Cheney: "We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region"

The way you back down a shit head is to get in his face, i'd say 2 carrier groups will do for now.

"Some experts on Iran have questioned whether the threats that administration officials occasionally deliver to Iran aid or undercut the diplomacy with the country."

Experts don't know anything ... they just have questions.

When exactly are we gonna stop iran? when we have given them more nuclear technology? when we allow the U.N. to make more empty statements? when we have handed Iraq on a plate to Iran? or how about when the first iranian made nuclear devices are smuggled into NYC, Atlanta, L.A and San Francisco and this great nation is brought to its knees by blackmail.

When Dick? when?

Why worry about Iran? Must be the missile platforms sold to the Persians by our putative allies Commie China and Pinko Retrograde Russia.

If you wanna worry about your nuclear warhead or hydrogen bomb, turn your attention to the world's next newest nation, Kosovo, which through its Soviet network has had ample access to a wide variety of warheads and tactical missile platforms.

It's an open secret that such weapons platforms are being sold out like candy from out of the former USSR.

An SS-21 could easily strike Italy from Tom Lantos' dream nation: the Islamic Republic of Kosovo.

Some experts on Iran have questioned whether the threats that administration officials occasionally deliver to Iran aid or undercut the diplomacy with the country.

oh yeah talking nice to iran is not going to help, the same experts said the same thing about Regan when he talked tough to the Russians.. the State Dept has too many clintonoid holdovers, they want you to be nice to these islamists.. all this talking does nothing, ie Chamberlain before Hitler . oh yeah dont want to threaten those iranians..

"Some experts on Iran have questioned whether the threats that administration officials occasionally deliver to Iran aid or undercut the diplomacy with the country."

For there to be such a thing as diplomacy both sides have to deal in good faith. The nutcases in charge of Iran have only one faith...and it is not good.

Well, the threats either aid or undercut the diplomacy. And the stock market will either go up or down next week. And it's either going to rain tomorrow , or it won't.
And some experts on Iran have questioned whether the International Herald Tribune's writers are aiding or undercutting the impression that the mainstream is either biased or just plain fatuous.

Talk is cheap...

Do something or shut up.

leonthepigfarme

"When Dick? when?"

My money is on never. This outfit has proven itself. If we do attack they will mess it up with idiotic rules of engagement like we have in Iraq. How the hell can you fight a war in which you don't name enemies for what they are (Jihad) and you handcuff troops so they don't offend the moderate peace loving muslims (joke is on us) so we can win hearts and minds with psy-war and tax money?

I see more debacles ahead. It is like Warren Buffet who only invests in companies who are run by people he thinks know what they are doing. Does anybody think Capt. Ahab (G.W.) can get this done without a major screw-up?

I really really really really really hope I am wrong on this....

With Iranian agents, and Iraqi collaborators, all over Iraq, and with 150,000 American troops extremely vulnerable to attack should the Shi'a decide to do so (and that could take place at any time, and certainly as the Americans attempt to withdraw they will not be allowed to leave quietly, as in Vietnam, but both Sunnis and Shi'a will be trying to wrest from them, or force them to leave behind, as much military hardware as the local Arabs can get their hands on. It will be a hellish enterprise.

How can the Americans attack, from the air, Iranian nuclear installations with those 150,000 potential targets, hostages of a kind, of Iranian retaliation? Does it make sense to keep up with this hopeless effort (not only hopeless, but exactly the wrong effort, directed at exactly the wrong outcome in iraq), when it gets in the way of dealing, in time, with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran? There isn't a lot of time left. But the obstinate Administration, not daring to admit a defeat for its own plans in Iraq that a withdrawal would signal. Most maddening of all, that very withdrawal would lead inevitably to the American victory that has eluded the Bush Administration because they have failed to define "victory" properly, and that consists in weakening, by dividing and demoralizing, the Camp of Islam.

If Iran is to be dealt with properly, the Americans should be out of Iraq, and the Shi'a fighting, and here and there ideally being threatened by temporary Sunni successes, successses worrisome enough to force the Islamic Republic of Iran to concentrate on its neighbor, and devoting resources and attention to shoring up the Shi'a (and worrying about the Iranian Kurds inspired by Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq). And those Sunni-Shi'a hostlities will also provide the most favorable circumstances for a strike on Iran's nuclear project, if one wishes to minimize the necessarily hostile (even if muted) reaction of Sunni Muslim states, where solidarity with fellow Muslims will, at least publicly, have to trump hatred for Iran and its pretensions.

