Iran's parliament speaker warned the West on Wednesday that it may face "a done deal" if it provokes Iran, a stern hint that Tehran could build nuclear weapons if attacked.

Note how he's quoting the IAEA's El Baradei almost word for word.

Nice to know that the world's so-called "nuclear watchdog" and one of the leading men of fascist Iran are on the same page.

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at June 25, 2008 11:09 AM

Politically correct politeness (read: insanity) won't allow Western leaders to state openly that during the tenure of this Oslamic shill, under his averted terror-apologising eyes of the hideous Muslim/Arab UN "watchdog", Mr. el Baradei, the world has witnessed the worst proliferation of nuclear tech in the Muslim world. He has done as much as any AQ Khan to sow the whirlwind.

Posted by: jsla at June 25, 2008 11:24 AM

"If you want to move towards Iran, make sure you will bring artificial legs and walking sticks because you will not have any legs to return on should you come," the television quoted Mohammad Hejazi, a top Guards figure, as saying.

This holds the same validity as the Republican Guard pre Gulf War bravado.

All talk.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at June 25, 2008 11:28 AM

Picture the mad mullahs in their subterranean vaults hastily preparing a nuclear bomb for reprisal while everything above ground is a smoking, plasticized wasteland full of skeletal zombies foraging for food in the nuclear darkness.

All that matters is who gets the last bomb.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at June 25, 2008 11:29 AM

A top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday warned that an attack on Iran would draw the U.S. into "a new tragedy."

"If you want to move towards Iran, make sure you will bring artificial legs and walking sticks because you will not have any legs to return on should you come," the television quoted Mohammad Hejazi, a top Guards figure, as saying
funny think is the arab mind often will make grandiose statements like the above as for the Revolutionary Guards beeing elite yes they are elite behind walls though the girl guides are far more elite and combat effective the Revolutionary Guards
are good only at terrorist ops like ramming a speed boat into a oil tanker ect a tanker that cant fight back or acting as thugs against unarmed civilians
to support the mullahs and there therocay but if facing real well trained troops like the us army the British army or the rcaf they would be practicing their hands over the head drill

Posted by: crusader at June 25, 2008 11:49 AM

What was that sign that President Truman had on his desk? Ah yes “THE BUCK STOPS HERE” Now I am not an American and I wouldn't presume to tell you who how to vote for in the next election, but it had better have a set of balls like Truman because in a couple of years America is going to be standing eyeball to eyeball with these nuts, and he had better not blink because these religious psychos wont. Please chose carefully out of your two candidates, because if you don't you could screw us all.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at June 25, 2008 11:56 AM

August 14, 2002. That's when Iranian dissidents first revealed to the world the Mullah's shockingly advanced nuclear development. Six years. Longer than WWII. Instead of years, they are know talking about an Iranian bomb in months

Sleep walking over the precipice. Avoiding the 'unplesant' we will fall into the unimaginable.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 25, 2008 12:03 PM

Good word, Holger Dansker.

Posted by: undaunted at June 25, 2008 12:24 PM

Two quotes come to mind:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Winston Churchill

especially this one:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Sir Winston Churchill

Laughing at our own demise:

Australian talking head and notorious America-hater George Negus invites Islamo-comedian, clown tells truth, audience is laughing. Surely, it can't be all that bad, can it?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23878429-5006022,00.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 25, 2008 12:32 PM

The U.S. and Europe must not give in to Iran's nuclear blackmail but they can and ought to defuse it. Nuclear sabre rattling is probably counterproductive. The best way forward is regime change led not by the U.S. but by Iranian dissident and resistance groups. If there's a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities it ought not to go ahead without a simultaneous land invasion led by groups like these, which, if the West is smart, it is giving a lot of financial and material support to, as well as anyone in Iran who can be cultivated as a fifth column within Iran's civil society and military.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122023.html

And a sensible strategy, as a necesary condition for success, will avoid two other mistakes as well:

1. a U.S. led occupation, and:

2. the installation of another right wing dictatorship that defends U.S. oil interests at the expense of the Iranians.

