This report comes from the Bandar Beacon, aka, the Washington Post:
The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.
According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets...
Although Bush insists he is focused on diplomacy for now, he volunteered at a public forum in Cleveland last month his readiness to use force if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to follow through on his statement that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. . . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."...
It's very sad that war really is unavoidable. In Holland we have a saying "De eerste klap is een daalder waard" (The first strike is worth a Guilder).
Let's hope the first strike on Iran is worth much more than an ancient gold coin in this epic battle between good and evil.
If the Bush Administration allows itself to peter out without having dealt with Iran -- which always was, and remains, the chief military threat to Infidels among Muslim states --- the fiasco of its diversion into the tarbaby of Iraq will be complete. At this point, it has no other task except to damage, as best it can, in as many ways as it can, that nuclear project. It need not be deterred by the various idiotic arguments presented by the usual defenders of Iran, the stout-hearted people who did nothing to prevent, and much to promote, the coming to power of Khomeini and the consolidation of that power without a suitable Western response, such people as the worst president in the history of America, the holier-than-thou Jimmy Carter, and the sinister Gary Sick and let's not forget Shireen Hunter, Director of somethingorother strategic at the international somethingorother center for somethingorother in Washington, and the real Lady Macbeth to her nondescript husband's rise to be that appetizing thing, Ambassador to NATO (how, given his undistinguished background, she and he managed that is one more Washington mystery).
The arguments go something like this:
1) "We can't possibly destroy the Iranian project because it is too widely dispersed."
Answer: One does not have to "destroy" something to set it back for a decade. One can damage a good deal, and then work to so undermine the regime, or even the country of Iran if necesary, that the project can never be put back. Furthermore, one attack does not mean that others cannot follow, as further information is developed, or observed by spy satellites, as to places that escaped initial damage.
2) "Such an attack would destroy the chances for the reformers to come to power. It makes more sense just to work for a new regime in Iran."
This suggests that a successful attack on Iran's nuclear project would lead to increased support for the regime of the Islamic Republic. Would it? Would it not, rather, lead to short-term rallying around, and then after a few months, when the extent of the setback became clear, and the humiliation of the regime obvious, to a loss of face so great that within Iran, the regime itself would lose the ability to overawe or cow its opponents, those who dislike it for its corruption and those who are fed up with a Muslim theocracy, and those -- Azeris in the north, Kurds in the northwest, Baluchis in the southeast, Arabs in the southwest -- who are most disturbed about their treatment as ethnic minorities, once left largely alone, but now, through advances in technology, pushed around more vigorously by their Persian masters.
And suppose the chance were taken. Suppose nothing were to be done about Iran, in the hope that the regime could fall at any minute. This story, which is bruited about by the Iranian equivalent of Chalabi and other smilers who assured the Americans, who assured Bernard Lewis, that the "liberation of Baghdad" would make the "liberation of Kabul" seem "like a funeral procession" (as Lewis put it in 2002). It isn't true, but the collateral damage of an attack on nuclear facilities will be that to the prestige of the regime and its perceived powerr. But won't those Iranian agents strike us all over the world in retaliation? Not if they realize, not if they have been informed, that this is it, and any tiny retaliation will be replied to with the dismemberment, through support of ethnic minorities, of the state of Iran -- a permanent and total dismemberment. Would the government in Iran take such warnings seriously? Would those who rule it exhibit the standard behavior of Muslims in the Middle East that the British observed long ago -- "At your feet, or at your throat"? They would; they would change their ways -- but only after being given a sample of the kind of damage that we inflicted on Berlin and Tokyo during World War II. Not the least of the problems associated with our holding back of Israel during every war, or the Israelis holding themselves back, is that the Muslims of the Middle East have never experienced, and do not understand, what they could be dealt. All those towers in Dubai and the rest of the Gulf, all those cloud-capp'ed towers in Saudi Arabia, could be gone -- never to be replaced because we are able to seize the oilfields whenever we wish -- these are now hostages to fortune. And they must be persuaded of that. So far they have seen nothing but the very mild behavior of the Israelis (prevented even from destroying Egypt's Third Army by Kissinger and Nixon holding Sharon back) and the do-good projects of the Americans in Iraq.
This faith in "regime change" in Iran misses the point. The Shah of Iran was our friend, our ally, our "pillar of stability." (Carter's words). He was followed by Khomeini and by a regime that embodied the worldview of Khomeini. Suppose that tomorrow the Shah's son could come back. Is it not clear that as long as Islam controls the minds of tens of millions of Iranians, just as Khomein could replace the Shah, and the son of the Shah replace Ahmadinejad, so might, in five or ten or twenty years, a new Khomeini replace the new Shah. Turkey's policies today, under Erdogan, loyal follower of Erbakan, are not to be trusted, are not those that the Americans thought, in 1950 or 1960 or 1970, would be the Kemalist policies of ever-increasing secularism, but something quite different. Neither Turkey under its current regime, or any regime, nor Iran, under any regime that might come into being after the current one, can be permitted to acquire major weaponry. Assorted shahs and ataturks may be supported, their attempts to limit or constrain Islam, with varyiing degrees of success, welcomed -- but that should not translate into a policy that trusts their countries with weaponry that threatens Infidels.
Get out of Iraq the better to deal wtih Iran. The French phrase "reculer pour mieux sauter" -- draw back in order to take a better leap --seldom has been more apt.
What? Nobody here noticed Seymour Hersh's article yesterday on the web that the US government was contemplating tactical nuclear strikes? Drudge believes in it. Says Seymour has high-level pentagon contacts. Now it's in the Telegraph, which is more reputable than, say, the Guardian.
Even Hugh, for all his verbosity, didn't catch that. You guys gotta read the right stuff! Like Drudge!
Re: U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran
Russia is playing a clever game in this matter, looking for a quid pro quo (as China got recently in the security deal re cargo passing through the Bahamas) and Russia does not want to be shut of decision making re the disposition of Iran after the fall of Iran's loonytoon regime.
The Russians sought to provide the Iranian regime with nuclear material that would be used for peaceful purposes and the Russian leadership must be bitter at Iran's rebuff, Iran's obvious intention to develop nuclear weapons, their determination to compete with Russia for influence in the former Soviet Republics. Russian is still reeling over Chechnya and an Atomic armed Iran is not in their national interest.
Much of the recent Russian behavior appears to me to be tactical rather than strategic. If Russia were really opposed to U.S. policy they would seek an alliance with Iran and China in opposition to American policy. (Though we do not have to give Russia a good deal for their support, we will do well to cut the Russians a good deal.)
The two countries in the region that have the most to lose vis-a-vis an Atomic Armed Iran are Russia and Israel. It is becoming obvious that the Iranian regime is loosing touch with reality as they push forward with their dream of world conquest and the coming of the Mehdi.
The Iranian regime is dangerous and on a collision course with reality. The US will do the heavy lifting on the matter.
9/11 was not a prelude to the Great War, it was the opening salvo of the Great War. 3,000 American civilians were killed on American soil by a foreign enemy in a military operation. 9/11 was not a crime, it was an act of war, the Great War. Throughout its brief history the United States has gone to war for far less reason than the attacks on 9/11.