The only way to deal with Iran appropriately is to first get out of Iraq. The American presence does not make more, but less likely the dealing in time with Iran.

The Administration does not know what to do. It is terminally confused and hallucinatory. It now relies on a handful of "counterinsurgency" experts some of whom have apparently decided to believe that there is some magical strategy in the winning-hearts-and-minds prescriptions of French lieutenant David Galula. They forget that it is not one insurgency but many, and forget the role of Islam, and forget as well, or do not dare to question, the nonsensical goals of the Administration in Iraq, and preoccupy themselves with attaining those wrong-headed goals (united Iraq, prosperous Iraq, lions-lying-down-with-lambs Iraq).

Nothing as foolish has been seen in a long time. Not at least since Jimmy Carter. Carter and Bush: two versions of folly.

About this Iran thing all I can say to our stupid government is this

SHUT THE FCK UP AND DO IT ALREADY!!!!

What the hell is this country waiting for?

The trouble with Hugh is simple.

He's right!

The other problem with Hugh is that he is thinking like someone who believes in winning wars and not like a globalist who has no loyalty to country or national identity.

Men like Hugh are trouble makers!

They think and see things clearly; worse yet they articulate the truth, rather than spin a web of prevarication and marketing for public consumption.

Too bad, men like Hugh were not running this country -- why oh why is that!?

'The way you back down a shit head is to get in his face, i'd say 2 carrier groups will do for now.'

What about if said shithead is part of a de facto death cult? Not to mention you'd have to bend down to get in his face since he's the height of a 10-year-old boy.
Anyway, talking the talk from the flight deck is the way to do it, I'd say.
So here's the plan: a sudden, coordinated withdrawal from Iraq, followed by tactical strikes on Iran's totally peaceful and innocent, heavily fortified (hey - you can't be too careful man - did you see what happened at Chernobyl?), underground, anti-aircraft-guarded, clandestine nuclear installations. And then quickly doubletime it over to that monstrous, illegal occupation of 'Arab land' which consists of a massive 0.0172% of the total, which is where the action will probably be directed.
And we'll see how good this massive land army of 9-year-old indoctrinated kids and obsolete Soviet crap really is.

"It will be a hellish enterprise."..

Hugh sez of an attempted American w/drawal from iraq..too true Hugh..the crabs in the barrel of Iraq will certainly try to drag down any who might escape that maelstrom....ugly days ahead folks..uglier than modern times have witnessed...

"The Administration does not know what to do. It is terminally confused and hallucinatory"

yes ,Hugh..hallucinatory..not anchored in reality..scares the bajeebers outta me..

Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

But this Administration has other ways of doing things.

We don't need more swagger. We don't need another war that is as poorly thought-out as the previous one.

We need action; but not the action that the Administration would like, nor the IHT. There is another way.

for newer readers who have not seen the visage of "Dr. Hugh"(Sir Fitzgerald,,i.e.)..herewith an approximation of his estimable(but secret) physionymy..

http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue05/features/carygrant2.htm

physioGnomy, i.e.

apart from raising my blood pressure and making my close relatives and friends roll their eyes, what exactly does this web site do for us?

i mean, we tell people the truth about islam and they;

1) think we are insane ranting idiots.

2)fascists

3) rascists

4) republicans

5) BNP bigots

after the london bombings on 7/7 most people that i came into contact with in england blamed tony blair and his iraq war stance. i even had one (ex) friend send me a text stating that "this is all the fault of blair/bush. he sent this as young female office workers lay dying in hospital with limbs missing and refused to believe that muslims would actually do this.

i'm at my wits end really robert, whats the point?