Posted by: templar at June 25, 2008 12:48 PM

Iran: Our nukes are peaceful, but we'll nuke you if you resist
..............................

And when we do nuke you it will be all your own fault for being so cynical, and refusing to believe in the peaceful nature of our remilitarizing the Rhineland, uh, I mean, developing nuclear power, which we obviously need so desperately as a major oil producing nation.

Why is the Great Satan always so suspicious? It must be Islamophobia!

Posted by: gravenimage at June 25, 2008 12:55 PM

All the distraction, all the dithering, all the wasted trillions, and men, materiel, morale, thrown out to do what in Iraq? To accomplish what result in Iraq that will make us, the Infidels, in the countries of Western Europe and North America (and indeed around the world) safer? How does keeping the Shi'a from the throats of the Sunnis in Iraq do that? How does keeping one set of Shi'a from attacking another set, or one set of Sunnis from attacking another set of Sunnis, further Infidel interests? What does any conceivable "good" outcome -- the surge is working, the surge is working -- in Iraq do to counter the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest?

And meanwhile, the only good reason for invading Iraq, the only one that made sense, was to find, and seize or destroy, weapons that could pose a real threat to Infidels. These are the weapons known as weapons of mass destruction. The country was scoured. By early 2004, it was clear that the weapons were not to be found in Iraq. But by early 2003, it was also clear that Iran was busily developing nuclear weapons, and it was clear to some, but not to enough, that this was the most important problem.

It could not wait. But the Administration, incapable of admitting how silly it is to remain in Iraq, continues to put all its eggs in that idiotic basket, and meanwhile, the Iranians build and build and build, in Natanz and elsewhere, while the Administration has lost -- The-Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Problem -- its ability to rally support for an attack on Iran. But whether it rallies that support or not (and it has only itself to blame) it has to do what must be done. It cannot leave it all up, yet again, for tiny Israel, in defending itself, also to do the work for the entire Infidel world. There is a limit to Israel's capacity. And since Israel is in the Middle East, and perhaps at some point will be able, if the Islamic Republic of Iran ever falls, to reconnect to Iran, especially an Iran that chooses to emphasize its pre-Islamic history (as a way to escape from the prison of Islam, or at least to exchange the solitary mental confinement of Islam for something a bit more like -- oh, like Lompoc), it is cruel of the Administration to expect Israel to do all the dirty work. America can do it, and still be friends with a new Iran in five years, or ten. It will be more difficult for Israel to hope for any future friendliness if it is forced to undertake, and take the rap for, an attack on Iran that should have been the responsibility of the mighty military of the United States, idiotically bogged down in that Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations project in Iraq.

Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2008 1:30 PM

Holger Dansker: Thanks for you comment. As for Harry Truman types in the Democratic Party, they're virtually all gone now. The contemporary Democratic Party is beholden to the Far Left, which loathes traditional America across the board, including the willingness to be bold and forceful with those who seek our demise. Modern liberals are not like the liberals of old. They have an aversion to the use of force until it is too late, and perhaps not even then. That's why the election of John McCain, flawed though he is, is of paramount importance to America and the free world at large. Barack Obama, by contrast, is a disaster in waiting.

Posted by: Wellington at June 25, 2008 1:49 PM

Unbelievable:

German Greens offer asylum to Gitmo terrorists:

http://fredalanmedforth.blogspot.com/2008/06/grne-wollen-al-qaida-terroristen-nach.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 25, 2008 2:17 PM

"That's why the election of John McCain, flawed though he is, is of paramount importance to America and the free world at large. Barack Obama, by contrast, is a disaster in waiting."

Posted by: Wellington

I completely agree - McCain it is!

Posted by: champ at June 25, 2008 2:39 PM

Wellington,

Yes you are right there, in the end it is the man not the party. The labour Party in England of the 1940-50 was a different beast than the set of short term opportunist low life we have inflected on ourselves now. Earnest Bevin, son of a farm labourer, illegitimate, orphaned at 8 he was our Foreign Secretary in the first labour Government after the war. He could out Dulles Dulles. I find it particularly galling when I read some comment on this blogg which lump all socialists as marxists and dimmis. Methodism not “Das Kapital”, was more of an influence on the British socialist movement. They would do well to read a bit more History.

