Posted on 05/22/2007 8:01:45 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Podhoretz thoughtfully examines all the conventional pros and cons of attacking Iran. He quotes Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world: "MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the Cold War. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran's leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of thir own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights."
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Your increasing use of ad hominems demonstrate that the foundations of your positions rest on shifting sands.
For all of your personal knowledge of Iran, you fail to recognize the one critical factor which led to the fall of the Shah, and that was Jimmy Carter stabbing him in the back, that is established historical fact.
The similarities between Iran and Nazi Germany are not the stuff of bravado or exaggeration, ask Benjamin Netanyahu, he’s in a far better position to explain it to you.
You are attempting to view the Iranian problem much the way that Carter did, without considering the long term ramifications of failing to act when appropriate.
As for nuking Qom, I maintain it is a legitimate target that would provide a taste of REAL terror for the Islamofanatic nutjobs who are all for terrorizing we infidels (that’s you and me bub), but have no idea of what the United States is capable of unleashing upon them.
And what we have should have been unleashed, and long before Iran had thousands of centrifuges spinning on their way to the goal of fully weaponized nuclear material.
Your inability to see reality is (as I see it) based upon your own personal experience in Iran, and you quite frankly don’t want to see a place you used to live in become a place of desolation and destruction and I can understand that, but I have resigned myself long ago to the possibility that the place where I grew up (suburban Maryland outside D.C.) may well cease to exist some day if Islamofascist terrorists successfully manage to get a nuke into the area and set it off as they would love to do.
But nevertheless, you can sneer about me being ‘Walter Mitty’ but in your case I would be more concerned about how the spirit of Neville Chamberlain seems to be occupying more and more of your thoughts.
You want to wait. I say the time for waiting was over long ago. Iran is an increasing threat to both regional and global stability and you damn well know it.
Waiting is no longer the responsible choice, but you may well get your way because I too have doubts that the Bush Administration has the hair left to do what has to be done.
Do you know how Carter stabbed the Shah in the back? I will give you bonus points if you know the answer.
The similarities between Iran and Nazi Germany are not the stuff of bravado or exaggeration, ask Benjamin Netanyahu, he’s in a far better position to explain it to you.
Iran is a third world country. Comparing the threat it poses to the world to Nazi Germany is pure hyperbole.
You are attempting to view the Iranian problem much the way that Carter did, without considering the long term ramifications of failing to act when appropriate.
I am considering the long term ramifications. You really should read the Luttwak article.
Your inability to see reality is (as I see it) based upon your own personal experience in Iran, and you quite frankly don’t want to see a place you used to live in become a place of desolation and destruction and I can understand that, but I have resigned myself long ago to the possibility that the place where I grew up (suburban Maryland outside D.C.) may well cease to exist some day if Islamofascist terrorists successfully manage to get a nuke into the area and set it off as they would love to do.
I live in McLean, VA now.
But nevertheless, you can sneer about me being ‘Walter Mitty’ but in your case I would be more concerned about how the spirit of Neville Chamberlain seems to be occupying more and more of your thoughts.
I am not advocating appeasement. As I have said, the WOT cannot be won without regime change in Iran. We just disagree about to do it. I believe that most Iranians are still pro-American and want to get rid of the mullahs. It is not by accident that the place most Iranians go as part of their great "brain drain" is to Canada and America.
Waiting is no longer the responsible choice, but you may well get your way because I too have doubts that the Bush Administration has the hair left to do what has to be done.
We are not waiting. We have been exhausting the diplomatic route, including economic sanctions. We need to do more covertly and I would like Congress to pass a resolution declaring that regime change is our objective, the same way we did for Iraq. Only, the Iranian people will view it better, i.e., as an expression of support for them to take action. Military action by us is the last resort.
I was in Poland during the days of Solidarnosc'. I can tell you that Reagan's evil empire designation of the Soviet Union was well-received. The Pope and Reagan were viewed as inspirational figures by the Poles. They dedicated a square in Warsaw to Reagan. And the Poles are part of our coalition in Iraq.
Iran will be prevented from getting nuclear weapons if and when the US gets off its collective ass and breaks their ability to make them.
And how do you propose we do that and what will be the long term effect? Iran has enough money that it can buy nuclear weapons from cash starved North Korea or from renegade Paks. Unless we have regime change in Iran, bombing their facilities is a short term fix at best and that assumes that we know where all their nuclear facilities are.
Do you believe that the Dems and the American public will support a war against Iran or even military strikes? Does Bush have the credibility to make it work? What happens to the region and the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf once the strike is carried out? What effect will this have on our presence in Iraq? What is the impact on the global economy? Facts are stubborn things.
Are you an English major?
No, the won't have any money to buy any more anything after you blow the living hell out of their oil industry. And sink their tankers. And sink any ship trying to get from NK to Iran. And sink any Iranian vessel trying to interfer with shipping in the gulf. Iran is a pipsqueak country that took 8 years to stalemate Iraq, which we butchered in 3 weeks. Being deterred by them is a ridiculous delusion.
The dems would not support motherhood or apple pie if they heard the communist party denounce them. Irrelevant, asking for permission from notorious felons and traitors is a fool's policy. The president does not need them to secure the country against urgent threats to its security. Bush has nearly zero credibility largely because he continues to pussyfoot around, when the American people want victory yesterday.
The only effect it will have on our presence in Iraq is that we will be able to attack the half of our enemies there currently funded from and operating with impunity and state support from within Iran. Sanctuaries granted to enemies do not shorten guerilla wars or make them more victorious.
The impact on the global economy is to reduce the present risk premium in oil prices by roughly $25 a barrel. Which is there because people expect Iran to run a bomb production line continually without interference, and the Saudis to follow suit to balance against them, and the end result to be a nuclear war in the middle east within one generation. Which no one will win.
Sitting around with a thumb up your tail is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants you to do. It is hardly a concidence that the tendency of your comments coincides precisely with his interests and strategy.
We could bomb a little more than just their missile bunkers. Eradicating all remnants of a military and government would do the job nicely...ala iraq. We could decide later if we want to rebuild the place or not.
If we assure the destruction of Ahmadinejad, it won’t matter what he thinks.... he and his followers will be DEAD! AND there is now no one who will back up Iran and retaliate with nukes against US.
But still,...... Bush waits.
He said hair...
LOL... good one :)
The terrorist regime in Tehran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. President Bush will not allow it. You can go ahead and doubt the President as much as you want, but he is going to prove you and many wrong, as usual.
The CERTANTY that we will take a very dim view of rogue nukes will have a chilling effect on such trades.
Hello? They support abortion, that's about as far from supporting motherhood as one can get...
CERTAINTY? LOL. Did that disuade the North Koreans from developing and perhaps testing a nuclear weapon? Has it stopped Iran from going ahead with its nuclear program? Did it stop Pakistan or India from developing nuclear weapons?
We're a little busy 'nation building' in Iraq right now, they'll have to wait until we're done there.
(and, oh, that might go faster if Iran quits arming, funding, supplying, and supporting 'the insurgents')...
;^)
I fervently hope you are correct.
Still, we never dreamt he'd sign Campaign Finance 'Reform' either. It is just about as clear an abridgment of freedom of speech as one could possibly imagine.
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.