Dear Adm. Mullen,
Blood is thicker than water. The Muslims will always prefer themselves over the Infidels. If you want to make a difference, just sieze the Iraqi oil fields and let the Muslims fight it out without the petrobucks. Then go into Iran and sieze their oil fields. Without all that money for the jihad, things will be a lot quieter, you'll see.

Posted by: jewdog at April 28, 2008 9:18 PM

Pinpoint the rat, after confirming that he exists and this is what he is doing, and take him out. With extreme prejudice.

(the same thing one does with jihadis)

(what we should be doing with every Saudi funded mosque in the West)

Posted by: dgene at April 28, 2008 11:18 PM

I agree with dgene.

Let's kill the guy after confirmation.

That's how you win a war. Kill those who are fighting for the enemy. And if they're in your home country, then that's not a good start.

Every Western nation should target mosques for meticulous scrutiny and expel those who preach hatred against others. Don't let them stay there. This is a vital first step and will significantly help in defeating Islamic fanatics.

Posted by: S Perry at April 28, 2008 11:49 PM

If we are an "occupier" let's act like one. We did not permit this sort of thing in Germany after WWII. The still-fighting remnants of the SS - the werewolves- were hunted down and killed.

The Iraqis should be ordered to shut down the Iranian embassy and hunt out and kill the Quds including this general. The Air Force should take out all Iranian military camps within 50 miles of the border, and then keep the pressure on. No more border crossing, enforced by air, night and day.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 29, 2008 12:51 AM

Dear JewDog,
But only now has it become very, very visible that Iran is involved in the chaos that is Iraq. We're all really shocked here. Give me 5 more years to take care of this and I promise you'll be pleased.
Sincerely,
Adm. Mullen

Posted by: Bingo at April 29, 2008 2:21 AM

Dear JewDog,
But only now has it become very, very visible that Iran is involved in the chaos that is Iraq. We're all really shocked here. Give me 5 more years to take care of this and I promise you'll be pleased.
Sincerely,
Adm. Mullen

Posted by: Bingo at April 29, 2008 2:22 AM

A long time ago, our soldiers began reporting the discovery of Iranian made explosives and weapons in Iraq, our dhimmi leftist called them liars..."quit trying to make it look like Iran is involved" they said.

A long time ago, an Iranian general defected and said that the Iranians were training the Iraqi terrorists. Our Dhimmi leftists call him a liar saying "don't believe him, he is trying to get the coalition forces to think about attacking Iran"

Just recently it was reported in Basra that we have found undeniable evidence of Iranian involvement in promoting and assisting the Iraqi terrorists...Our dhimmi leftists cried out "what proof? you have no proof!"

Some time ago, we captured some Iranian "diplomats" and a ton of documents in Iraq, clearly showing Iranian involvement in the promotion of terror by the Iraqi terrorists. This time our dhimmi leftists cried out, "The Iranians were just trying to find a way to make peace and you have no proof they were in Iraq to create havoc!"

From time to time the Iranian whacko leader has made comments about assisting those "noble and brave" Islamic fighters in Iraq. Our dhimmi leftists dismiss such talk as sabre rattling.

From time to time we have captured some fighters who "claim" to have been trained in Iran by the Quds forces. Our Dhimmi leftists proclaim, "they are lying!" or "anyone will say what you want to hear if you torture them!"

The Iranian signature is all over Iraq and now, it appears, the Iranian signature shows up deeply embedded in the Iraqi government and in the "safest" areas in Iraq...Let's not forget the travels of the Iraqi leaders to Iran to hug and kiss Ahmadinejad...Our dhimmi leftists proclaim, "Look!, the Iraqi leaders are trying to get Iran to help make peace!", ----

I have a difficult time deciding just who to curse..

as Charlie Brown would say "AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGG"

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 29, 2008 5:57 AM

What would be the reasonable response to such behavior in any previous conflict? It would be to attack the source of the problem. That attack does not have to be with American combat troops. It can take many forms. It can take the form of military and other aid to disaffected Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, even Arabs (in Khuzistan, formerly Arabistan), provided they cause trouble, possibly simultaneous trouble, for the Islamic Republic of Iran. It can take the form of extending every assistance to Israel, if the Americans are reluctant -- and of course being stuck in Tarbaby Iraq makes the Americans more reluctant -- to inflict direct damage on Iran's nuclear project -- to inflict that damage itself.