Hugh, said :-
( it is cruel of the Administration to expect Israel to do all the dirty work.) Do you really think that the exercise Israel has just completed over the eastern Mediterranean, was done without the knowledge and connivance of the U.S.A. It was certainly done with the blessing of Greece who will be in range of any Nuclear tipped Rockets if Iran gets a chance to build any. Glorious Spartan, for I gather that was the name given to the exercise was certainly not coincidental. The Iranians would have to be exceedingly dumb not to get the meaning of that. The threat to Israel is existential and they will not go into the dark quietly. They will have to attack Iran a some point in the not too distant future. The Americans must know this otherwise they wouldn't have sold them $300,000,000 dollars of bunker busting bombs. The Americans will act as back stop, dampen down any form of retaliation, stop the corpse twitching, and finish off what the Israelis have missed. I personally don't see it as cruel to expect Israel to do all the dirty work, just expedient, they are going to be blamed anyway, and if America gets the chance to put the boot in so much the better. Remember the Embassy wouldn't be a bad slogan to chalk on the Bunker Busters.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at June 25, 2008 3:02 PM

It never fails to amaze why Demoncrats profess their love of Democracy and the freedoms it provides while obstructing every effort to either support it or encourage its spread. If Saddam was not the threat current "Well Documented Opinion" professes, then why did we Bomb Iraq for 12 years? Why did the Useless Nations pass so many resolution against Iraq? Why did It become National Policy to remove Saddam? Why did the Demoncrats vote to remove Saddam then pull an about face? It couldn't possibly be that Saddam was given ample time to remove what ever WMD he had. It couldn't possibly be that the Useless Nations and most of Europe were being BRIBED by Saddam to insure his survival. Syria couldn't possibly have benefited from Saddam liquidating what he had in WMD. Let us not forget the estimated 20,000 Terrorists trained in Afcrapistan and sent along there merry way. Who Saddam more than welcomed into his country. Not to mention we Chased them out of Afcrapistan where they found safe haven in Pakistan and Iran. But some how we never finished the "job". It sure is nice that the Demoncrats want to go into Pakistan now, but where were they 6 years ago? Hiding behind Code Pink???

We are being told repeatedly that we need to mend fences with the Useless Nations and adopt more European ways. For what? Bribery, Child Rape, Financial support for those who wish our demise( above and Beyond what we already do) Unfettered Muslim Immigration, the loss of freedom of expression? An energy policy that amounts to nothing less that to do without. The redistribution of wealth from the Ambitious to the Lazy? As well as a level of Antisemitism just short of Hitlers? How convenient it is to Leave Iran's Nuclear program for the Israelis to deal with. Could it be so everyones hands are clean while giving everyone someone to blame?

At some point Iran will be confronted. Be it on our terms or theirs. Ask your self which provides a better outcome for US.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 25, 2008 3:28 PM

500 Chemical Artillery shells found buried in the desert means we DID find WMD's. I believe they contained Mustard Gas, or mustard gas powder. According to intelligence reports, we have on deciphered 1% or 2% of the "Three Miles" of documents we have so far uncovered....turns out the mobile weapons lab story was true, as we have captured and interrogated the very truck drivers whose job it was to continue driving these mobile anthrax-type labs hour after hour, to avoid UN Weapons inspectors. Also, lets not forget Gerald Bull and his "Super-Artillery Piece" which was nearly complete at Saddam Husseins' orders, in order to lob sub-orbital chemical munitions at Israel. Sorry Hugh.

Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at June 25, 2008 4:20 PM

No More Ham, Ed,
also ex Iraqi generals did tell about the Russians and Syrians taking out Iraqi WMD's and bringing them to Syria. needless to say the US is in Iraq, and can still bomb the crap out iran's military. now would be better, than later.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Zena---you are correct. I have a family member who worked for Boeing then Lockheed for many, many years in the arena of extreme mathematics (calculus) and programming computers in order to position spy-satellites, so our J-DAM bunker buster bombs can accurately be put one on top of the other, effectively plowing through the very thickest and deepest of bunkers, or in Irans' case, underground nuclear facilities. The Israeli's should be able to easily defeat the Soviet-Made Integrated Air Defense network in Iran, bomb all fiber-optic cables for command and control, then drop J-DAM after J-DAM into the same hole until secondary explosions are detected. Also, these, along with thermobaric pressure wave weapons should easily burn-out then seal any tunnel entrances, permanantly entombing all "Peaceful Scientists". Go Israel and Shalom!

Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at June 25, 2008 4:51 PM

Please chose carefully out of your two candidates, because if you don't you could screw us all.

Posted by: Holger Dansker

If only Europeans felt the same way about their own leaders. Some have finally gotten around to electing leaders who share our goals but only after they screwed us in the UN and in Iraq.

Unlike others on this site, Holger, I will take exception to your comments. European newspapers asking "how could [93 million] Americans be so DUMB" don't win hearts and minds, and I wasn't among the 93 million.

It's especially noteworthy, given how the EU has been dickering around with Iran for several years now, all the while calling George Bush a war criminal and the American people dumb. Thirty percent of Iran's trade is with Europe. Who's screwing whom?

Posted by: PMK at June 25, 2008 5:33 PM

This article and the tone of the Iranians have pushed me over the edge of decorum. I will now censor myself in order to not pollute this site with my vile frustration spewing forth at the moronic leadership that the US, the EU and UN has guiding our countries and relationships. I can only hope the Israelis are not as limp and misguided. They are after all, "first up" on the target list.

Posted by: praxis9 at June 25, 2008 5:34 PM

Obama and America's Pain

Posted by: Lumpy at June 25, 2008 5:38 PM

Andrew Bostom's book has come out. It has been reviewed, and thereby advertised, in Jerusalem Post, interlinked with the Ali Sina interview, and an article about the persecution of Jews under Islam. If enough Israelis get their heads unfogged in time, it might suffice. But we are going down to the wire.

Time for those who, like me, have no earthly way of influencing events in either the USA or Israel, to re-read Psalm 83. And 1 Samuel 17: 41-51. And 2 Kings 19: 14-36.

As I look at Israel - not at her current useless and corrupt government, but at those frighteningly young men and women of the IDF and IAF, and the yeshiva students and the scientists, and all the clever, funny, passionate Jewish Israeli bloggers whose writings I've been enjoying over the past two years - I find myself holding my breath.

When I look at Israel facing the monstrous threats, curses, hatred and lies of the mullahs of Iran and the Arab Muslims, I am reminded of Tolkien's great epic fantasy (inspired, I am convinced, by medieval Europe's long struggle against the jihad ) and the words of Gandalf, in two places: at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, and then, at the broken Gate of Gondor, facing the leader of Sauron's army of darkness.

Here is the first exchange, from 'Fellowship of the Ring':
"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand, Glamdring [Foehammer] gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.
'You cannot pass', he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell.
'I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the flame of Anor [the Sun]. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

'The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone; grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.
'From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
'Glamdring glittered white in answer.
'There was a ringing clash, and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.
"You cannot pass!" he said."

Then, in 'Return of the King', in the chapter, 'The Siege of Gondor':

"Then the Black Captain rose in his stirrups and cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone.
'Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke...In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
'All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax...
'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted.
'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your master. Go!'
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold, he had a kingly crown, and yet upon no head visible was it set...From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
'Old fool!' he said, 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

"Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.
"And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns...Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last."

Thus Tolkien the Catholic medievalist transmuted and honoured in epic fantasy the great charge of the Polish hussars under Jan Sobieski at the relief of Vienna in 1683...but who, who, who will dare to be for Israel as Jan Sobieski was in reality, for besieged Vienna, or Tolkien's mythic riders for fictional Gondor, in this terrible day and time?.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 25, 2008 6:16 PM

Pmk,

I was certainly not critizing. I was just pointing out the fact that your Presidential elections affect the world not just America. The election of the President of Iceland is a local affair. The election of the President of America affects us all.
Not only you find it offensive, I myself find it offensive that newspapers talk in such ways, hubris and dillusions of grandeur unfortunately are not the sole prerogative of the petty politicians here in Europe. I and I am certain millions more understand that if America goes we all go. it is these type of people that don't. The simple fact is that who ever you chose is going to affect me one way or the other. It is obvious even to a blind man that we are heading, for a crisis in world affairs. America had been fairly lucky to have had great President in times of war. Let us hope that who ever you chose turns into a Great President because the world is going to need him in the next few years.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at June 25, 2008 6:37 PM

but it had better have a set of balls like Truman because in a couple of years America is going to be standing eyeball to eyeball with these nuts, and he had better not blink because these religious psychos wont. Please chose carefully out of your two candidates, because if you don't you could screw us all.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until 2012 because there are no candidates that running for President of the United States that meets the criteria that you set out.

I really don't think the US or Israel will do anything and I'll bet the iranians already have battlefield nukes and most likely already have the dreaded wmd -- which is probably why you see so much gentle handling so far.

It wouldn't surprise me if Syria acts as a surrogate against israel in the first salvo of wmd and watch damascus go up in smoke after that.

Posted by: witness at June 25, 2008 7:25 PM

I ponder the number of Syrian Aircraft lost on Israels return from striking Iran.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 25, 2008 8:17 PM

Holger,
Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I took out my frustrations on you.
What gets me is that some people think the US is all-powerful. We're not. We won't this fight without a lot of help.
I'm sorry if I came on a little strong earlier.
PMK

Posted by: PMK at June 25, 2008 8:58 PM

When I look at Israel facing the monstrous threats, curses, hatred and lies of the mullahs of Iran and the Arab Muslims, I am reminded of Tolkien's great epic fantasy (inspired, I am convinced, by medieval Europe's long struggle against the jihad ) and the words of Gandalf, in two places: at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, and then, at the broken Gate of Gondor, facing the leader of Sauron's army of darkness.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

Excellent point dumbledoresarmy, I completely agree with you.

Posted by: islamnomo at June 25, 2008 10:57 PM

"I'll bet the iranians already have battlefield nukes and most likely already have the dreaded wmd" Posted by Witness.

If they had the dreaded WMD they'd have used it by now. Mullahs have a habit of blustering when in a position of weakness.

It's not the "Dreaded WMD", it is the DREADED WIND (wind as in a bout of constipation).

As soon as the WMDs are ready, the Iranians will not be fool enough to send a postcard before launching them. One minute an important military base in Israel is there, all business as usual. Then POOF, it's no more. That's how the world will come to know of the Iranian nuke. The others will follow in quick succession because the mad mullahs don't want a retaliatory strike.

The Iranian nukes are not an India-Pakistan thing. The Pakis use their well advertised nukes to stop India from taking any serious measures against the Paki sponsored terrorism that's afflicting India for the past donkeys years. Something like: "Keep taking all this s*** we're dishing out to you, or else...!"

The Iranian nukes THREAT may be in current use against the West in the same manner (a backup to jihadi terror) but Iran feels sufficiently rich and powerful to try something stupid. This brings me back to where I started: when they get them, they'll use them.

Posted by: Hedgehog at June 26, 2008 12:33 AM

When I look at Israel facing the monstrous threats, curses, hatred and lies of the mullahs of Iran and the Arab Muslims, I am reminded of Tolkien's great epic fantasy (inspired, I am convinced, by medieval Europe's long struggle against the jihad ) and the words of Gandalf, in two places: at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, and then, at the broken Gate of Gondor, facing the leader of Sauron's army of darkness.

And things are made twice as bad for the Israelis because they also face the monstrous threats, curses, hatred and lies of the Western press and media, and Western Governments who prevent the Israelis from destroying their enemies once and for all. If Israel goes under, it will be just as much a victim of the West as those Islamists, who have, and continue to wage a merciless war against it for the last 60 years.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at June 26, 2008 3:11 AM

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until 2012 because there are no candidates that running for President of the United States that meets the criteria that you set out.

