U.S. must destroy Iran's nuclear facilities

American Chronicle ^ | 01MAY06 | David Holcberg

[familyop]

No amount of negotiation or international pressure will persuade the Iranian theocrats to give up their longtime quest for nuclear bombs. To ensure Iran will not produce--or use--nuclear bombs, the United States and its allies must destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and wipe out its regime--and must do so without delay.

Iran presents a much greater danger to the United States' security than did Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Once Iran gets hold of nuclear bombs, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely target for mass destruction. As one of the principal ideological sources of Islamist totalitarianism, Iran is an avowed enemy of the United States and a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Iran finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens (if not by the hundreds). Under those circumstances the United States has a moral right--indeed, a moral obligation--to defend its people from Iran's threats and preempt future terrorist attacks.

The Iranian regime has repeatedly threatened to use its soon-to-be-produced nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. It has repeatedly called for "Death to America." These threats must be taken seriously. We did not take Osama bin Laden's threats seriously, and lost thousands of lives in the Twin Towers. We do not want to make the same mistake with Iran, and lose many thousands more.

David Holcberg is a media research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and originator of the philosophy she called "Objectivism.""

[TexasTransplant]

You make too much sense to be taken seriously.

Just ask any Congress Critter (When you ask make sure that you ask in English and Spanish).

TT

[AmeriBrit]

If they're that 'gungho' why don't they just enlist when they graduate?

We are a military family and meet NG's everyday who are crying to get back to their normal lives as before their deployments to the ME, and now the word is getting out they'll be used on the border as well they're not very happy campers.

JMO: those Jr. high students at 16/17 yrs old still think it's all a game and haven't faced reality yet.

[FreedomCalls]

U.S. must destroy Iran's nuclear facilities

But why must the U.S. destroy them? There are four other permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the body responsible for enforcing such things globally. What are the other four up to? And if they are unwilling to live up to their responsibilities as permanent members, then perhaps we should remove alter or abolish their spots and give them to someone else (India? Japan?).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[TexasTransplant]

I was NG during Clinton and was trying to get a "full-time" position, it was not possible without a Family Member in a position of power, now you can't get a "part time" assignment without the same connections... Wow

TT

[dk/coro]

"We are the only country....."

Kind sir, it is called "Hegemonic Power."

Simply by default -- and a point in World History -- the buck stops here.

The United Nations is incapable of ANY positive influence here.

Europe IS LOST!

Please suggest, given the mortal danger to our Republic from Islam -- not just militant Islam -- just where we should turn in the International Arena to garner credible support to protect OUR vital interests from the threat?

Read Huntington, Lewis, Pipes, Gaddis, Kaplan and Johnson...for starters.

Then re-enter the debate. **S**

[church16]

Hmmmm.... I've always wondered why I did 14 years in the AD and then joined the AFRC. Thanks for 'splaining it to me.

Yes, that's biting sarcasm. You understimate generation Y. But what would I know... I only ate chow with these 18-21 year old battle hardened (and weary) young soldier in Iraq a few months back. And flew over them watching firefights I couldn't help out in. Sometimes I could and did "help out". You say they join for the benefits, and sometimes you're right. But they are not stupid, anyone joining now is "going to the show" and they know it and are proud of it. The pussys and weaklings have long since left. Unless you are a guardsman or reservist, I'd stop speaking for them.

[dk/coro]

LOL...and just how do you suggest "W" toss Russia and China out of the Security Council?

It is mind-boggling sometimes to read these threads. I swear that Gingrich just might have it right:

Americans know pathetically little about their own history -- or even the basic fundamentals of International Relations.

[familyop]

Iraq is not a "quagmire." I would guess that we've rotated several hundreds of thousands of troops through Iraq, and nearly 2,500 US KIAs is unprecendently low for an operation like that.

Iran is exporting guerrillas into Iraq against our soldiers. The British are fed-up with fighting Iranians near the Iranian border in their AO. Iran has moved missiles closer to the Iraqi border. In a recent letter, the Iranian puppet President invited our President to convert to Islam. So if we allow Iran to continue its buildup, we can all expect the same invitation.

The solution to part of the Iraq problem (Iran) is obvious, as is the solution to Iran's nuclear desires.

[AmeriBrit]

My comment was to Candor7 about 16 yr olds still not out of high school. A person can do a lot of growing up between 16 to 21.

Sir, my husband racked up over 36 years in the military and we are both still very active in the military life both on and off base. We lost a son in Iraq and have a SIL serving there now, so please do not insinuate I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[FreedomCalls]

LOL...and just how do you suggest "W" toss Russia and China out of the Security Council?

Read up on your history. It has happened twice before. The Chinese Nationalist government of Taiwan was tossed out and the PRC instituted in its place in 1971 and in 1991, the government of Russia took over the seat previously held by the government of the USSR. There is a legitimate movement right now to put India, Germany, and Japan on it. Like FDR and packing the USSC, if you can't get rid of the recalcitrant ones, you can add more who are favorable to your goals.

Besides, you didn't answer my question. Why is the Iran nuclear problem the exclusive problem of the U.S. and not the other four members? That's what they are there for.

[familyop]

Most Iranians in the USA arrived here by air for education and for jobs--not by crossing the Mexican border.

[familyop]

Tell me then. What would have to be done to get Russia and China out of the UN Security Council? "We" can't do that alone, as you advised.

[Cacique]

bump

CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST
(CLICK ON ANY BOOK)

[bluetone006]

Will you have the same opinion when L.A. is a smoking crater? Hmmm bad example. Ok, will you have the same opinion when Dallas was a smoking crater and there are 550,000 dead?

I'm am not, and have never been, in favor of nation building in the ME. Get in, destroy their military, universities, all manufacturing capability, oil production, and all other targets of opportunity. Then get out.

[familyop]

"Why is the Iran nuclear problem the exclusive problem of the U.S. and not the other four members? That's what they are there for."

I'll answer that. Two of the other four members are going to vote in favor of sanctions. Three of the four are trying to convince the other two to go along. That's what they're there for.

As for possible future military action, the comprehensive information on the list of countries that will take such action is not yet publicly known. The propaganda situation is known, though. Anti-American voices and their mesmerized, useful idiot receptacles are saying that America "will go it alone," just as they did before the Iraq invasion. They've shown themselves to be liars time and again.

[dk/coro]

That's an easy one.

Our position vis-a-vis the other members of the Security Council is so politically precarious, Bolton couldn't really get any significant reform placed on the agenda.

And, I must surmise that you must EVEN acknowledge this reality. One of the many costs of being the sole Global Lion Slayer -- for NOW.

I am well aware of the long past events you cite. However, they have NO relevance, whatsoever, to current international political realities.

The demise of the Soviet Union changed the global landscape in such a manner that it will take years for the political scientists to determine with some degree of historical accuracy the costs the United States will ultimately pay in its reluctant assumption of UniPolar Global Hegemony.

Again, I state: The United States (as the duty King of the Hill bad guy at the UN) could not even get Kofi to change the brand name of his Chablis. Much less, anything of significance.

Flame on, if you must.

[zarf]

It would be a hell of alot cheaper to invest in alternatives to oil and get the hell out of that region of the world.

Without demand for oil that region would dry up and the sand monkeys would go back to camel humping.

[familyop]

"Maybe, and maybe their materiel comes across the border."

Apparently, you're referring to the Mexican border only. Such "materiel" would probably be more willingly received on the California coast by some of our "elite." They're more anti-American than most Mexicans.