(sorry for the rant but really i am at my wits end and havent heard anything as to what we can really do about this, legally and democratically)

i'm at my wits end really robert, whats the point?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

I come here and visit often because I have found like-minded people. I have learned so much since I first came upon this site in my search for the truth. I used to think islam was a religion of peace; I am no longer under those illusions. More importantly, I am much more knowledgeable, and am using my new found knowledge to educate others. I don’t post very often but I read the comments frequently.
Just keep on educating others Leonthepigfarmer. Don’t give up the good fight. And it is true what has been said here previously, one can learn a lot from the muslim mind.

Earlier this year JW posted a speech from Ahmedinejad. He said that he wasn’t worried when the Americans had carriers in the Gulf, he would get worried if they left. He’s planning on big-boy games. Watch for the mining of disputed waters around Iranian islands to create a spark.

Leon/Xena; Consider ourselves to be lucky, we’re living in interesting times. The good guys will win in the end and there will be such stories. When things heat up with Iran, there is a good chance that we’ll be without electricity for a while. If you’re looking for something therapeutic, consider constructing a brick oven. Its good physical work and, if the grid goes down, you can still enjoy hot pizza. We're at the 80% point and its been great.

http://www.brickoven.blogspot.com

Well well well, so the truth comes out over the MI Muslims that denied tension and blamed damage to Mosques and Muslim businesses as Islamophobia
and Hate-crimes by ignorant bigotted Americans .
I wonder if Hooper will crawl out from under his rock to apologize for painting all non-Muslim Americans as racism and revengeful thugs, plus Hooper must explain the "Backlash" fear rather than relief that hundreds of innocent lives were saved.
It's always about the Muslims.

Article below from CAIR website.
*******************************************
Muslims agree to peace
Metro Detroit harmony sought

May 11, 2007

BY NIRAJ WARIKOO

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

In what they called a historic agreement, Muslims from across Michigan signed a document Thursday that calls for unity between Sunnis and Shi'ites, the two main sects of Islam whose metro Detroit relations have been strained in recent months.
About 30 Muslim leaders gathered at the Islamic House of Wisdom, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn Heights, to sign the Muslim Code of Honor. It calls on Muslims to refrain from insulting each other and using foreign literature that promotes hatred of Muslim sects.

The one-page document bans takfir, a part of Islamic law in which Muslims say that other Muslims are not true believers. Some Sunnis don't consider Shi'ites to be true Muslims.
"We are here to commit ourselves to a constructive covenant of communication," declared Imam Mohammad Elahi, head of the Islamic House of Wisdom. "We have a responsibility ... to work for peace."

The agreement comes after increasing sectarian tensions in Iraq and the vandalism several months ago of Shi'ite-owned businesses and mosques along Warren Avenue following public celebrations by Shi'ites in Dearborn over the hanging of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni. Police don't know who was behind the attacks, but Muslim leaders said they prompted Shi'ite and Sunni cleric meetings.

"People shouldn't have the fear that Detroit is going to turn into Baghdad," said Dawud Walid, a Sunni who heads the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan branch.

Others who signed the code include Sunnis Imam Abdullah El-Amin and Imam Mohammad Mardini and Shi'ite Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini.

***********************************************

Only Muslims would rush forward to talk credit for a disaster like this.

I'm pretty much of a Cheney fan.

But to be candid I thought his comments on this subject were pretty mild and measured, considering his clarity about the risks that "Iran" poses.

If we just flat-out withdraw from Iraq, we run the risk of having the oil fields fall into the hands of an Islamo-fascist extremist regime. That's why we should get our troops out of the population centers and only occupy the oil fields. If al-qaeda or another extremist group wins, we will then be in a good position to oppose them.

l to am a Cheney fan, he is more open and if he talks tough thats too bad for the wiennie liberal Stat Dept types.. now a days its hard to carry the big stick as the Democrats of yesteryear are no more. so we have half the govenment spineless weasels supported by the Geroge Soros and moveones who hate all things good about the US

"If Iran is to be dealt with properly, the Americans should be out of Iraq...."

Hugh,

How will getting out of Iraq enable us to deal with Iran? We still have targets everywhere in the Middle East: embassies, a new base in Qatar. Hasn't Halliburton moved there? There are American targets in more places than Iraq and their host governments are no more friendly than the Iraqis.

If our concern is the number of targets, our forces in Iraq have been targeted by Iran for four years now. Nothing has changed.

I don't see what our naval power can do unless it's simply to prevent oil from being shipped through the Straits of Hormuz.

