Posted on 01/16/2006 9:28:48 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
I would prefer a selective mass sterilization of the Muslim world.......let it die off gradually.
I find that difficult to believe, given that the only people interested in that godforsaken bit of coral have been radio amateurs seeking a "new country" and the Chinese, Vietnamese and Philippines squabbling over whose flag will fly over it (at low tide).
I'm bolstered to see that there are others with whom I share the same opinion on this scenario. I frequently contemplated as I was growing up what it must have felt like for my parents to have lived during WWII, seeing it develop before their eyes and seeing how it played out on a daily basis, how it escalated, and how the momentums shifted back and forth between the two sides. I've been convinced since 9/11 that I'm now similarly experiencing what they did in the late 30's and early 40's first hand for myself. It's a gut-rolling uneasiness to say the least.
I think Condi is in over her head as Secretary of State. Her expertise on Russia has given her no preperation to deal with Islam. In fact, her training might even be detrimental. Although the Soviet were evil, they were reasonable and weren't keenly interested in dying.
Although Soviets outlawed churches, Russians still had a basis of Christianity....i.e., they had not been brainwashed to blow themeselves up in the name of God.
<< The second wave is moving northward now, despite the utter denial of those who lead us. >>
Like the writer of the piece that leads this thread you are using the wrong tense.
The war he's talking about began, courtesy of the traitor Cartah, in 1979 and we have, until recently and perhaps again soon, been losing it ever since.
And we are already hostilely colonized by and having already lost our sovereign borders are in the process of losing our language and our culture and our Rule of Law to and unassimilated and unassimilable more than thirty-five million strong criminal-alien invasion.
And then there's China and its islamanazi allies and Russia.
And Eurabia.
I supported and still support the Iraq war. We need to win it and not look like paper tigers. What's done is done, and failure is not an option. We live in the world of the indicative mood, not the subjunctive mood.
However, if a time machine was invented and we could go back in time to Summer 2002, I would argue until I was blue in the face that war with Iraq would deplete our resources and resolve to fight the greater threat--Iran. All the post 9-11 GWOT capital should have been invested in arguing for the overthrow of the Iranian mullahs. I know all the arguments about how Iran was going to fall ASAP because of their pro-American youth and how it was just a matter of time before we had a sea of liberty between Afghanistan and Iraq...hasn't happened, won't happen. Now, in 2006, the doctrine of preemption is for the most part dead, because of the struggles in Iraq--more specifically, the intelligence failures which will haunt our credibility both inside and outside our borders for decades to come. Iran would have been easier to manage, with one friendly border (Afghanistan) and a unified populace ethnically. You can make better arguments to the skeptical and the weak-kneed that Iran fits in w/ the GWOT than Iraq, mostly because it would be a delayed response to Iran's sponsored attack on U.S. Marines in 1984 that killed 250 soldiers in Lebanon and of course the gross seizure of hostages when the mullah state was founded. Iran's long deserved a massive butt-kicking.
Iran's the problem, and its problems dwarfed those presented by Saddam's Iraq. Let's pray something happens that doesn't make us rue choosing Iraq over Iran.
Those countries which have the ability and the technology to go hydroelectric and nuclear for power generation have had all the warning that they need to have done so already, if not, any hardship resulting should clearly be placed at the feet of the insane and ignorant among each society, and their supporters.
One source of deep satisfaction is that if China or another crazy country unleashes the dogs of nuclear war in search of raw materials and oil, the insane fuzzies in all "civilized" societies, and their supporters, will be the first to "go".
A quick death, if they are lucky, torn limb from limb by the others freezing in the dark.
Other than self-imposed restraint, there is no reason for this scenario not to play out. The primitive mass murderers are only accidental owners of the world's oil suppy. It was given to them by the very countries who then turned around and bought the stuff from them, instead of simply taking the territory back; mistake number one.
Other than the suicidal impulse to "do the right thing" There is no reason whatsoever why Great Britain, and the US did not take back the rich oil fields, once their importance was clear.
How long have those fields been in sandmaggot hands? Eighty years? Out of a world history of 6000 years?
The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that a rational solution is not possible. There are an infinite number of permutations, in all of which the overreaching muslims are the permanent losers: among them, China, Europe, and the U.S. jointly take over the oil fields, permanently, and divide production (and the cost of recovering it) among themselves in proportion to population.
Since Russia has a more or less independent source of oil, I don't see them taking on the rest of the civilized world for a piece of the action (even if they could).
When it starts, the "free world" will have to stand with us, or suffer the humiliation of becoming an islamic state.
Not exactly right.
The clear precursor of 911 was allowing the Ayatollahs to get away with the first blatant violation of diplomatic immunity in a thousand years, on Nov. 4, 1979.
Nothing enboldens the primitive, ignorant mind like success; or excess, with impunity.
The nuclear exchange scenario between Israel and Iran makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest two things: one, the Iranian leadership has got to be persuaded that pursuing nuclear weapons isn't going to lead to the achievement of their goals. Second, that the anti-regime Iranians be persuaded that they have to do something about their present regime, rather than waiting for the U.S. to do it for them.
I dont think we have a particularly clear picture of what Iran's strategic intentions are. Obviously they're on the road to being a nuclear power but to what end? Iranians are always quick to point out that they are not Arabs or Sunnis, they are Persians and Shiites and thus what we usually think of as the "middle east" doesnt apply to them. Unlike Iraq, which is essentially 3 different groups trapped in a failed state, Iranians have a strong sense of national identity. These factors alone mean that Iran must be treated with a different strategy than the rest of the gulf states which are largely Arab. If Iraq has taught us anything its that these distinctions mean a great deal on the ground.
Iran's relations with the world have largely been defined by other powers attacking them and not the other way around. Iran spent most of the last century being swatted around by the British and Russians, before being invaded by Iraq. Essentially the Iranian posture is more defensive than aggressive and the nuclear game could be seen as an extension of that. Iran surely sees the American forces in its neighbors as a threat and considering the tone of American leaders (axis of evil) its not hard to see their point.
The Israeli question is interesting because its hard to tell what is bluster and what is intent. Iran must know it can never hope to defeat Israel with or without nuclear arms so much of it must be seen as posturing. Its also worth remembering that the current leader was elected chiefly because the moderates fractured their support over too many parties. He is essentially a populist street preacher type who is now in way over his head. Most Iranians do not have the seemingly suicidal rancor he displays and our best hope is that they will take power before its too late. We cannot hope to encourage the moderate by taking broad swipes at the nation though, nothing unites a people like an outside threat.
Hot tip to KG9 -- in a "nuclear exchange," BOTH sides are on the receiving end.
Hmmm -- a voice of reason. Dangerous.
Yeah, I thought that went without saying.
Amhadidinejad wants to provoke the apocalypse so the Mahdi will return and usher in the after life of Shi'a paradise. He belongs to the Hijjoteh cult and there is no rational way to solve this. Bomb them without regime change and they will reconstitute their nujes in short order, and you can't count on a uprising by the students because to many are nationalist and an invasion or bombing will drive them to the Mullahs.
This fairy tale would have been better as a TV special.
I tend to be cryptic, but thats what I was talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.