No doubt the Israelis are a little tired of always having to rescue, in the gravest situations, not only themselves, but also their mostly ungrateful or even denunciatory fellows in the West. It was tiny Israel that destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981, ending for a long time, until his final overthrow, Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. For its pains Israel was roundly denounced by President George H. W. Bush (prompted by the usual scowcrofts), and by The New York (Duranty) Times, and every right-thinking believer in negotiation and abhorrer of military force.

Just the other day it was again Israel that located, and -- over the objections of the terminally uncomprehending Condoleezza Rice (who also decided ideological uniltateral disarmamanet -- banishing use of the word "jihad" and all related words, throughout the State Department and, we now learn, other parts of the government, including the Dept. of Homeland Security)-- destroyed the North-Korean-supplied nuclear reactor, project, program, whateveritwas, and thus, in saving itself, surely saved as well all kinds of Western interests, including the position of an independent Lebanon, and the situation of American forces in Iraq.

We are told again and again, by furrowed-browed generals, about "Iran's central role in Iraq" and yet nothing is done, the Iranian embassy, where we are also told all of the personnel are part of the Iranian operation, continues to remain open (what is it? fear of offending Iraq? jimmy-carterish desire to keep "channels of communication" open when those "channels of communication" are actually a branch of Iran's militay operations against American forces? What?).

How many impossible, and intolerable, things before breakfast are we expected to believe, and to accept?

Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2008 9:09 AM

Gee. the irony. The U.S. was formed by the illegal gun and gunpowder smuggling of our neighbors at the time, the French and Spanish -and even the Canadians. Oh how the Brits railed against the outside interference! They attacked neither.

During the American Civil War, the English returned the favor by supplying the Confederacy\States in Rebellion\whatever, with weapons and other supplies which prolonged the war indefinitely. We attacked neither.

During the Vietnam War\Conflict\Police Action, China and the Soviet Union supplied the insurgents\rebels\patriots\whatever, with weapons etc. Hell even neutral countries got into the act. We attacked none of the above.

Why not? Because these countries were -in reality-- practicing CAPITALISM and the principal of "My enemy's enemy is my enemy." Oh, and if we couldn't kick the crap out of a little country like North Vietnam, how could we also engage those countries as well?

So, let us not forget our own little foibles supplying one side or another supporting United Fruit, Conoco, Citgo and assorted sundry Go Go in Central and South America. We only take umbrage there when American companies are not given the lion's share of the Capitalist profits. Oh yeah, and in a little place called IRAN, as well. We would supply both sides if there was enough $$ in it. We, too were practicing CAPITALISM and the principal of "My enemy's enemy is my enemy."

So let's not get all self righteous about a little profit taking and making sure that this country does not invade their country.

Lets be clear about this. I am neither condemning profit taking, nor American foreign policy or am I advocating the loss of American lives (which I deplore); I am merely pointing out that IRAN's point of view is "sauce for the goose..." You may not like this - heck, you should not like this - but if you were in charge of Iran's foreign policy, you would do the same. And twice on Sunday.

Jingoism aside (on both sides) our options are limited. What should we do? Blockade oil from the Persian Gulf? The consequences to us and the subseuent leverage it would give to RUSSIA would be a debacle. Nuke Tehran? After all, nobody would miss it, but again, the consequences, the blowback, etc., are too great while still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe you and Dick Chaney believe that if we invade Iran, the populace will be greeting us with flowers in their guns, I choose not to.

Besides, who would sell us the oil necessary for the invasion, and who wants to pay $20 for a gallon of gas that would be the result.

Engage IRAN and its Mullahs, but be realistic about the costs, consequences and impacts both here and abroad. [Oh, yeah, don't forget that the cost to the French government of its support of the American Colonies, was the French Revolution. It could happen to Iran as well].

Posted by: walfishj at April 30, 2008 9:26 AM