It's time for everyone to realize that Yamamoto's Giant is seriously stirring awake now, and he is not a happy camper. Just go to any of the NASCAR megaspectacles these days and have a look around at what flags folks are waving (like the famous Texas "Come and get it" banner), what t-shirts are saying, what bumber stickers are declaring, etc. The median voter in America is a NASCAR fan and every elected official in the country knows that (in WWII the median voter was a baseball fan). If the median voter decides that Iran must be One with the Universe, or any other garden spot (Mecca and Medina come to mind, a la Tom Tancredo), then it will be done. It was the median voter, not President Truman, who agreed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be incinerated. The president merely carried out his wish. It's called sovereignty of the People, and the People are beginning to spontaneously mobilize for the Big One.
If America goes to war with Iran and wins I think it will be a sad day for the antijiahd movement. Ameruica will become more arrogant and there will be nothing to stop its plans for disecting Europe and the Balkans in particular and handing countries like Kosovo, Chechnya and Bosnia to the muslims. The US is not going to war with Iran to fight Islamists. If you think so you are foolish. The US still thinks of Islam as a friend. Russia needs to back up Iran and humiliate the US this way it will realize that if it doesnt ally itself with countries with common interests it will fail. I hope this blows up in bushes face.
dear pissedoffcanadian:
your wrote:
"humiliate the US this (sic.) way (sic.) it (sic.) will realize that if it doesnt (sic.) ally itself with countries with (sic.) common interests (sic.) it will fail. I hope this (sic) blows up in bushes (sic) face."
You do not appear to be the offspring Canada's schools. Are you from a country where you were taught from birth Islam right or wrong? Separate from all the grammatical and syntax errors it was the use of the term "blows up" that gave you away.
I would not give much credence to Seymour Hersh. He is a lying sensationalist. Of course some in the pentagon are considering using bunker busting nuclear missiles. That is much different from saying the Bush administration has decided that they will use them.
Certainly a nuclear Iran, particularly led by someone as clearly divorced from reality and Ahmadinejad and his ilk, is a terrible threat, and we are justified in stopping their program, by force if necessary. We certainly have the capacity to do it.
No one should think, however, that the cost will be low. War has a way of not being what one expects it to be. Demons are unleashed that once out, are very hard to put back into the cage. The political capital the Bush administration expended invading Iraq is gone, capital that should have been used against the Iranian regime, which represents a real threat, particularly now that it is led by someone who makes the case for his own destruction so frequently and eloquently.
Logical though it may be for us to pull out of Iraq before moving against the Iranian nuclear program, we probably will not do so. Our forces in Iraq, and even moreso the Iraqi civilians who suffer the brunt of Iran's meddling, will be even worse off than they are now. That means even more dead American troops, more maimed for life, and for every American a score of Iraqis, and an even more miserable chance for political stability where we so desparately need to disengage. There will be a large number of Iranian deaths as well. Considering how widely disbursed their program is, and how they have learned the lesson from Arafat and Hamas of locating targets among the civillians, the number might be in the thousands. We will also likely see a wave of terrorism, the garden variety state sponsored from Iran, as well as sympathetic attacks, to spread the misery to the west as much as possible.
There are also the unknowns. Does Iran have a few nuclear warheads already, as has been alleged since 1992, and are they trying to enrich uranium to keep them live? Could they let off a few nukes as a last gasp, maybe to bring the 12th Imam out of hiding? What would the retaliation for this sort of thing look like? Can Iran compel Hezbollah to do something totally crazy and self-destructive, using Lebanon to attack Israel, and if so, with what? This would probably be the sort of attack that Israel would not take lying down. What would this conflict look like? How are we prepared to help our ally? Would Syria, with a big "next" on its head, join the fight, and how would we react?
War with Iran would certainly create an oil crisis. Iran exports are about 5% of the world's total oil exports. The loss of 5% of supply would most likely set prices of oil over $100/bl. This would be a painful doom straight out of the Quran for a lot of people's jobs. The straits of Hormuz would also be at risk in a shooting war with Iran, through which far more than 5% of the world's oil exports flow.
Why am I harping about this, when we all know full well that a nuclear Iran is worse? The Bush administration has shown themselves to be negligent in developing contingencies that arise from their actions, and then turning around and making up excuses, often false ones of the "no one expected THIS to happen" sort when so many actually did. Let's hope this round, they lay some plans, at the very least, to deal with the fallout of what they initiate. Who knows, maybe someone in the administration has the spare time to read Jihadwatch, and this forum. Let's try to throw them a bone.
my spelling mistakes are a result of my rush to write a comment. I have been on this site for over a year. I am anything but pro-islamic. See my previous posts. I am just tired of the US supporting every Islamic terrorist organization. Lets face it the US will go to war for Israel. Nothing wrong with that if it is truly going to fight Islamofascism everywhere. But it is not. It supports Islam in the Balkans and in Russian, and in India. Yet the rest of the world is supposed to rally itself around the US when it goes to war with Iran. Screw them.
pissed... The free world cant afford to have a feral country like Iran with nuclear capabilities. It's that simple.
Militarily and demographically we are, and have been positioning ourselves to confront Iran for sometime now by maintaining our positions in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. Both countries are located on the east, and the west sides of Iran. No General would ever wish to give up land in confronting an enemy if at all possible.
Outside of the continuing efforts at diplomacy in dealing with Iran, the coalition, NATO Alliances,ETC. continue to seek some support from the (no love lost) predominantly Islamic countries such as Turkey (a country wishing to join the EU),Pakistan,Saudia Arabia,Turkmenistan,Tajikistan,Uzbekistan,Kazakhstan as well as trying to get Putin on board with Russia .
It is all a difficult task because so many leaders in the western world have difficulty coming to grip with the pathological Ideology of fundamental Islam that defies the civilized norms of Western and modern culture.
It takes a Mahmoud Ahmadineghad and his ilk who are willing to openly swing out that sword for all to see, it that sence he actually helps us.
your [sic] wrote:
"humiliate the US this (sic. [sic]) way (sic.[sic]) it (sic. [sic]) will realize that if it doesnt (sic. [sic]) ally itself with countries with (sic. [sic]) common interests (sic. [sic]) it will fail. I hope this (sic) blows up in bushes (sic) face."
Sic doesn't need a dot. It isn't short for anything.
Here we have an example of Murphy's law of "sic", which states that, when you correct somebody, you will almost inevitably make a mistake youuuouourselve.
Just remember this - all is not well within the Iranian parliament, as members are concerned over Ahmadinejad's constant sabre rattling against the west.
If we do strike Iran's nuclear labs with nukes, they will have to oust him immediately because they know that a war with the United States will be a defeat for them.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has dismissed reports of a possible United States nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=P2W4EFC3Q4EJTQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/ustraw09.xml
But, attacking Isreal with nukes is sane, right?
"No one should think, however, that the cost will be low. War has a way of not being what one expects it to be."
Quijybo-
True. Nothing in life ever turns out the way we think it will. Sometimes things turn out better than planned, or not as good as planned, but it will not turn out as planned. Bush and Co. need to be ready for the many possible outcomes that will result from the removal of the threat.
I do not think it would be wise to put ground troops (ever) in Iran, and believe that powerful conventional weapons with nuclear-style-force will be enough to do the job of killing Iran's nuclear monster in it's cradle. However, Iran may disolve into civil war after the event, a civil war that will make Iraq's sectarian conflict look mild.
Iran is a kind of Cartoon Nazi Germany (Marx was right that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as comedy) but this is not going to be funny, and we should prepare for the worst in the matter. We should expect the worst possible outcomes and let go of the "democracy" dreamland and face reality that Infidel nations (Russia, China, the US) have interests but no friends in the region.
If we don't use our positioning in Afghanistan and Iraq as a means to necessarily take out the governing body of Iran, then I will be seeking impeachment of Bush, Jr. myself.
Can Iran compel Hezbollah to do something totally crazy and self-destructive, using Lebanon to attack Israel, and if so, with what? This would probably be the sort of attack that Israel would not take lying down. What would this conflict look like? How are we prepared to help our ally? Would Syria, with a big "next" on its head, join the fight, and how would we react?
Posted by: Quijybo at April 9, 2006 11:27 AM
====================
The players are set to dance, the tune is being called and the band is ready to play.
There are two scenarios that start the war with Islam and WW3, the US is attacked with WMD’s or nukes by the mo’s and/or attacks against Israel will initiate massive retaliation by Israel against the middle east. Which will happen first??
Israel will not allow Iran to have nukes. The missiles will fly between Israel and Iran. Vast numbers of Israelis are killed and Israel retaliates with nukes Iran and then nukes the major military bases across the middle east.
Russia and China will nuke Israel to become the saviors and masters of the middle east...Oil...
In retaliation, the US exchanges nukes with China and Russia and WW3 and MAD is underway. Civil war wages in Europe with the mo's. China invades through Russia and nukes fly between Europe and China.
It looks like the near future will have many seconds of very bright light and then a 1000 years of peace due to nuclear winter and massive deaths across the globe.
This is absolutely frightening, because there appears no way to stop this dance that is acceptable to the major players: America, Russia and China.
America, Russia and China could divide up the middle east like a piece of cake and everyone wins and gets a stable oil supply and prices , Israel is provide a safe haven, and the world is saved from Armageddon, but there is not that much sanity in the three nations to do this.
Be prepared, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
If we strike first the world will condemn our actions but wait a minute, they already do.
Muslims leaders will scream we are the aggressors but wait a minute, they already do.
Muslims will scream for revenge against those who attack allah but wait a minute, they already do.
PC types will scream for “justice and tolerance for islam” but wait a minute, they already do.
I could do this all day but you get the point, damned if we do, more damned if we do not.
Let’s not kid ourselves the muslim backlash will be extreme, terrorism and oil shortages are just the start. Global chaos as governments pick sides. The economic damage to the US as a result of muslims refusing to sell oil will impact everyone, terror will be common in our streets, suicide bombings and the like will happen.
Now for the other considerations, a massive crackdown on border security will also happen, mosques would be closed or tightly controlled, deportations of muslim trouble makers will happen. Islam will be a four-letter word in the US. There will be no sharia, no massive conversions, no quarter given. President Bush can not be reelected and realizes any party in power when Iran nukes someone (Israel) would never ever get control of both houses again. Waiting to see if the Democrats win power in the next election and wondering how strong they will be on Iran is extremely risky. We may not have time to wait until the next election. We really have our hands tied, we have to stop talking and hit them hard, fast and repeat if necessary. If we do this and I believe we have no choice, every long-range weapon in our inventory should be on the table to include nukes. What better way to discourage the next would be nuclear power? The backlash will be extreme but the punishment for doing nothing is worse. “let’s Roll”.
Sorry but there is a country far worse than Iran that already has nukes, Pakistan. There is no way they got nukes without the help of the US. I wanted Bush to win because I thought he was against all the PC bullshit of the left. I thought finally someone who understands what the threat is. But I was wrong. He is still supporting Islamic Jihadists everywhere except Israel's enemies. The Israeli lobby is just too strong. I have no problem with that. But I do fear the PC backlash that will force Bush to speed up the break up of the Balkans just to appease the World's Muslims that he is not Islamaphobic. Everytime he shows strength with Iran he has to show he can be equally tought with either the Serbs, Russians, etc. I would rather wait till another more competent leader takes over in the US. Bush is another Clinton.
India can counter Pakistan if needed, they do have nukes but as of now, Pakistan is not a military threat to the US. Iran can not be compared to Pakistan, it’s an apples and oranges argument. Will Pakistan have to be dealt with later? Possibly, it depends on when or if the imams gain control of the weapons. I was not giving President Bush credit for being a strong or even wise leader, I simple pointed out he has little to loose. As for the Serbs, before I went to Bosnia I thought they were the aggressors and needed to be contained, I now think we owe them a heart felt apology and our support.
Pissed off canadian wrote:
"If America goes to war with Iran and wins I think it will be a sad day for the antijiahd movement. Ameruica will become more arrogant and there will be nothing to stop its plans for disecting Europe and the Balkans in particular and handing countries like Kosovo, Chechnya and Bosnia to the muslims."
America's reasons to attack Iran have absolutely no connection with Kosovo, Chechnya, and Europe.
Pissed off canadian: Can you please show me where you found a connection between these disparate countries?
The reasons to attack Iran are not about America's arrogance or so called " American imperialism".
Most of the world community is angry with Iran. Sanctions are on the way.
The obvious reasons to attack Iran are as follows: 1) national security 2) America's allies national security 3) nuclear deterrence 3) regime change- President Ahmedinejad is an Islamist who is a loose canon and presents a real danger to the security of the Middle East.
The Bush admin is now sending out the message now that the story about attacking Iran is hype.
read:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191068,00.html
William F Buckley, writng in townhall.com makes a case for sanctions. He quotes an Angelo Codevilla who states "total economic sanctions can be deadlier than atomic bombs (I wouldn't go that far). Were Europe and America to impose a total trade embargo on Iran - and enforce it by including any third party that trades with Iran - the Iranians would quickly be forced to choose between nukes and starvation. But this embargo would be war, not just against Iran but potentially against Russia." And probobly China too
Sanctions would have to occur over months, or perhaps even years in order to have any effect on the domestic economy in Iran. This needs to be done immediately. The Bush administration is frittering away precious time while this charade called diplomacy is being carried out at the UN.
Pst...The US has all the necessary tools to get the job done, but a case could be made that the tool is in the wrong hands...
There is a propaganda war going on. The whole point is, to keep the enemy, or potential enemy guessing. They certainly keep me guessing. Allahic insanity on one side and wavering politicians on the other....
Another thoughtful article from Fjordman in the Brussels Journal. Here he is laying in to the shallow Wachowksi brothers and much else:
I’m a Terrorist Groupie, Hear Me Roar!
I say let Iran nuke Canada, then we can hit Iran with full free-world impunity.
Why Canada?
Everybody loves Canada.
Canadians are wise, and peaceful and compassionate.
If Iran nukes Israel, who would care, except the U.S.?
Nuke Canada, Mahmoud. I dare you!
Smart for a change. I think this whole Hersch thing is an administration plant. I'd be the farm on it. Why not? Use a hostile, liberal jouranlist with a reputation of investigative journalism who hates Bush. Use him, get an old friend, supposedly peeved off General to trash Bush on deep background. Keeping the pressure high on Iran, while Bolton(the strongest of the Bush crowd)read them the riot act.
Force is one thing, but the threat of force is another useful tool. It might embolden opponents of the Iranian Thug in chief within the religious establishment and within the military. Both good things.
No, the real reason for not attacking Iran is simple. The blowback on our troops, hostages, within and without the Green Zone and for the Brits in and around Basra. Surely the many Iranian agents within Iraq would attack us like Infidels at the Allah shooting gallery.
Want to see W's popularity go up 20-30 % quick: a. get out of Iraq and b. attack Iran's nuclear program. I think both will happen. Has my opinion of W changed? Not really, but the disintigration of Iraq, civil war escalation, will lead to an abrupt leave. I'm getting more convinced of this. Bush may time the whole thing before the elections(ours) or during the transition to the next administration. I do think W cares about his legacy--all politicians do.
LOL. I'd like the see the expressions on Polosi and Reed's face if Bush pulls off this feat. As much as I criticize W, I'll give him his due: you can't keep a cowboy down for long!
I think Hugh nailed it. I know people in military that signed up because of 9-11 for a little payback. We even had no problem getting other countries to participate in mopping up Afghanistan initially, even the German Special Ops teams were working with our SEALS chasing the Jihadists in the beginning.
Then they changed the mission.
Time to get back on track. That means Iran, N. Korea and Syria. If 4GW methods are required in "sovereign" countries then so be it. There are plenty of men qualified to do it right, if the desk generals and policy makers would just listen to them, or anyone who has done this for a living like Col. David Hunt.
All the best,
Mac
"America, Russia and China could divide up the middle east like a piece of cake and everyone wins and gets a stable oil supply and prices , Israel is provide a safe haven, and the world is saved from Armageddon, but there is not that much sanity in the three nations to do this."
Texican-
I think you are hitting on a truth here. We are the world's first and only superpower and the only nation that has the ability to project power into this madhouse region to stabalize it. But we (Americans) don't really like the role of policeman and protector of the global energy supply and the global economy. It's a thankless job.
Ultimately, we have to come to some understanding with Russia and China-Europe-NATO and have them assume some responsibility in the region for a regional energy supply which largely goes to Asia and Europe. The UN is a farce.
I think after we deal with Iran (which will enable us to tone down in Iraq) we have to rethink this global policeman role we are so lucky to have at this time in history.
Interesting coverage of possible military options here by Seymour Hersch:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
It is interesting to note what politicians were discussing during the prelude to WWII.
In Britain there was a lot of talk in the Commons regarding Germanys right to annex the sudetenland, which was in fact part of Czechoslovakia, also how Germanys economic miracle was a result the Good side of NAZI policies.
It was Churchill and only a few others who warned
of the wolf in sheeps clothing, yet the supporters of appeasement movement were preaching to the public that they had "secured peace in our time".
What I do not understand is that when Germany's leader Hitler had murdered ALL of his rivals, had re-occupied the rhineland, annexed Austria, and had taken the Sudetenlad (part of Czechoslovakia) they still were preaching that there was not a problem.
America is lucky that it has a President who sees a wolf for what he is, and that however dressed he only respect one thing and that is force.
We do not know China's or Russia's real intent, but when action is taken against one of their major trading partners we will then see what cards they are holding.
Iran have developed long range missiles based on Russian, Chinese and N. Korean technology, this will be very dangerous for Isreal.
It is going to be an interesting to see if they use them.
If America attacks iran. Terror will be common in our streets, suicide bombings and the like will happen.
Posted by: Ronin at April 9, 2006 01:32 PM
===============
The terror will be short lived in America. The terrorists and their supporters cannot wage terror if dead. There will be no innocents in this war.
US troops will refuse to fire on the citizens it has pledged to defend to the death, if not, civil war will rage across America with American Citizens, the politicians that understand America and the majority of the armed forces will unite to destroy PCness in America. This civil war will be bloody and short. If Mexico tries to invade America, this will be a short lived war for Mexico.
A new wave of politicians come to office in America and war will be waged across the middle east.
The sides:
America, Australia, Britain, Canada, France after a civil war with the mo's, Germany, India, Israel united to destroy the threat of islam and secure the middle east ...oil... supply.
The Middle East, China, Russia, Pakistan to dominate the middle east ...oil... supply.
Either Russia, China, Europe, India and America will come to terms or WW3 and MAD is underway.
It all revolves around the hub of the wheel which is ...oil... controlled by islam.
The refusal of the civilized nations to admit to this spells potential doom for the world.
There is no solution that does not include the destruction of islam, but ...OIL... is making this harder to accomplish without all out war.
We are fighting in iraq(middle east) for oil so the world stays free.
Where are the great inventors of the world to make us independent of the middle east ...oil...
Without ...oil... the middle east would be a waste land from the bomdings.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
The majority of Americans will have freedom or death and will destroy the world before America falls. 230 years to get to this point. America is more ready for this war than she was for WW2.
We are living in the most interesting and frightening time of the world. God saves us from the madness.
Prepare, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Texican-
Your comment reminds me of Freudian "free association" of ideas. But it is definately authentic and somehow get's at reality, strikes a chord of truth. I don't say what I don't mean, sir.....
"Iranian Terrorists will strike in America"
WTF? as if they are controlled by the Iranian government. If there were a terrorist/coward that could attack us here it would have been done already. These people think that Americans are scared and will hide in a hole if they say the word "Terrorists"
If we do get hit and we probablly will, this is called war and its what we are in now.
As God is my witness if an attack occurs in America, There will be hell to pay for any muslim still in America afterwards.
The so called "Good and Peacefull" Muslims better step up and pick a dog in the fight.Protest as often about the Radicals in your religion as you do about the Americans, Danes,Israelis and every other damn thing that offends you.
Why does everyone think Iran with A-bombs would be intolerable? Stalin had the bomb and he was far more terrifying and powerful than Ahmadinejad (sp?). Mao had the bomb, and China--Red China--has 600 right now and is sure to build many more eventually.
I agree bombing might set back Iran's program a few years, but so what? They'll start over if they have to because the Iranian people, not only the clergy, support it. Just as most Americans support their country having the bomb. And if an attack is launched without permission from the Security Council, it's another unprovoked, illegal American war of aggression per the U.N. Charter (see Article 2). Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to put on a "Tojo Was Right!" button, since in 1941 Japan also launched a preventive attack on a dangerously powerful country that was working on an A-bomb (though the Japanese didn't know that). Or if America is not be bound by the rules we want other countries to follow in their dealings with us, perhaps we should have joined Hitler's "Might Makes Right" coalition instead of opposing him.
Let's get our troops out of Iraq, leave Iran alone and make it clear that an atomic attack on Israel will draw the same response as an atomic attack on the U.S. (but no such guarantee as to Saudi Arabia or other hostile "friends"). In a word: containment. We should avoid anything that would distract the Muslims from turning on each other. In the meantime, returning the U.S. to a high regard international law would help undo the terrible diplomatic damage we've suffered under Bush.
Sceptico-- one major difference is the vastly greater odds that Iran would use the bomb once it has it.
China, North Korea, are officially atheistic states and the USSR was; the reason that's of interest here is that it translates into no concept of an afterlife. I would think this imparts some "safety valve" in the form of the self-preservation instinct.
Contrast this with Iran, with its Quranic martyrdom complex: They have nothing to lose, just so long as they believe they're carrying out Allah's will. It's a win-win situation, particularly when one dies: An assured spot in paradise, intercession for loved ones at Judgement Day, rivers of wine, virgins (or raisins), etc. Clearly, Mutual Assured Destruction just doesn't have the same deterrent power.
As if this weren't enough already, there's Ahmadinejad and his devotion to hastening the return of the Mahdi. He and his pals at the Hojjatieh Society believe this can be achieved by creating chaos in the world. Nothing like a nuclear bomb to do that.
More on the Hojjatieh:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
It has been observed many times that Islam is a form of immaturity, childishness.
Letting misbehaved children play with nukes is not acceptable. But, sooner or later, one of these petulant pisssants is bound to set one off. Whether via a ballistic missile or a suitcase bomb that it was "impossible" to detect while passing through a container port, it will happen. That's what Moslems do.
GIMME MO MOSLEMS MO ISLAM MO KORANS MO HATEFUL KORANIC DEATH MO KILL
After it goes off, what then? Will the self-delusion continue on?
We should all be paying close attention to events as they unfold over the next few weeks.
Texicans posts have all the info you need regarding the consequences.
Prepare, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
I dont have much more to add than that, I am getting ready myself and if you are reading this then so should you.
Let's get our troops out of Iraq, leave Iran alone and make it clear that an atomic attack on Israel will draw the same response as an atomic attack on the U.S. (but no such guarantee as to Saudi Arabia or other hostile "friends").
Posted by: sceptico [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 9, 2006 06:16 PM
Sceptico you are a coward, it's people like you that got us into this situation in the first place.
If you watch TV and read the papers, you would think this [immigration reform] is primarily an issue only for Latinos or only illegals or only poor immigrants. [Monday] will show differently," predicts Abdul Malik Mujahid, a Chicago-based Islamic cleric who says 7,000 Muslims will march there Monday to protest the "climate of fear" since 9/11. "Latino organizers have done a big favor not just to themselves but to all other immigrants, as well as America itself, by standing up and saying this country's immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. Now the rest of us must join in."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0410/p01s01-ussc.html
Islam and illegal Mexican immigration has no connection, right?
Perhaps we should just turn over the whole (expletive deleted) country over to Mexico -- then Bush, The Ford Foundation, and The Council on Foreign Relations (who are funding these protests by the way), can see how their cheap labor force works under sharia law -- while we nuke Iran at the same time!
The joke is on the American people as always!
Actually, I think that American citizens should start doing the boycotting; maybe start a few protests of their own.
Heck, it is supposed to be their country after all -- and it sure doesn't sound to me like American politicians give a hoot what they think about anything.
Perhaps we can use one of those Iranian EMP thingy-bobs at high altitudes that shut down the HDTVS, just to get them away from the sports channels long enough to wake up to what is going on in their country?
Just a thought.
I think most people here feel the US will attack Iran because Bush is an antidhimmi. If the US attacks Iran it is because Bush has no other choice. The leader in Iran is a madman and a fool. But if the dhimmi Bush is forced to attack Iran all I am saying is it would be foolish for any other country to voice any antiIslamic feelings. They will then be the targets. If the US cant find one they will sacrifice either Kosovo, or any Christian territory they can hand over to the muslims. This has been done again and again. There is only one country with the power to create a anti Islamic alliance and yet that same country keeps on blowing it. That country is the US. It has been mentioned that Russia, China, and the US could divide up the mid east between themselves. Yet there is one country stopping that from happening. In fact the US could take the whole mid east for itself. Its the PC elite in washington that is stopping this.
And as for Pakistan not being the same threat as Iran. I agree Iran is a bigger threat to Israel. But for the rest of the world Pakistan is the far greater threat. They are now demanding the same deal as India right now. I bet Bush will bow to them and give it.
returning the U.S. to a high regard international law would help undo the terrible diplomatic damage we've suffered under Bush.
Posted by: sceptico [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 9, 2006 06:16 P
Sceptico you sound like a UN appologist! the UN is corrupt and allows countries like Syria,Iraq act like their equal to the rest of the Western countries.. if anything Bush stopped that crappy UN, and putting Bolton to clean it up could not have been better!
if anyone knows the Pentagon, they have to make plans for all types of scenarios, so having plans to attack Iran is only logical. the leftist pc media is trying to force Bush's hand as always. yet they said nothing about Clinton going into Bosnia..! its okay to go after non muslims. but when Bush actually does something they go after him with all their anti Bush crowd. Bush is far from perfect, but look at what the other side did.. nothing! there are statements coming from OBL terrorists network, that they did not expect the US to go on the attack like they did. they had the experience of Clinton leaving Somalie with tails tucked behind their butts! thought they were paper tigers! so yes most likely plans are made for Iran.. Iranians do know Bush means what he says...they are not dealing with Kerry and his crowd!
In the meantime, returning the U.S. to a high regard international law would help undo the terrible diplomatic damage we've suffered under Bush.
Posted by: sceptico at April 9, 2006 06:16 PM
===============
Sceptico, most Americans don't give a f--k about international law, dimplomatic damage or the UN.
We care about working, living, eating watching TV, making and rasing kids and having fun.
We want the rest of the world to go about their business and leave us alone, but when they do not we will retalitate.
In the end, Americans have always stepped up to protect themselves and their neighbors. I expect no less in our future.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by: Papa Ray at April 9, 2006 09:41 PM
===================
Damn right Papa Ray. Thank you for your service.
The American citizen is pissed off and ready to do battle with the mo's and these foreign invaders protesting on American streets demanding that we as Americans bow down to them because we want them gone and our borders secure.
Our Senate tried to cave in but the screaming of the American public brought this to a halt. This battle is not over.
___
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0410/p01s01-ussc.html
Islam and illegal Mexican immigration has no connection, right?
___
War in America is becoming more probable each passing day.
It will not be pretty for either if we are attacked inside America again.
Prepare, be armed be ready for it is near.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
... international law, dimplomatic damage or the UN.
One principle we must hold in dealing with Moslems is that they're always in a rage. You would be too if you read the Koran every day. Mohammed was sputtering with fury from the day he emerged from his cave on Mt. Hirat.
MO KORANS MO HADITHS MO SIRATS MO MOSLEMS MO ISLAM MO ANGRY MO RAGE
With every Moslem we let into our midst, we are dragged down. We're less free and less secure, and for that we pay our hard earned money.
If they're gonna be in a rage anyway, why bother even considering how they'll react? That is already known.
It's like that dude who posted the other day that maybe Comments should be shut cuz it makes this website appear "extreme." Extreme? How does one appear moderate when dealing with Islam?
Oh, that's right. By giving ground.
Lulu"the leftist pc media is trying to force Bush's hand as always. yet they said nothing about Clinton going into Bosnia..! its okay to go after non muslims."
I agree with you 100%. That is why I wanted Bush to win the election. But seeing what a coward Bush is now I dont see him as someone who is going to stand up to the left. People here talk about a nuclear explosion being the worst thing. Yet what happened to Kosovo was no different. Every Serb has been killed in the province. When zero people are left the effects are the same. Only the enemy is able to live there. A nuclear bomb would of been better. Even ultra leftist Kerry would attack Iran in this situation. Bush is not standing up to the left by attacking. I am really scared now. If he is forced to attack Iran he will have to hand over another country to the Jihadists as an apology. Right now if I was in a country with a sizeable muslim minority I would be waving the anti american flag. They have no choice. History has proven that it is far safer to voice anti American feelings than to voice any anti muslim feelings. And whose fault is it the PC bastards that run washington. I thought Bush was different he has proven me wrong for the last two years.
Sceptico said: "And if an attack is launched without permission from the Security Council, it's another unprovoked, illegal American war of aggression per the U.N. Charter (see Article 2)."
Did you mean to say that as it sounded. It sounded as if you agreed that our pre-emptive attack on _______ (fill in the blank) would be an illegal action according to some UN charter paragraph. GHWB said that he does not need a permission slip to defend the USA. I agree. The UN is so corrupt that this idea about sanctions being used is absolutely so funny that is it sad. Read about how the "Oil for Food" program was handled. It is time to form a new kind of united nations organization that only allows members that do not have the word "Islamic" in the name.
Sceptico also said: "Why does everyone think Iran with A-bombs would be intolerable? Stalin had the bomb and he was far more terrifying and powerful than Ahmadinejad (sp?). Mao had the bomb, and China--Red China--has 600 right now and is sure to build many more eventually."
The USSR got the A-Bomb only three years before Stalin so graciously croaked. Belive it or not, but in retrospect, we were dealing wth sane leaders. Mao, Khruschev, and some other commies were realists who knew that nuclear war was not winnable by anyone. MAD actually prevented WW3 - so far. Mr Ahmawhatever is guided by an insane belief that he will be doing Allah's will. This is as scary as it can possibly be.
Read Shinoliite's posting again.
If the bloodbath must come, then let's get on with it! Ronald W. Reagan
Posted by: patriot2 at April 9, 2006 10:12 PM
==============
Damn right.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war". Hmmm, still holds true today, doesn't it? I have made my choice, If islam wins, I will still not submit, compromise, bend or learn to live with it. I will instead go down fighting. This is starting to look like the start of Armageddon, I hope it is, let’s get this over with. I don’t know any qoutes like my friend Patriot nor do I have any catchy sign off like my buddies, Texican and Catherine, what I do have is your backs.
"let me tell you I served two tours in the last "conflict" and had many friends killed and maimed for life. I came within a few minutes of being one of the dead but instead came home wounded in both mind and body."
I truly understand.
A salute; a "thank-you"; and a warm welcome home!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
"The muslims don't think we will fight, they think we are afraid. They are right, I am afraid not to fight"-Ronin.
Thanks Patriot, I owe it to Danish beer . My favorite "anti war" song is: One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack)
by Lambert-Potter, sung by Coven
I don't have the words but I like it. As long as the last standing "tin soldier" is not a muslim, we win. Like Texican says "at any cost"
what I do have is your backs.
Posted by: Ronin at April 9, 2006 10:27 PM
============
And we have your Ronin.
The patriotic individuals that post on this site make a termendous difference in my life and the way I feel about the survival of America. Thanks to all.
This American family will not bow down. I and my family will fight and die if necessary to help keep America free.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
History has proven that it is far safer to voice anti American feelings than to voice any anti muslim feelings. And whose fault is it the PC bastards that run washington. I thought Bush was different he has proven me wrong for the last two years.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 9, 2006 10:10 PM
I will never voice anti American feelings even in front of a majority of muslims! we need to work the internet and educate everyone of the history of islam. We as Canadians have more in common with Americans, we share a history and thousands of miles of border. we need each other, our resources and their security. l am sick of liberal bashings of Americans in Canada, just as bad the blame America crowd in the US. muslim terrorist do not care if we are Canadian, American, Republican or Democract, we are all in this together.
Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
--- God's commandment in Koran 8:39
Gonna be a long haul.
This is starting to look like the start of Armageddon, I hope it is, let’s get this over with. I don’t know any qoutes like my friend Patriot nor do I have any catchy sign off like my buddies, Texican and Catherine, what I do have is your backs.
Posted by: Ronin at April 9, 2006 10:27 PM
Awesome! ;-)
Pelayo--Yes, I did mean what that sounded like. Bush is wrong. As a matter of international law, we do need a U.N. Security Council permission slip to take "pre-emptive" military action, against any country, including Iran. Anything else makes nonsense out of the whole Charter, which we helped write to stop international aggression after WWII. We had made a big deal of the fact that Germany, Italy and Japan started the fighting and we tried German and Japanese officials after the war for launching wars of aggression (see e.g. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1685.html). If we are attacked first, that's different. Under Article 51 we have a right to defend ourselves or another state (including retaliation). So we didn't need a permission slip to free Kuwait in 1991, even though we got one anyways. We didn't need a permission slip to invade Afghanistan in 2001 because it was used as a base to attack us on 9/11. But because Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 and we had no Security Council authorization (not even to get the alleged WMD, for which the U.N. had inspection teams in place), we had no legal grounds to invade Iraq in 2003. And that means we violated Article 2 of the Charter, which says, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." No exceptions for the U.S. You may not like it, but the Charter is a treaty we have signed and ratified, and under our Constitution (Art. 6, Sec. 2) it's part of American law, which Bush swore to uphold. It would be more honorable to withdraw from the treaty than break it, but I assume Bush hasn't done so because that would be putting an even more obvious "evildoer & loose cannon" hat on our heads. No one has publicly aired this issue here because the timorous Democrats and even the war protestors are too afraid of looking unpatriotic to say bluntly that we are an aggressor state in regard to Iraq. Bush's "war on terror" marketing concept has worked as a great cover for him to betray the legal heritage of WWII. If I were in Congress, I'd make the invasion of Iraq #1 in his articles of impeachment.
Shinoliite--Thanks for your comments. You've raised a good point about Ahmadinejad's worrisome end-of-the-world views. However, I'm skeptical even Ahmadinejad would willingly see all of Iran destroyed just to get Israel, virgins or not. If Russia and China, both with large Muslim populations, see no imminent danger in the man, perhaps there is none. I also have the impression he is under the thumb of the Guardians Council and Khamenei as much as Khatami was. And I think those guys are playing for the long run. They want Iran to lead the umma, not become a pile of cinders in a nuclear Goetterdaemmerung. Remember that Pakistan already has an "Islamic bomb" and Quranic visions of paradise haven't prompted them to press the button, at least not yet. On the other hand, I would support economic sanctions against Iran; let the price of oil move upward and force us toward non-oil energy sources.
km--You're right about cowards getting us into this mess. Draft dodgers "no show" Bush and "deferment" Cheney casually sent Americans to kill and to die in a needless and illegal war in Iraq, and they bungled it to boot. Our foreign policy and our use of power should include a concern with fairness and legality, especially when the U.S. helped draft the relevant laws. We're only 4.6% of the world population so we have to offer the rest, including the Muslims (however despicable their religion), a more attractive international order than "submit to lawless, arbitrary American domination or we will kill you."
Good night to all!
"US seen stepping up war plans for Iran"
FINALLY!!!!!!!
Let's look at something in a realistic way that may not show American/Western intentions in the best light (either past or present) but should do a lot to let the rest of the world see what we really will or will not do.
The "American's started the UN and so need to abide" sentiment -- misses the big picture. Sure, there were idealists on the scene that wanted no more war. But they set it up so that permission was needed and vetoed by select nations. After a major victory, the victors did what victors do and set up a system that would continue to see that their values prospered. For a long while it worked. Then, their values increasingly came to have a lesser voice in that system.
Call it, me, America/The West racisist, colonial, neo-colonial, money hungry pigs, whatever, I don't care - but let's get over this idea that because we had a hand in setting up the UN we necessarily subscribe to the idea that WE require their permisssion to do anything. The idea was really more about making sure that others required our permission. It was about status quo. Not quite as lofty I know, until you consider that the people who set the system up that way saw that their values had resulted in the greatest standard of living for the greatest number of people of any value set ever tried. They wanted their way of life to spread for the good of others, and so that they could keep living the way they wanted. That redeems some of the loftiness without taking away the reality of what they were up to.
This isn't just realpolitik, everybody know already knows that we have the might, it's a question of the spirit versus the letter of the law. And if you question what the American spirit was at the time of the UN's creation, just think back a few more years to the failed League of Nations.
The letter of the law might say we need permission. The spirit of the law was set up to keep aggression to a minimum so that undesirable change could be thwarted while desired change could occur. If you want to debate the ethics of first strikes, be my guest. I have some questions about that myself. But let's also not delude ourselves into thinking that the UN has shown itself capable of evolving with the times to address the very real threats that exist given nuclear proliferation and mad man regimes.
And, I fully recognize that many in the world consider America to be currently run by a mad man. Feel free to debate that too. But never pretend that Americans EVER considered that the point of the UN would be to infringe upon their sovereignty or their ability to defend their country at will. Which today includes the question of the preemptive strike.
So the questions and debates don't really center around what the UN allows (although world wide backing would be grand) they should instead center around the real nature of the threat, the real focal point of the threat, and how best to handle it.
I am not certain a first strike (particularly nuclear) is it. But, I am not certain it isn't either.
The bottom line is that history shows, time and again, that Americans prefer to be the good guy. They prefer to stay out of it. But, when their own good is threatened they stand and fight.
Proliferation indicates that our own good is increasingly threatened and that we will have to further upstream our solutions and be quicker to act. Whatever else he may have done that I do or do not agree with, and whatever communication failures our President may have suffered from over the past several years, on this point he has been very clear. He also made it repeatedly clear that ALL options are options. And I respect him for it. If a nuclear strike moves forward, nobody can claim bait and switch, he has said all along that it has always been on the table as a way to protect American interests.
In my personal opinion, the writing is already on the wall. We are getting this confrontation regardless of whether we want it. So it becomes a tactical issue of who controls the where, how, and when. I believe our military minds already know it's coming. And I do think it is far from coincidental that we have spent the last few years putting troops in place on two sides of Iran... I would also have to guess that they are fully ready to take whatever measures will give them the greatest tactical advantage. And, in the end, that's what we pay them for.
This article below is new on Defense and the National Interest. It is not directly relevant to the thread but interesting as one view on the general military situation:
Further Reflections on Unrestricted Warfare.
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing
Enough said !
I would just like to thank Papa Ray for coming here and speaking like a man. Not like a blowhard, a mutt, an unthinking paper patriot, but like someone who has seen the worst and knows what it is like, and is still willing to face it.
There seems to be a good deal of talk in the US media these days about masculinity, what it is, and whether it is being lost or not, and whether that is good or bad. I feel that the people I find most properly manly, Johnny Cash for instance, are people who are willing to look into the abyss without fear and without mendacity. Papa Ray sounds like one of those rare and genuine men, and if I ever have children I will show them his letter and say, that is how a man ought to speak.
Iran strikes first and nukes a city or two.
That's the only justification the liberals will accept for us to take military action.
Several million killed - just so that they can say a military strike is now justified.
So for the liberals to feel that action is justified it takes several million to die.
Umm, lets think about this.
If Irans nuclear sites are attacked the resulting death toll will be in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand.
I think that maybe we should look back to WW2 and ask those same liberals - Should we have invaded Germany in 1934? - would they have been able to live with that result as 'liberals'? there would have been a few hundred thousand killed. but over 6 million Jews and others saved, not to mention the bombing of cities and the courage Germanys actions gave to Japan (hence no attack on USA and no Hiroshima etc). Thus 40 million + deaths avoided by the invasion of Germany at the cost of a few hundred thousand.
In the mid thirties the drums of war were beating and the 'liberals' were wailing and crying at the prospect of fighting for thier freedoms, and delayed the action.
LIBERALS ARE INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MILLIONS OF DEATHS IN THE LAST WORLD WAR.
THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THIER HANDS - The worst kind of blood, blood shed for thier benefit because they wanted to see the Wolfs teeth before they accepted action should be taken.
Lulu you missed my point. I hate the anti americanism of Canadians too. I am very outspoken and I always stick up for america. But I am talking about the little countries that have been destroyed by America like Serbia, bosnia etc. The reason most Europeans are antiamercian is because it is safer. Yugoslavia was bombed for fighting Jihadists. I thought Bush was different but he isnt. The independance of Kosovo is only months away. If Bush is forced to attack Iran I guarantee a little Christian country will be sacrificed to the Jihadists, maybe it will be Kosovo, maybe macedonia, maybe Cyprus. I dont know. But these are scary times and if the US wants other countries to stick up for it, it better start being a bit more consistent with its foreign policy.
I am afraid that pissedoffcanadian is unfortunately right, seen from the perspective of small Christian countries located on the European periphery, such as Serbia (but not only Serbia). Serbs for instance were never anti-American, they were American / UK allies in both WWI and WWII, jet they have to see that Kosovo, their Jerusalem, is being handed over to Moslems (and turning into black hole of Europe) and Bosnia becoming a one-stop-shop for terrorist, both developments deadly wounding the whole Europe and facilitating turning it into Eurabia - this all happens with knowledge, approval and support of USA, even though USA could easily reverse the trend, for the benefit of not only Serbs, but the whole Europe and Judeo-Christian world. But USA still differentiates between good and bad Jihadists, apparently. Not only Serbs are bitter about this sad fact, all other small countries of the region (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc.) have learned a very, very bitter lesson too, a lesson summed up by pissedoffcanadian. From their perspective it looks as if USA and the West is not considering the Ortodox Christian countries / nations to be part of it and worth solidarity and protection, while at the same time expecting their full solidarity , even sacrifice. So whistling Dixie, yes, the USA and the West should support its allies, and not betray them as they´ve done with Serbs. Serbs have each right to see lack of moral compass in the West, including USA.
Sorry to all native speakers of English for ortography / grammar mistakes in my post.
Regards to all, Serbian girl
When I read this and other blogs, It hurts me to realize many of the posters follow tied old lines, some with slight variants. What is legal/illegal is a concern but doesn’t change the fact that a rouge nation who publicly states it wants to destroy Israel has to be stopped. Although, it might not be legal to strike first (I don’t know or care, I’m not a lawyer) we are bound by treaty to respond. If we wait to protect our friends, they will die and we will have failed them. We would still be bound by treaty to act but it would be just for revenge, Israel could not survive a nuclear attack. I would not let a neighbor strut around my neighborhood brandishing a weapon and screaming loudly he was going to kill another neighbor. Iran is essentially doing the same thing. I say hit them, hit them again, back up check the BDA and hit them one more time. Let the lawyers figure it out afterwards. Many nations do have “the bomb” but they are not currently threatening anyone with them, apple and oranges arguments do not help and just muddy the water.
