[billybudd]

Bad argument. The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes. It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example.

[Puppage]

The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes

Yeah, well just wait until they grab hold of one.

[MajorityOfOne]

Agreed - dumb, alarmist analogy.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example."

I don't think this game is subtle. I believe that once Radical Islam has a bomb, then the game changes. Who do we attack? It is like the RATS when they told us to chase Bin Laden and hunt down Al Queada? Where? Do we just go into a country and tear apart the place looking for Al Queada?

Fact is we know Iran is building a bomb so attacking Iran is the most logical solution. We set back Iraq almost 20 years. We shouldn't hesitate to do the same with Iran.

[theFIRMbss]

>Bad argument. The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes.

You're mixing things up.
The Mullahs die 'cause they're nuts
inciting terror.

Terrorists with nukes
die because they're nuts with nukes.
They're separate groups

but they're all targets
and the sooner they're scratched off
the sooner they're gone.

[trebb]

Bad argument. The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes. It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example.

The problem that makes it more like the school scenario is that Iran has already been threatening and we don't really know what their status is as far as getting nuke. A one week miscue could have us responding to a nuke detonation just as we responded to 9-11 - after the fact. Talking and sanctions are worthless against some folks - how many women have been killed by ex husbands and boyfriends that had restraining orders against them? If you need to issue the order, the order is already useless.

[Jack Black]

9/11 wasn't enough. We need to suffer more before we are sufficiently angry, as a nation and culture, to look at the "other" as the enemy. Lee Harris's article is really more to the point.

We aren't having a 'War of Civilizations' because only the Islamic side is at war.

We aren't having an "War of Civilizations" because only the Mexican/Latinos are at war.

Other than some outside-the-box intellectuals like Harris, and a bunch of grass-roots conservatives, and Michael Savage and a few talk-radio hosts, the people in general don't see a problem. They are not even aware that there is a culture to defend, or that other people have other ideas they are ready to impose those ideas on us. With guns, with slow motion invasions, with multi-culti demands, grinding immigration and suicide bombings.

Therefore I am resigned to suffering additional outrage. I hope and pray it's not where I live. I won't consider living in places that I consider "ground zero" for the inevitable, like NYC.

I think a lot about what comes next. So, we sit here watching the Iranians, eventually their overwhelming desire to nuke an American city happens. BOOOM! We lose New York (or 1/2 of Manhattan, or whatever).

What happens the day after? That's the really interesting question. Even then the left will be saying "Bush's Iraq war caused this" "We supported dictators in the past" "not everyone in Iran is to blame" etc.

What does President Hillary say? What does she do? What do we do? Agree to emergency taxes to rebuild the city?

[untrained skeptic]

No they are running at our allies not us.

We've also had time to ask questions. Iran is giving us the answers. They are refusing to stop enriching uranium. They are refusing to agree to inspections under the nopoliferation treaty. They are violating their treaty obligations and they are publicly and consistently reaffirming their plans to destroy Israel.

The analogy is a bit off. Let's modify it.

It's not our children's school. We're in a different town and our children don't go to this particular school.

This isn't some unknown crazy person, but someone we recognize as having a brutal history and they aren't making vague threats about hating children, they're yelling "I'm going to kill the children!"

There is a security guard at the school, but it looks like our current policy is to yell at the security guard to not hurt the attacker and leave them alone.

[RightWhale]

The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes

Yes, they are.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Bad argument. The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes. It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example.

What if someone had taken out Adolph Hitler in 1936? Don't you think things might have turned out better?