get the full credit for getting what they begged for.
9. Because the Iranians are being propped up to a great degree by Russian ambitions, we should focus on western hemispere actors of a similar bent when the Isrealis strike Iran. Venezuela/Chavez is our job.

If the Iranians do anything overtly stupid between now and then, such as actually deploy even a low yield nuclear device outside their borders, then all bets are off and the Persian Sea of Glass is a done deal.

By the way, if you are an Obamabot, get down on your knees and thank whatever deity you pray to that I am not George W. Bush. I am not hindered by the plethora of non-Rovian thoughts that gentleman has.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:31 am 70. Pat J:

Michael.

I can see quite well thank you. And this “bleeding heart liberal” ia well prepared to defend himself not to mention support those who are fighting on my behalf.

I just don’t see how bombing people back to the stone age is the solution to a rather complex issue. Men who think so are overcompensating for something.

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:27 pm 71. Connie:

I just want to thank all of you for your input. Especially those who have information based on actual knowledge and research.

No matter how anyone may take a stance (right, left, middle or side-wise), no one can question that this country is in trouble.

Regardless of how I registered many years ago, I have always voted for the individual who is the best candidate to be placed in the position as president of the United States. In addition, I believe in the scale of justice. In other words, we need an even scale for both Democrat and Republican representatives. For that reason, look at the statistics. No, not the media. In fact, the media creates so much “spin” that people really do not know what to believe. If you do not research the material presented, you do not know the truth.

It appears we will be faced with a complete turn around (the scale will be largely tipped to the far left). It also appears that we will be faced with universal logic. I do not believe there is anyone (whether Democrat or Republican) who does not want change for the better. But, drastic change is not a realistic approach. And, if the candidate is not truthfully forthcoming with this change, we will be in a world of hurt.

So many times I have heard people in regret because of a vote they placed for a candidate. Many do not have the time to research the issues at stake and where an individual candidate actually stands. They rely solely on the commercials we see on television which have been cut and pasted so heavily.

In addition, look at what Obama has spent on this campaign to get elected? The millions of dollars speak for themselves. Why doesn’t he and his campaign put aside some of this money to help those who are truly suffering and/or in need? Instead, take a piece of pie (as is quoted from his partner) from someone who has more and give it away to those less fortunate). Will Obama and his wife give away some of their pie?

The reality of Obama’s health plan is that he is in support of keeping the people who are healthy, healthy with health preventative testing. That is great. But where does that leave those who already have health issues? For those who are currently healthy, you are blessed. In addition, your health can change in an instant regardless of your age.

He also is in support of health care for all children. On its face, of course that is good. That does not include adults. Also, he has indicated he will penalize the parent who does not provide their child with coverage. He was reluctant during debate to indicate exactly what that penalty would be.

In an earlier comment, I wrote about where I believe our stance is as a nation and worldwide concern. Is it no small wonder that Americans are so challenged? Change is good. But, not change that will lead us down a one-way road of regret.

The election is just around the corner. God bless us all. Goodness knows, we certainly will need it.

Nov 1, 2008 - 4:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: