"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" All right. Let's talk to Herr Ahmadinejad, Mr. Chamberlain. Prepare a plane to Munich. Our diplomacy will be particularly effective once the Iranians know that there is no possibility that we will use force.
By Laurie Kellman for Associated Press, with thanks to Kemaste:
Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers."The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club....
President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out....
Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."
Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.
The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.
"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.
They believe in dialogue, compromise, talk. They will still be talking talking talking right up to the moment their throats are cut. The last things they will say will be aaaaaargh! aaaaargh!
The answer is 'yes' Mr. Hamilton, 'we should have little confidence' and I would add another vote of no-confidence to the Congress for their future failure to come to grips with what's at stake in our dealings with Iran.
I will add Mr. Hamilton to my mail list. I'll send him a copy of my two-page editorial on Sharia vs. the U.S. Constitution. I've already sent one to Rep. Reid and plan to send one to Senator Biden. I don't expect immediate results, but I will send the letters anyway.
Who said the Democrats have no plan for the Middle East???
They are waving the white flag as we speak...
Why bother talking when there is nobody listening?
I am not a Constitutional Lawyer (heck, I don't even play one on TV), so I must have missed the amendment requiring the President to consult Congress on foreign policy.
When was that passed?
And will Bush even listen to them? The Dems may control Congress but Bush is one stubborn son of a b**** that he will hold his own and stick to his guns. I used to think that was a bad thing, but now I think it may not be.
War Powers Act of 1973
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
The Demoncrats are stuck between Iraq and a Bush.
What madness.
Iran always was more important than Iraq. And it is cruel and stupid and an abdication of American responsibility to permit that regime, that country, to obtain nuclear weapons. A whole lot of stupidity, and cupidity, and timidity, exhibited by so many -- by Jimmy Carter, by Raymond Close, by James Akins, by James Baker, by John Connally, by Henry Kissinger, by Brent Scowcroft, and hundreds or thousands more who did nothing to save the Shah, nothing to make oil more expensive and thus to drive down demand and OPEC prices (and recover oligopolistic rents), who did nothing to educate themselves about Islam -- to bring things to the pass they are at today.
Just when the Democrats could be presenting themselves as the party that will sensibly protect, without polypragmonic missions, without having faith in "democracy" but instead a lack of faith in Islam, along comes a move like this. It frightens. It disgusts.
Bush has in his Iraq policy been nearly crazy in his incoherence and ignorance, in Iraq -- crazy since he changed his goal from the rational one of searching and destroying weapons of mass destruction to something impossible to achieve, and if achieved, would prevent those conditions from arising that should be both welcomed, and encouraged, and exploited, to weaken the Camp of Islam.
Now this, which shows that the Democrats, or many of them, do not even recognize the problem of Jihad, of the teachings, the attitudes, and the atmospherics of Islam. For Iran is, with Saudi Arabia, one of the two most malevolent Muslim enemies of the United States, and for the moment, the more powerful and menacing of the two.
How dare anyone vote for preventing an act -- an attack from the sky, not huge land forces entering to "bring democracy," an attack that would be over in less than an hour and would prevent the possible annihilation of all kinds of Infidels in and out of the Iranian neighborhood -- that must be carried out, and soon. And to leave it up to tiny Israel to accomplish is both cruel, and stupid.
To me, one of the most bizarre aspects of the sudden urge to "engage" Iran and Syria is the timing. This isn't Iran under the presidency of Khatami, when it might be possible for some naive people to believe that Iran was experiencing moderating reform. No, this is Iran under Ahmadinijad--more threatening, ugly and insane than any Iraniian "leader" since the first days of the Islamic revolution. He has threatened Israel and the West with total destruction.
Usually I have a fairly good idea of what a political faction is aiming for, even if I disagree with it, but here I am truly at a loss. Do proponents of "engagement" really believe that "dialog" will work with Iran? Do they think that all the threats are just colorful Middle Eastern rhetoric, and that no one, including Mahmood, really takes any of it seriously? Do they really feel that poor inept George Bush is such a fascist, war-mongering madman that no one else can really be considered a threat to world peace?
The situation with Syria is almost as incomprehensible. Especially since the Lebanon war, they have made it quite clear that they have no intention to leave Lebanon alone, and will continue to use their semi-democratic neighbor as a launching site for terror aimed at Israel.
They certainly sound like great "partners in peace" to me. Yes, they have "influence" in the region, but this influence is mostly used in ways we consider anything but peaceful. What incentives would we possibly offer them, especially if force or even weak sanctions are taken off the table?
As for the emphasis on authorization by Congress, this mostly seems to be an assertion of power,after the recent congressional elections tipping in slight favor of the Democrats. Rather than asking whether there is a case for force in the matter of Iran or Syria (even potentially), people like Biden just seem to want to make sure that Bush knows his place.
To go into negotiations with Iran and Syria while making it clear that we would never consider any act of aggression or even self-defence, that we might consider nuclear perks to Iran in return for their "help" with Iraq could not be more suicidal.
That we might insist on the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, also in return for their "help", as has been suggested, would mean that we are willing to urge Israel to act in a suicidal manner as well. If the unilateral ceding of Gaza was ill-considered--as it was, leading to a horrible, unstable new base of Jihadist gun smuggling and rocket attacks on Israel--how much worse would it be to cede a much larger territory, which would control much of Israel's water supply, and directly over-look the dense and vunerable population centers of Jerusalem and its environs?
I am actually a very peaceful person, and I do very much agree with using diplomacy whenever possible. But our "differences" with Iran and Syria are not cases of disagreements on tariffs or trade agreements. As in 1939, we genuinely face people who want our destruction. Opening up a "dialog" with them can only increase their demands and weaken our position, while giving them an unearned appearence of legitimacy.
Does these people really beilive Iran wont stab in the back later on as soon as they are powerful enough to do so.
Dont they see the big picture.
According to some quote in Koran, it says talk and negotitate with your enemies when you are not in poistion and as soon as you are in poistion behead them.
And these people follow the book like maniacs They see no logic or sense above the book.
As soon as their N- bomb capability is ready they will nuke the poor Israelis and then come after Westerners.
Oh man are we naive or what?
DEMOCRATS TRYING TO TALK THEIR WAY INTO PEACE AND HANDCUFF BUSH MUST MAKE THE JIHADIST COUNTRIES LAUGH OUT LOUD
When a Democrat president leads the nation into war he gets full support of Republicans, and is able to execute the war in the best interests of our nation without internal encumbrances. When a Republican president leads the nation into war he gets nothing but opposition from the Democrats, who collectively stab him in the back over and over and over. He is extremely weakened in his ability to execute the war in the best interests of the country not bc the foreign enemy is so fierce, but because OUR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT handcuffs him and acts like traitors.
The Democrats are just like UN beaucrats. They think that talking together will solve every international dispute. No one with even an ounce of sense could dream that rationalizing w/President "I'm in a jihad" of Iran will convince him that Israel and America should not be wiped off the map. Democrats don't appreciate the SINCERITY in the religious beliefs of Muslims. Neither do they have any concept of Muslim ESCHATOLOGY, which is what Iran thinks it is ushering in.
The only good thing is that the more anti-American the Democrats show themselves to be, the less likely they will win the next presidential election.
To handcuff the President in any way will empower ImANut and the jihadists will revel in their success and new found freedom on the backs of Americans.
This type of signal by the Dems plays right into the hands of Islamic nuts. They will believe they are winning and free to escalate their rotten idealogy and WMD development with chances of being confronted, dimmishing, every day.
Jihad has made huge advances since the November elections. People, you can expect much more islamic empowerment caused by our veryt own governments, big business and all the PCs out there.
most of the democrats (especially the leadership), a few republicans and the media do not understand the concept of "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" as an assurance of our defeat. for them, it is only a political ploy to gain more powere domestically.
of course, it is suicide on a global scale.
The Dhimmicrats have apparently learned nothing from Carter's failures in 1979. Don't these arrogant fools realize that the Iranians are watching them right now?! They are watching and laughing. They are staring at their TV sets, incredulous at the weakness and cowardice of the Dhimmicrats. Like Hitler in 1936, all this will do is embolden them with the knowledge that their enemies are weak and will not oppose them should they embark on any aggression. The Dhimmicrats are becoming, by reason of their cowardice and stupidity, as great a threat to the survival of the United States and the West as the muslims. They have to be stopped at all costs.
"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.
Do I have so little confidence in my liver that I'm not willing to take some cyanide?
No viahj, They understand what 'providing aid and comfort to the enemy' is. They know it full well -- these are not 'stupid' people they know full well what they are doing.
But they choose to do it anyway. Anything to gain more political power. To them more dead americans is a features - not a bug.
Sickening isn't it?
Other than that, any leader who was bright enough to launch targeted air attacks (they'd have to be nuclear to penetrate the underground facilities that Iran is building) would be worth supporting.
Infidel Pride, don't hold your breath!
Who says the administration isn't talking to the Iranians and the Syrians? They are talking to Nancy Pelosi et al daily. Those are the representants of Iranian and Syrian interests - and of course they serve the international umma [p*** be upon all of it].
looks like we'll have a conservative President in '08 the way it looks.
not hard to see where things are heading..
from debka..
(from russia with love)
.. "..sophisticated Tor-M1 systems(anti-aircraft missiles), supplies of which began reaching Iran last month, together with thousands of AT-14 anti-tank and SA 5 Gammon anti-air missiles. Damascus also wants to commission Russian military industry to upgrade all 4,500 of its outdated Soviet-era T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks."
January 15, 2007, 3:59 PM (GMT+02:00)
and..
"The Lebanon war and a fistful of Iranian petrodollars impel Syrian president Bashar Asad to haul his armed forces into the present. DEBKA-Net-Weekly 284 of Jan. 5, 207, revealed his latest acquisition: the sophisticated Russian S-300PMU2 FAVORIT air defense system. Two new mechanized divisions are under construction raising the total to 12. Five will face Israel on the Golan, joined by new elite units trained for cross-border incursions."
"The S-300PMU2 Favorit variant is a new missile with larger warhead and better guidance with a range of 200 km, versus the 150 km of previous versions. The S-300 PMU2 "FAVORIT" air defence missile system is designed for defense of vital facilities of the state and its armed forces against mass strikes by modem and future aircraft, strategic cruise missiles, tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, and other air attack weapons over a full range of altitudes and speeds in heavy ECM environments."
-from globalsecurity wesite
"The TOR-M1 surface-to-air missile system is a mobile, integrated air defense system, designed for operation at medium-, low- and very low –altitudes, against fixed/rotary wing aircraft, UAVs, guided missiles and precision weapon. The system is capable of operating in an intensive aerial jamming environment.Tor M1 can detect and track up to 48 targets (minimum radar cross section of 0.1 square meter) at a maximum range of 25 km, and engage two of them simultaneously, at a speed of up to 700 m/sec, and at a distance of 1 to 12 km. The system's high lethality (aircraft kill probability of 0.92-0.95) is maintained at altitude of 10 – 6,000 m'. "
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
Hmm. I don't think this is as true as Reid says it is:
Only Congress can declare war, and, of course, they control budget allocations and supplemental funding, but the President as Commander-in-Chief can order military action as he sees fit. It's part of the principle of separation of powers, plus the fact that running to Congress would be impractical for time-sensitive decisions.
So any resolution would not, to my knowledge, be directly binding, thankfully. The War Powers Act-- posted above by Madduck-- imposes a timetable for prompt consultation with Congress, but ultimately does not tie a President's hands: Bush could still get on the phone at any time, call the general on the other end by whatever nickname he's thought up, and order military action.
looks like we'll have a conservative President in '08 the way it looks.
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 19, 2007 05:40 PM
I'm hoping for Newt Gingrich. He may not be completely perfect but I think he is the best chance we've got.
To answer Hamiltons question. Yes... A big fat one at that.
The desire to only talk has driven us to where talk is meaningless and counter productive.
The war in Iraq started 3 months late so we could have meaningless talk talk talk.
It was clear we could enter Iraq in January. Instead, we talked while Saddam distributed his weapons and scattered them arround the Country. He emptyed his Prisons, and established how he was going to play hide and seek for my guess a year. Every Jihadist came running to kill Americans. All the neighbors of Iraq were able to unload some individuals they would rather not have arround in their own Countrys.
All the problems in Iraq can be traced directly back to this needless talk talk talk.
Every Goverment offical knew that 250,000 US combat Forces were never going to leave the area without Saddam being removed. And they all knew he wasn't going anywhere.
So now were expected to debate the issue openly so the Demoncrats can expose everything we would do and how? Setting in stone the rules of no engagement?
Bush has been dismantling the carefully crafted security blanket thrown over the American Public Eye. Too bad he wasn't a better speaker.
It would be difficult for any President to conduct an aggresive Foreign Policy when half the country considers it a crime?
The Left is organized enough against Bush to make them shrill. Can one imaging if they were forced to be even more so by having one of their own support an aggresive stand?
The Presidents policy would appear to be one to confront both extreamist elements in Iraq. Sending a larger message to both their supporters. US forces can do the Sunnis and We will Push the Iraqi Army against the Shia. Probably from forces on the ground already.
The other units are to send a message to Iran. It's probably what has the Demoncrats undies in a knot.
It would not suprise me to see some stepped up Military activities showing The President Following his new plan. You know, Find some more Iranians, Syrians, Saudis. Jordanians.... Border clashes where their caught entering, Inside the Police dept., Rouge Military officers...
Kinda hard for the opposition to cut funds, abandon support, and not look like their surendering the Country when the bullets are flying.
Let them have their way, and when the Iranians have created the nuclear powered safe haven for extremism they have been denied in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just make sure that the whole of America is reminded in history 101 that the Democrats blocked the chance to stop these fanatics before a million Americans died fighting the bastards.
I just don’t get it with the Democrats. They are as weak as the British Liberal Democrats Which I must point out is a party that will never rule over Britain.
Even Labour with its open door policy to internal jihad is committed to fighting them abroad.
It seems the Democrats are pursuing an open policy to defeat at home and abroad. At least we have the Tories to look forward to.
If the 'Democratic leaders' try for anything that goes beyond the WPA, they will get their heads handed to them .... even by some members of their own party in Congress. It would be an unfathomably stupid thing to do. Let them try.
I have no business interfering in Your american viewpoints and politics becasue I am from India and anyway not going to stay in USA forever.
But let me tell you what i foresee from this action of democrats.
They are making you weak.
Iran will talk and negotiate as of to buy TIME now ---so their N bomb is ready.
Sooner or later some AL-qaida guy will have the samll N bomb which he will geelfuly explode in USA or UK or some democratic country they hate.
Of course Iran or the Islamic fanatics will say it is a minority faction of Muslims who managed to somehow get the technology somwhere and they are not the ones who supplied it.
And then Iran will give Pelosi,the biggest award their country has and in all probablity it will be called "Greatest jihadi helper".
President Bush may be termed as war monger, maybe he has a 100 faults ( i agree),BUT he has a vision that is true.
And that is ---IF these Islamic fanatics are allowed to become more powerful ---then one day all the democracies of the world like USA UK INDIA and Israel will have a heavy price to pay for not taking action at a time when damage was minimal.
Bieng politically correct and giving equal rights and consideration of negotattion is allright and I support it as a person who loves democracy.
But if these same values , threaten to dig our own grave, we should discard them till the threat is eliminated and right now manking faces the biggest threat ever.Afterall how can two rival have different laws of confronatation. Their rule of war is everythngi is fair and we still think on terms of geneva convention.
Dems want Bush to get a Fatwa from Ellison and CAIR first.
Bush Kennedy Plan: Bring terrorists home from Iraq, keep the troops there.
The Dems are so f...ed-up pathtic nit-wits. I never vote for'em.
might last more than 1 hour , Hugh..
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
"..We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc
No, it will not be by congressional approval that we will shoot first, for Iran will already have plans to allow others to do the shooting for them.
As for the U.S.; "we're just going to watch."
Rajesh, you've made some very astute points, although I would say that the PC mentality is what has helped the deceptions of Islam to infiltrate our political and social systems. I'm sure when people here got on the PC bandwagon no one thought we'd be traveling down this road at this point in time.
The Democrats are defintitely useful dhimmis. Slightly OT here but maybe more applicable that
we think:
Issue Date: www.insightmag.com - Jan. 16-22, 2007, Posted On: 1/17/2007
Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."
When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama's press secretary said he would consult with his boss and call back. He did not.
Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.
"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."
In two best-selling autobiographies, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."
The sources said the young Obama was given the name Hussein by his Muslim father, which the Illinois Democrat rarely uses in public.
His father was black and came from Kenya. Mr. Obama’s mother, the daughter of a farmer, came from Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Obama's parents divorced when he was two years old. His father returned to Kenya.
Later, Mr. Obama's mother married an Indonesian student and the family moved to Jakarta. Mr. Obama returned to Hawaii when he was 10 to live with his maternal grandparents.
The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama's years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.
Mr. Obama attends services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago's South Side. However, he is not known to be a regular parishioner.
"Obama's education began a life-long relationship with Islam as a faith and Muslims as a community," the source said. "This has been a relationship that contains numerous question marks."
The sources said Mr. Obama spent at least four years in a Muslim school in Indonesia. They said when Mr. Obama was 10, his mother and her second husband separated. She and her son returned to Hawaii.
"Then the official biography begins," the source said. "Obama never returned to Kenya to see relatives or family until it became politically expedient."
In both of his autobiographies, Mr. Obama characterizes himself as a Christian although he describes his upbringing as mostly secular.
In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama says, "I was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother as secular, but says she had copies of the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in their home.
Mr. Obama says his father was "raised a Muslim, but by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist...." Mr. Obama also describes his father as largely absent from his life. He says his Indonesian stepfather was "skeptical" about religion and "saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world ...."
In the book, Mr. Obama briefly addresses his education in Indonesia. "During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables."
How charming. And possibly totally deceptive.
When is someone going to remind the media and Democrats that America has been talking to Syria and in the process Syria LIED to America and even told Tony Blair to go take a hike.
The idea America is not talking to the turban heads is completely false. It is though time that America start using Teddy Roosevelt's big stick and topple Syria to send a message to Iran that they are next.
"I am not a Constitutional Lawyer (heck, I don't even play one on TV), so I must have missed the amendment requiring the President to consult Congress on foreign policy."
Mr. Ape Pig is wrong. Foreign policy is clearly not the exclusive domain of the president. Here as in other matters both branches share power. The president appoints ambassadors but only upon the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The president makes treaties--which have the force of law in the US--but it takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve them. If that's not consultation, I don't know what is.
Congress's legal authority over warfare is even greater, though it has continually allowed presidents to usurp it out of fear of looking unpatriotic for disobeying The Leader and refusing to "support the troops" in wars He has already chosen. For examples of usurpation, see Serbia (1998), Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Panama (1989), Grenada (1983), the Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam (1964), Korea (1950) and so on back to James K. Polk engineering the Mexican-American War in 1846.
Yes, the president is commander-in-chief but that's a more limited power than presidents and their authoritarian supporters claim. Take a look at Article I, Section 8. Congress declares war (Para. 11) and makes rules concerning captures on land and water, provides for organizing the militia (Para. 15) and appropriates money for waging war (Para. 1), or not. The power to declare war is too often thought of as a rubber stamp for presidential decisions; it is really the power to decide whether to wage war at all. And that power logically rests with Congress since it has to levy the taxes to pay for it, when plundering the victim and borrowing from rival powers (like China). Feel free to check my citations on the web. When Madison and friends wrote the Constitution, the model they probably had in mind was the Revolutionary War, in which Congress dictated policy but left management of operations to its commander-in-chief, George Washington. Madison would have been astonished if told that his new presidency not only ran the military but had sole control over foreign policy, could start wars without Congressional approval and suspend treaties and laws with or without a formal state of war against another nation or the approval of Congress (yes, I'm talking about W). As for doing a pre-emptive attack on Iran, check the UN Charter, which was written when the U.S. thought pre-emptive attacks were a bad thing. I know our super-duper patriots, including some commenting at this site, scoff at treaties and laws as so-much useless paper that only get in the way of doing what works for us. They say let's just bomb Iran or whoever is the enemy of the moment, change their regime to a "pro-American" one, torture "unlawful combatants" and take their resources for our multinationals. But why should any country worry more about Ahmadinejad than this Imperium Americanum? For all the screeching Islamic noise coming out of Tehran since 1979, Iran has not (so far) launched a war of aggression against any country. And does that kind of America deserve a better fate than ancient Rome, where military dictatorship replaced republican government and squeezed the freedom and vitality out of classical culture? I've been reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, so that example came to mind.
I just saw this article tonight over at newsmax.com and was floored by the extreme hubris of Reid and Pelosi. They now believe that an election has given to them the initiative and the duty of conducting foreign policy - and they insist on doing it in a manner that endangers the nation and our Israeli allies. The manner in which this was presented to the media suggests that it was done maliciously and with extreme arrogance. Their power matters more than the reality that the Islamic Republic of Iran is now in possession of enriched weapons' grade plutonium and the ability to keep making it in massive quantities. Iran has stated unequivocally that it will use it to destroy Israel and attack the West. Why does Mr. Hamilton think that we should NOT take them at their word? This abdication of rationality is criminal. No wonder our Islamic enemies consider us to be pushovers. They see a nation that is run by power-hungry lawyers who think they can dicker with the Constitution and imagine that the world plays by the rules of lawyers negotiating over a case.
sceptico said
Not necessary; you are correct. Congress does have the Constitutional authority to declare war, but they abdicated that power a long time ago. For this (Democratically controlled) Congress to come out and restrict, a priori, any response to Iran's future actions is very stupid.
I don't agree that we have to wait until they finish building their nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, and wait until they use them exactly as they have threatened to use them, before we can respond. Ahmedinijad says they are going to wipe us off the map, and I for one believe him.
This is the unintended consequence of attacking Iraq. Now that we found no WMD's there, and found no link to terrorism, and after we found that occupying and reconstructing an Islamic nation is hazardous to our health and theirs, and now that we need to respond to a real threat in Iran, we are gun-shy and hesitant to act.
IMHO, attacking Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban was the right thing to do. But we should not have stayed around doing reconstruction in Afghanistan. We should not have attacked Iraq. We should have attacked Iran's nuclear weapon facilities. We should not stick around doing reconstruction in Iran. We should have attacked Pakistan for protecting OBL and the Taliban. We should not stick around doing reconstruction in Pakistan.
There used to be an axis of evil. Now we have an axis of the bi-poller.
special_guest
In the months leading up to OIF, which were the closing months of 2002 and very early 2003, the Russians executed Operation Sarindar, the cleanup of chemical and biological weapons which had their fingerprints all over them. Two former Soviet generals were dispatched to Iraq, along with their Spetznaz cohort (in plain clothes)to get it done. The goop was moved to Syria and Lebanon. We have MOSSAD, eyewitnesses, and sat photo confirmation of this. The fact that the NYT did not convey this to you is not your fault, as the U.S. government does not want this information widely disseminated. It would create a diplomatic shit storm of major proportions if POTUS came on the air and announced it. So much for your being badly informed that there were no WMD's in Iraq...
Plus, we have documentary evidence - ample at that and still being translated from Arabic to other languages - of the Babylonian Baathists' sponsorship, official and unofficial, of terror organizations. Stephen Hayes over at The Weekly Standard has been on top of this issue from the beginning. Oooops. Another convenient omission of fact filtered out of the loop by the NYT.
Strategically, being in Iraq is critical to our being able to have AIR SPACE from which either we or our Israeli allies can attack the Iranian nuclear weapons' development facilities. Please feel free to look at a map to understand the import of this. It is next to impossible for us to use Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base to extend and stretch the Iranian air defenses. Once the Pakistanis find out we are smuggling weapons for that kind of mission through their air space into Bagram, we lose the right to egress their air space. Without Iraqi air space, Israel has no chance to being able to pull such a mission off, since even Turkey may not allow them (or us)to use Turkish air space for this kind of mission.
Just wanted to address some things you included in your above post. The parts do fit, and there are some pieces to the puzzle of the strategic situation which you were not aware of.
See what talk talk talk gets ya.
Who lies more? the President or the NYTs???
I don't see a problem with the carrot and stick approach, as long as the other side knows your stick is very big and you are willing to use it. We have shown that we are willing to use it in Afghanistan and the bone-headed move in Iraq, but I am not so sure that our stick is big enough regarding infantry. And history has proven that strategic bombing is borderline in effecting the bombed populations will to fight. I doubt we could do it totally tactically, but of course it would be worth a try.
Off topic, I really encourage everyone to send a care package to the guys in Iraq or Afghanistan. It might not seem like much, but judging by my relatives response it is a super morale booster.
I don't see many of our Troops entering Iran outside tactical considerations or rescue/targeting operations.
I see no effort being made to bring a change of Goverment in Iran. Just enough pain to let them know their way of thinking needs to change.
In some measure it isn't necessary to hit all the Nuclear sites. Even if hardened. Turning off the Electricity will generally make them inoperable.
It may make the Iranians hate us a little more for removing their Electricity, water communications, Fuel Stocks and Food. It is just hard to see where the difference would be all that much.
Frustrate the life out of the Iranian Military by making them come to us to engage any land forces.
Action is needed before we have to much of Russias next generation weaponry to deal with.
If Saddam could do it(well, kinda) then I'm sure we can.
I wonder how these dirtbags will respond when both China AND Iran attack the US on its own territory(which could easily happen before this year is over)?
I wonder how history and the American people will view the Dems in passing when both China and Iran attack and they'll have been the ones who set us up for it...
This should prove interesting.
Obama: Phonetically this name sounds a lot like "Oh, bomb us!!!"
And that's how the Middle east jihadists will likely interpret it (as an invitation from the Americans to "oh, bomb us"?)if this terrorist gets into office!!!!!!!!!!
FredIsinglass, sorry, I don't read the NYT, but I read plenty of other news sources, and none of them ever had any evidence of a Russian team moving Iraqi WMD's to Syria while our government covered it up. Do you have any links that provide evidence of such a thing happening? I remember several times we claimed to have found WMD's (an artillery shell, and some "mobile lab" trucks) that didn't pan out, so it would be surprising to hear that our government had the proof all along, but just didn't want to tell us, even while they were being criticised for not finding WMD's.
Here is a link about Operation Sarindar. Two years ago there was a convention in Virginia about the intel concerning this matter. Many of the analysts who discussed what the U.S. government knew were intimidated by the CIA into not talking about it, but they did anyway. It was speculated that the Bush Administration did not want to confront Russia about this in the hope that Russia would help us on Iran and Iran's nuclear weapons' program. It was a vain hope and the Russians did not come through for us. President Bush and the State Department lost that gamble, and have paid for it. They have paid a steep political price, at home and abroad, in lost credibility and the great harm it has brought to the overall mission.
The government did not lie about the WMD issue and did not make it up. The government did lie about the existence of Sarindar and the damage has been inestimable.
http://lyster.com/opinion/iraq/saddam_wmd.htm
FredIsinglass, thanks for the link, that is interesting. I'm not sure what would be scarier, if the Administration told us they had evidence of WMD's when they didn't, or if the Administration actually had hard proof of WMD's while they covered it up and told us they didn't. Something is just plain wrong there. I hope the truth comes out one day, whatever it is. That article is from March 2006, so they should have had time to go through all those tapes by now.
If the WMD's got shipped out to Syria, it proves that taking these dictators on one-by-one is like playing "Whack-A-Mole", or whatever that game is called where you hit a gopher on the head, and it just pops up in another hole somewhere else.
special_guest
I have other links too, but let me save you the time of having to come here to click on the links. Just use your search engine (I used Yahoo)and type in Operation Sarindar and you will get enough links to articles, blogs, interviews, and reports to sate your curiosity. The bottom line is that the White House, CIA, and State Department have repressed the people who wanted this to get before the public. I have a link here to a paper written by a guy in the Pentagon (for some reason he does not give his name)who did some work on inventorying Iraqi conventional weapons, who had contacts in the Ukrainian intelligence service, and he stumbled upon this. The White House and CIA went to great lengths to squelch the story and leads that were being followed up by some journalists.
http://www.schifferreport.net/johnshawarticle.html
And this link is to a kid named Lauro who did some work on this:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm
Hope I've been helpful.
Attention : American.Western Politicians.
Learn from mistakes from India and do not repeat it .
For years the ,Bangladeshis have been ,migrating ( illegally) in India . Certain politicians encouraged it becasue for them it was a voote bank. Taking advantage of this, the Islamic mullahs secretly but slowly have increased in numbers and now influence the vote during elections(and deny violence even thought its obvious).
A certain poilitical party in India, denounced this and asked all illegal immigrants to be deported becasue it seemed obvious this was a national threat.They were called RACISTS and Non secular.The same is happeing to you. If you oppose the wrong thnig, you are RACist but they openly call for jihad and still termed as moderate muslims.
Have you ever seen a big Muslim rally because of their suicide bombers killed innoncent people.
But do a little security check on them at the airport and they suddenly have the time and voice to protest as if someone was killed.
But politicians either ignored it unkowingly or for sake of power vote bank.
Today this small threat is ballooned up into a big one as these people are bieng used by jihdists to recruit and create mayhem in India because they just cannot see the econmic growth as well as democratic values flourishing.
Today this minority is no longer a minority and threat.
For temporary political gains,the national threat was bieng breeded and now has started rearing its ugly head
Your UK/American politicians are repeating the same mistake. They are allowing future potetnial national threat by allowing free immigration for Muslims,justifying it as politcally correct and secularism.
First step: Stop immigration. I will suffer myself as a result of this because although I am a hindu,my skin color and looks can be easily mistaken for a muslim. But still I support total immigration laws or else you are just digging your own grave.
We need to understand one thning. Islam hate all non Muslims and for them the only way out is to kill them. How can one reason with someone like that.
I am sorry to say but you Westerners are people who live in different world and have no idea how much hate these muslims have for you. I have met Muslims in your country (who have mistaken me to be muslim and thius opened out to me) who would like nothnig but to harm and damage and probably kills peoplewithout thinkinig twice.I remmber once i was walking on the road in Montreal and a group of Guys asked me why i never visit the mosque or donate for islamic causes. They were under impression that I was a muslim. The moment they came to know I was a hindu,they changed their words and said they were just kidding and not serios. But deep below I knew it was not that
Stop Immigration . (Even though others may also suffer although they have done no wrong). If they want sharia law and islamic state ask them to stay in one and not make one of your country.
I hope you guys understand the extent of hatred they have for you.