It won't help us prevent Iran from going nuclear. Just about all the people that help them also have a land border with them. Iran's land border is, for the most part, inaccessible to naval power.

Dick Cheney (whom I also like and appreciate) says "we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region."

There's just one question: who is standing with US? What are they doing to foil Iranian nuclear development?

Unless we're prepared to level Iran and destroy its oil industry we should keep quiet. The world has decided it's not willing to deal with Iran if it means following George W. Bush. (The EU has not been "negotiating" with Iran as much as it has been "placating" it.) The world should deal with the consequences of such foolishness. Unless the people who have the most to lose from a nuclearized Iran decide to do more than bash America as a bully then they shouldn't be surprised when Americans turn their backs on them.

"'If Iran is to be dealt with properly, the Americans should be out of Iraq....' [quoting from my post above]

How will getting out of Iraq enable us to deal with Iran? We still have targets everywhere in the Middle East: embassies, a new base in Qatar. Hasn't Halliburton moved there? There are American targets in more places than Iraq and their host governments are no more friendly than the Iraqis."
-- from a posting above

For god's sake, do you really think that 150,000 American troops, in Baghdad which is now 75% (at least) Shi'a, and having to move equipment and men up and down through southern, i.e., Shi'a-Iraq, an Iraq whose longest and most porous border -- fixed in 1847 by the Treaty of Erzerum -- is that with Iran, are not at risk, when there is evidence all over of Iranian weaponry already being supplied to both Shi'a and to Sunnis (yes, so that they can kill Americans with it, even if there is no certainty that Shi'a too will not be targets), and with Iranian agents all over Iraq?

Do you really think every American installation is equally a likely target? Those well-armed ships in the Gulf, from which, if used correctly, all geopolitical blessings in this case might flow?

As to Qatar and other places being "no more friendly" than Iraq -- what does this mean? Of course no Muslim state in the MIddle East is "friendly" to the United States. But both Qatar (which supports Al Jazeera), and Kuwait have the Americans there for one reason: to protect those countries, and the Al-Thani rulers in the former and the Al-Sabah rulers in the latter, against all neighborhood bullies, present and potential: Iran, a revived Iraq, and of course Saudi Arabia.

That is the reason we are allowed bases in Qatar and Kuwait. That is the only reason.
]
The less immediate contact we have, and our soldiers have, with these people permanently animated by a hostile belief-system the better. For it confuses naive Americans, including a handful of soldiers who, in Iraq, may have contact with this or that seeming exception to the rule, some kind of Gunga Dinnish (not D'Souza) figure, who is possibly not pretending when he attempts to do what, by Ameican lights, is right in Iraq -- and how sentimental this or that American officer, desperate to believe in the goddam "mission" and in the nobleness of "Iraqis" who, he allows himself to believe, are really, really trying, and if only we stay a bit longer to help them. It's crap, it substitutes the lonely exception for the general rule, but Americans are so easily fooled, want so much to believe, and the notion that people in the military are not foolable, are not just as sentimental and naive as the rest of the population, is merely one more hopeful fantasy.

Of course, in Qatar and Kuwait, as in Iraq, a few of the locals may somehow be able to reject Islam and its worldview from their system, and a few more, especially among the fearful rulers, will, needing the Americans around, will mute or disguise their hostility to them and to all Infidels in order to be assured of American protection -- but no one would either be fooled, or make policy on the basis of feigned, and certainly temporary, "friendliness" of a handful of fearful rulers of mini-states, tribes with flags.

Pardon me for butting in, but many posts caught my attention including:

How will getting out of Iraq enable us to deal with Iran?

Very good question -- a withdrawl like this would be tactical rather than stretegic. It is perfectly okay to "fall back," regroup, and prosecute the enemy by attacking from another angle.

Here is the problem -- the administration refuses to name the enemy -- islam -- and instead uses vague terms like "extremists."

You don't win wars with shadow boxing.

We still have targets everywhere in the Middle East: embassies, a new base in Qatar. Hasn't Halliburton moved there?