Americans routinely pick one issue to dwell on and you see them repeat arguments they see or hear over and over and over. I watch what they say and follow up to see if the point has any merit. Illegal immigration, the war on drugs, violence in the streets, radical islam all of these issues and more can be tied together but not all the time and the players change constantly. My military days are behind me but I know many of the lurkers are still in uniform. Many ex military are daily readers, we fully realize the cost to protect this nation, we have paid it, will continue to pay it and expect our children to someday take our place. We really have simplistic goals for the most part; control and secure our environment, protect all peaceful occupants and deal with anyone threatening, the people or the nation with overwhelming force. We have seen as the posts above show, failure to act costs our friends dearly. We should not let another down. My enemies do not have to like me, respect me or fear me, as I will never strike without provocation. My enemies will at some point have to deal with me, and those like me, and it will be on our terms. I am in good company on this list, many of you have my utmost respect and I will work hard to gain and keep yours. I do have a comment for those who wish to bring the US down, destroy it or forcibly change it or make it submit to your goals, whatever they may be “bring it on.”
Right on, Papa Ray.
Foehammer
This is so true! (Re: Patriot2's post above).
If you watch TV and read the papers, you would think this [immigration reform] is primarily an issue only for Latinos or only illegals or only poor immigrants. [Monday] will show differently," predicts Abdul Malik Mujahid, a Chicago-based Islamic cleric who says 7,000 Muslims will march there Monday to protest the "climate of fear" since 9/11. "Latino organizers have done a big favor not just to themselves but to all other immigrants, as well as America itself, by standing up and saying this country's immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. Now the rest of us must join in."
Take a look at this site to get an update on what is happening in the south and what some of us are trying to do about illegals.
http://www.russanddeeonline.com/
In his work "Resistence, Rebellion and Death" A. Camus quoted Richard Hillary [who died in war]:
"We are fighting a lie in the name of a half-truth."
Camus went on:
"He thought he was expressing a very pessimistic idea. But one may even have to fight a lie in the name of a quarter-truth. This is our situation at present. However, the quarter-truth contained in Western society is called liberty. And liberty is the way, and the only way, of perfectibility. Without liberty, heavy industry can be perfected, but not justice or truth. Our most recent history... should convince us of this. In any case, it is the reason for my choice. I have said... that none of the evils of totalitarianism claims to remedy is worse than totalitarianism itself. I have not changed my mind, after twenty years of our harsh history, during which I have tried to accept every experience it offered, liberty ultimately seems to me, for societies and for individuals, for labor and for culture, the supreme good that governs others."
Islam is totalitarianism made 'God'.
Long live liberty.
. We're only 4.6% of the world population so we have to offer the rest, this said by "sceptico" sounds like one of those envirnomental wacko's from the far left. Just look at it this way, this 4.6 percent feeds more than half the world! and another statement by "sceptico" is utterly false! "arbitrary American domination or we will kill you. it is rather islam domination or we will kill you. sceptico you need to see how truly superior the west is, even though not prefect far better than any other culture!
Patriot2, those 8dead guys found near London, Ont were from a biker gang, lots of losers in drugs get caught up, what a waste of life!
No tears in Heaven
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by: Papa Ray at April 9, 2006 11:49 PM
___
Thanks Pap Ray
___
Excert:
First Sergeant McNeely offered, “Mr. Thomas, we don’t belong in Heaven, we belong on the battlefield, on the front lines defending America and our way of life, but we’re here, our missions complete, we only pray that there will be others to follow our paths so that those who follow your path can continue to publish newspapers, and our kids can continue to ride buses free from fear. It sucks to be dead Mr. Thomas, but it is truly blissful to know that America remains free. Rest assured sir, there are no tears in Heaven, no tears.”
=======
Our prayers and love to all of the American soldiers that have fought, those that have been injured and those that have sacrificed their lives to keep America free.
Rest assured that these Americans that remain will not allow America to fall.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
APF sez:
"...that dude who posted the other day that maybe Comments should be shut cuz it makes this website appear "extreme." Extreme? How does one appear moderate when dealing with Islam?"
Spot on, mate! The comments here are often as good and better than the articles themselves and many of us have learned a lot of serious stuff here. This mindset on display is that of a wimp who is ready to raise the white flag before the battle begins...
Dr. Mack is quite right:
"...The United States has been at war with the would be revivers of the defunct caliphate since September 11, 2001. All military action of the United States against the belligerents who attacked us on 9/11, their abettors and their sympathisers are well within the purview of UN Charter article 51..."
I would go further: This war, the war of Islam against the rest of the world, began 1400 years ago. Sure, one could say the war was revived with the Ayatollah Khomeini taking over Iran and Ahmadinejad taking 200 US embassy personnel as hostages in humiliating conditions. Peanut Carter could, and should have, gone to war, he didn't.
When OBL bombed the embassies in Africa and Beirut we had every right to move against the terror of Islam, but again: Clinton was occupied with other things.
The UN and the 'security council is quite useless: You have less than 20 civilized nations (paying the bills) pitted against 180 primitive, 3rd world, half-world and dysfunctional regimes, theocracies, military-states and dictatorships. To put them on an equal footing is simply preposterous. Most of those 'nations' don't deserve their name. Their representatives are so hopelessly corrupt that their votes are regularly bought by the Arabs, who know how to play power-politics.
No, it is high time for the US to take a lead and to assert itself, before it becomes the laughing stock of yesterdays world.
To any and all that insist on repeating the lie that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "illegal", thinking that the more one repeats something the truer it gets:
UN Resolution 687 aka the Gulf War cease fire
Read it.
Learn it.
Quit trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Iraq violated the cease fire. Resumption of hostilities was "legal". Find a new equine carcass to bludgeon.
Yes, that is the question, what do Muslims think, where is their loyalty. How many Muslim leaders renounce Iran's violent jihadist islamist drive.
THE IRAN PLANS
From the New Yorker:
He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
+++++++++++++++=
Yes, Pres Bush is going to save Iran with missiles, bombs and nukes.
"The UN and the 'security council is quite useless: You have less than 20 civilized nations (paying the bills) pitted against 180 primitive, 3rd world, half-world and dysfunctional regimes, theocracies, military-states and dictatorships. To put them on an equal footing is simply preposterous. Most of those 'nations' don't deserve their name."
-sheik yer'mami at April 10, 2006 09:52 PM
Damned straight, sheik. The idea that we need the UN's "permission" to do anything is laughable. The sheer audacity of nations where violation of international law is not the exception but rather the rule of policy, presuming to hold the US's feet to the fire is infuriating. Besides, better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Not like we really need either when security is concerned.
From the New Yorker: Bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”
===============
I don't give a f--k what muslims think. Lets get it started and get it over with.
Prepare, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
"the President believes that he must do 'what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do...'"
-- quoted, from The New Yorker, in a posting above
One hopes.
I don't give a f--k what muslims think. Lets get it started and get it over with.
Prepare, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: Texican [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2006 11:34 PM
I would like to second that!