You mean, you'll have to wait until the aftermath of something 10, 50 or 100 times as bad as 9/11 before we get candidates running for President of the United States of the ilk of Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams or Harry S Truman.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at June 26, 2008 3:16 AM

Shades of Mohammad al-Sahaf,former Iraqi Minister of Information. My bet is a limited air strike would more than get their attention. Particularly if we included a few of the regime stalwarts and/or the mosque at Qom.

Posted by: Doubting David at June 26, 2008 6:38 AM

"Even if Iran's nuclear facilities are totally destroyed — a possibility that is precisely zero —"

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Mr. Daily Kayhan Editor. Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles have proven to be talented "smart" weapons. If you hear a "whooshing" sound, you might want to get out of the way.

Posted by: Abscedere at June 26, 2008 9:53 AM

Abscedere,
The operative word is "totally". Our smart weapons and even our bombers could probably damage Iran's nuclear program considerably but could they "totally" wipe it out?
Maybe it's just boasting but the story we hear is how their facilities are spread out all over the country, probably mixed in with other peaceful enterprises. We're not likely to locate Iran's version of Los Alamos. It doesn't exist.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 11:11 AM

If Iran is attacked, it must be done in such a way that Iran is unable to respond, or is unwilling to do so. Wrecked and intimidated. Anything less than that, will allow the infection to fester and continue being problematic.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2008 11:16 AM

Hugh, the war on terror may take decades, and may never be "won," and in 2002 our military planners saw and then wanted forces on both sides of Iran, like we have now.

In 2002, why would military planners want forces on both sides of Iran, I wonder? The more I see the more confident I am in George and that crew of his ...

Posted by: k24anson at June 26, 2008 11:45 AM

k24anson

The US was unwilling to let both Iran and Iraq be a Problem needing to be dealt with only a stand-off or Nuclear basis.

Iran has always been the greater threat of the 2 after the 1st. Gulf War. It was reason enough for Rummy to NOT deploy 500,000 Troops into Iraq from the start. There would never been enough Troops to Rotate. Especially considering the Clinton Administration cut Force levels by roughly half. In effect, removing any possibility of ever enforcing his own policy of removing Saddam as a matter of National Security.

Quite cynical of him and his Demoncratic supporters to endorse a policy requiring the entire Army Clinton retained to be deployed. Knowing full well they never would.

I believe Rummy was disliked as he was, simply because he was able to get the Military to do what the Demoncrats insisted was impossible.

The Demoncrats expected a Half a million Troops on the Ground and Rummy did the Job with a tad more than 250,000 of Combined forces. While still conducting operations in Afcrapistan. Even though "major" operations were over by the time we entered Iraq.

Irrespective of ones opinion of Iraq past or present. Two Issues are seldom mentioned. Especially of its critics.

The first being, What would we be dealing with had we just left empty handed with Saddam still there without the UN Embargo. (even as pathetic as it turned out to be).

The second being the reality that Iraq, in its current state, would not prevent us from using their Territory. With or without their consent.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 26, 2008 4:10 PM

What would we be dealing with had we just left empty handed with Saddam still there without the UN Embargo. (even as pathetic as it turned out to be).

flowerknife_us,
What time frame are you referring to? After the first gulf war or after 9/11?
The UN embargo wasn't just pathetic. It was criminal. Oil-for-food was an exercise in corruption.
What if we had left after we had fulfilled our mandate and freed Kuwait? Clinton could have done that at the time the Saudi barracks were bombed, telling the Saudis that we weren't going to protect their asses from Saddam if they weren't going to protect our troops. They run a police state. They know who's where.
That would have required the UN to find someone else to patrol the no-fly zones or else do something about Saddam.
Lower Manhattan might be whole, with only a giant crater in the basement of the Twin Towers complex to show for our two-year "occupation" of Saudi Arabia and its danged holy places. Two embassies might never have been bombed. We'll never know.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 10:51 PM

After 9/11. When we were pressuring the Useless Nations to not be Useless.

After Freeing Kuwait we should have just taken a sharp left hand turn and finished off Saddam once and for all. We had the half a Million Troops to do the Job the Demoncrats insisted we needed.

At this point, going back to 91 just adds another 12 years worth of "what ifs".

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 27, 2008 7:39 AM