Halliburton is "American" only in the sense that the American taxpayer funds the infrastructure that Halliburton has prostituted over the years to enhance their portfolios. Halliburton has zero loyalty to America and should not be defended as such. The managment considers themselves as "citizens of the world" rather than "American." These people are loyal only to themselves, so let them work out their own "deal" with the "terrorists" who would attack them as "American targets."

There are American targets in more places than Iraq and their host governments are no more friendly than the Iraqis.

Perhaps, those "American targets" aren't as "American" as we think?

There are fewer, and fewer true Americans, even in America. However, I see some very great Americans posting on this website, all the time.

I disagree with them more often than not, but if they were running for office, I would vote for these people anyway!

Why? Because I sense that they love this country fervently and wish to defend it in their own way.

That beats internationalist elites like bush, clinton, and the halliburton types any day in my book -- because this latter group has zero loyalty to anyone or anything other than themselves.

Unfortunately, this latter group is calling the shots and so things will go their way regardless.

"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

The point is that getting out of Iraq is not going to be the magic elixir that will allow us to deal with Iran. I'm all for leaving there yesterday. Not because our soldiers are targeted by Iran but because the Iraqis are helping them. THAT is why we should leave.

Our military CANNOT prevent Iran from going nuclear, unless we expect to bomb the country to smithereens.

Iran was a danger before we went into Iraq. It remains a danger. If anything, Iraq has served to define it more clearly for those who were too blind to see it before. The Europeans know it's a danger but they're too hung up on diplomacy and showing us the way to conduct world affairs to take the hard steps. Its neighbors know it's a danger (just like Saddam was in his time) but they're too hung up on Islam (no Arab solidarity but there is religious solidarity and the feeling that Iran is their David against the US goliath) and giving the US a black eye to admit what they're enabling. Getting out of Iraq should also mean getting out of the Middle East. Iran's neighbors will have to deal with her.

We shouldn't think that leaving Iraq will make everyone in the Middle East or Europe want to cooperate with us against Iran. If they cared so much about treaties and international law they would have done something when the IAEA was hampered in its efforts. Even our so-called allies are not willing to see America put down another Muslim country. They want to hide behind our military because it's easier to stab us in the back that way. We should tell them all where to go and let THEM "deal with Iran".

Witness,

What about the embassies and consulates all over the Middle East and Africa? What about the universities? There are American companies other than Halliburton (I shouldn't have cited them - bad example). What about all the NGOs and charities that operate there? There are engineers, architects, scientists, archeologists and so many more all working on peaceful endeavors in the Muslim world. They're all targets.

Iran attacked our soldiers in Saudi Arabia - surely proof that Shiites and Sunnis are not averse to working together against a common foe. And proof that Saudi is no ally.

Iran doesn't have to kill our soldiers to strike a blow for Islam and not everyone who works in the Middle East is a traitor to America or a weapons dealer. Many of them are there on behalf of Americans.

If we leave Iraq (sorry, WHEN), can we make the Arab Middle East off limits to Americans, let them know that they are on their own and that American soldiers will not rescue them in the event they are taken hostage? And can we make America a no-go area for all Muslims all over the world? That is the only response we should have.

They already have them!

PMK

"Hasn't Halliburton moved there?"

Do you have investments in said corp.?

It would do America good to see less "Halliburtons" in this world. Of course they were selling oil equipment to Iran by a shadow company which they owned until congress made them stop.

They have choosen their side in this mess. Now let them live in it.

PMK:

I agree w/ Hugh re leaving Iraq to free our hand in dealing w/ Iran. You say that even if we w/draw the military from Iraq, that still leaves plenty of US targets, governmental & business, for iran to strike in response to any US military attack. First response is it's the vulnerability of the American military I'm most concerned about -- by a wide margin. I'm not going to let policy re iran be dictated by the vulnerability of an embassy or a MacDonalds to iranian attack. Second response is that I assume iran has the capability to launch attacks against American targets far beyond the Middle East. (Think the Buenos Aires bombing of the Jewish center many years ago; I believe that was a joint iranian/hezbollah production.) Are we going to let the vulnerability of these targets outside the M.E. determine whether & when to attack iran? i certainly hope not.

You also said, "We shouldn't think that leaving Iraq will make everyone in the Middle East or Europe want to cooperate with us against Iran." I certainly have no such illusions. And while I can't speak for HF, I can't recall him ever saying that leaving iraq would induce our European allies or M.E. "allies" to back us in an attack against iran. I think one strategy that MIGHT convince France & Germany, now w/ conservative governments, is for bush & co. to engage in serious pre-attack consultations w/ the French & Germans, including the admission that the US has made serious mistakes in iraq.

You also said, "We should tell them all where to go and let THEM "deal with Iran". The problem is that if the US doesn't deal w/ iran, no one will. They WILL get the bomb. I'm certainly not advocating -- and I don't think anyone else here of similar mind is either -- that the US act out of anything other than purely selfish interests. We should attack iran not for the sake of qatar or saudi arabia, though they would benefit from the defanging of the iranian tiger. i really don't give a damn about those countries. we should attack to avert a global nightmare.

Watch for the mining of disputed waters around Iranian islands to create a spark. Posted by Pez

How about the 3 missing soldiers just taken by IRAN? They have said that their capture is likely to be by 'insurgents'. Insurgents???? What a bunch of crap.

How about we do the dimmicrat thing? Since it is not politically correct to call it a war on terror and since it is not pc to use the term 'islamic militants', why then don't we just call these insurgents Iranian soldiers???? That's what they are.

I think this is the more likely cause and opportunity.

What about all the NGOs and charities that operate there? There are engineers, architects, scientists, archeologists and so many more all working on peaceful endeavors in the Muslim world. They're all targets

Perhaps they should be in America?

"Hasn't Halliburton moved there?"

Do you have investments in said corp.?

Greatcomet,

In a word, NO.

Their announcement that they were moving to Qatar stuck in my craw. I would not lift a finger to help them in any way when whatever they still own gets nationalized. Qatar will not stay free forever. I used Halliburton as an example, but it was a bad one.

The fact is, though, oil is the lifeblood of today's economy - not just here but elsewhere. Will we be allowed to do anything that will disrupt the flow of oil? The financial markets would go haywire. That's what would happen if we did as little as block the Straits of Hormuz. Bush's cronies would go nuts if the Dow went down as a result. So would many middle class Americans (including Democrats) whose retirement is locked in 401(k)s. Oil stocks won't be the only ones affected. The same people who complain that we're there "for the oil" would scream bloody murder the day they had no gas for the SUV.

I wish we could cut all ties to the Middle East but I don't see it happening anytime soon and I don't understand what Cheney is calling for (or threatening). Our military cannot prevent Iran from going nuclear unless we want to INVADE OR JUST BLOW IT UP. The people of Europe and the Middle East have had ample warning in just the last year what a nuclear Iran would mean to the region, but they just don't care enough to put themselves out. They're waiting for the US to act but they are busy prejudging whatever they think we might do. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Why should we put ourselves out for THEM?

Hugh wants us out of Iraq so we can deal with Iran, but how do we deal with Iran? Diplomacy hasn't worked. I guess we just give in to everything they want? That's one way to peace!

So our forces remain on ships in the Gulf and we fire rockets into Tehran, but what good would it do? The people around the world have to decide which is more important - putting George Bush (and, by extension, America) in his place or confronting the threat that is Islam. So far, they have chosen the former.

Perhaps they should be in America?

Witness,

They can't all be in America. America doesn't have what these people need to do their work: Middle Eastern artifacts and history.

Do you think archaelogists and historians should not investigate the secrets of the dead? A lot of what they do can only be done in country. Ancient documents and texts and structures can't all be studied on the internet.

How do we get to know our enemy if we don't live among them and we don't want them living with us?

Sheik,

Hugh said: "The only way to deal with Iran appropriately is to first get out of Iraq."

I still question the linking of the two. It's like when the Muslims said the only way to bring peace to the Middle East was to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Bill Clinton did his darndest but it couldn't be done. Why? Because the Muslims were lying the whole time. As those peace offerings were met with intifadas and Clinton kept bringing Arafat to DC, al Qaeda was launching one attack after another against America. Then they said the way to peace was to get out of Saudi Arabia. Well, we're out. They didn't want peace then. They don't want it now. Getting out of Iraq will NOT allow us to deal with Iran because WE CAN"T DEAL WITH IRAN.

We have messed up in Iraq something awful but progress in Iran shouldn't depend on what is happening in Iraq. Iran was a problem long before 9/11. The people of the Middle East know it. The Europeans know it. Heck, even the Iranian people know it. They all close their eyes and hope someone else will fix their problem for them.

The world is waiting for us to do something and then the world will denounce whatever we do. I'll say what I've said here many times: we can't do it alone. Europeans cannot be allowed to have commercial contracts with Iran while the US goes bankrupt trying to block Islamic death squads. Russia and China cannot be allowed to build up Iran's nuclear program and its missile systems while the US goes bankrupt trying to prevent doomsday. We may be a superpower but we're not omnipotent. Eisenhower couldn't take back Europe from the Nazis all by himself. Lincoln couldn't win the Civil War and George Washington couldn't win the revolution singlehanded. They needed help. The US needs help. Where is it coming from? All I see are empty words from Middle Eastern leaders who are begging us to help them even as they undermine our society with their dreams of world conquest. Europeans who cry that America is a bully then cry that America is doing nothing. They all need to decide what it is they want and then come to the US together. Maybe then we can get something done, but the US cannot expect to accomplish anything surrounded by jealous leaders who want only to take it down.

Catherine,

It must be the coverage. Everything I hear says the British people are upset at Blair being "Bush's poodle". I know from watching Prime Minister's question time that there are many conservatives who are pro-America but the backbenchers in the Labour Party seem tepid, at best. Maybe it's Iraq but don't forget also their insistence on negotiations with Iran that have come to nothing.

I'm looking forward to seeing Brown handle the questions and see how he handles US-British relations.

I have no doubt we have friends everywhere, but do they have critical mass anywhere?

Catherine,

I watch C-SPAN on Sunday mornings. The show is seen on the BBC and there are usually a few calls from the UK. They're almost never favorable. They all hate Bush. That means that, as much as they say they love America, they don't support anything Bush is doing.

I do like Dick but the "we will stand with others..." means we will do nothing unilaterally against Iran...period. George has his balls in a lock box.

Any war where the kill ratio of jihadis is so much in our favor is a good war.

May it continue at least for a few more years.

And any jihadis found over here in the West should be hunted down and taken out.

Bleeding hearts are for the adolescent troubled 'hearts' at an "Earth Day" event.

For the adults there is a mission.

This pres and these marines have so far kept us safe. Bless them.

Sorry to join this interesting thread so late. I need an answer to a naive question from someone pretty ignorant about military affairs.

I've read that the US military has about 1.4 million active-duty personnel. About 10% of them are in Iraq, many on repeat tours. About 70% are in the continental US. Can someone more knowledgeable than me tell me why on Earth we can't send 100,000 to seal our borders, 200,000 to overthrow Ahmadinejad and shut down the Iranian nuclear program, 100,000 to overthrow Assad and find the remainder of the WMDs that Saddam had (and formerly used), 200,000 to secure the Pakistani nukes, and 100,000 to secure the North Korean nukes?

There is roughly 1 Shooter for every 9 support personnel.

2 Carrier Battle Groups are not enough to neutralize Iran.

I say leaving Iraq By way of Iran is the way to go. Shooting at everyone and everything along the way.

Considering that just leaving Iraq or an escalation of the conflict in the area will cause the price of Oil to soar. Then the end result should at least be determined by our own actions rather than by the whims of others.

Iraq is a mess and will stay that way. Iran is behind that mess and many others. Turn Iran into another Iraq. When we ReEmbark our Troops off the southern Shores of Iran. We can send a large flock of Cruse Missiles off to the Saudis as a way of thanking them for the memories.

"2 Carrier Battle Groups are not enough to neutralize Iran."

I'd like to know how you know this.

"I say leaving Iraq By way of Iran is the way to go. Shooting at everyone and everything along the way."

With that as the ROE I'd bet there is enough firepower to vaporize a majority of Iran within those two carrier groups.

Add to that any subs that might be in the area.

Add to that the bomber fleet.

Add to that cruise missiles, our stock has to be built back up, they aren't being used in Iraq or anywhere else.

Add to that many many more elements commenters here don't have a clue about.

If we wanted Iran would be a smoking hole in very short order.