“What’s up, Hiroshi? Let’s light this candle!”
We need to just man up and get this over with. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that we are eventually going to have to deal with them. Better now than later, especially later when they have nukes. Meanwhile, Gibbs is blathering on about the Olympics.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. - Ann Coulter
Pong
I gotcher two options right here (plus one): Israel blows up their facilities with nukes; Israel blows up their facilities conventionally; or Israel blows up their facilities using embedded “sleeper” saboteurs in an inside job. My money is on a blend of the latter two.
The headline is false. There aren't two choices left on Iran. Iran decided how this ends on its own, a long time ago. The only things we are dickering over are the butcher's bill and the payment date.
Which are related --- exponentially.
Looks like the 2010 Military Olympics have been awarded to Teheran.
“The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united and decisive action.”
GEORGE BUSH
Maybe we should point some of our warheads directly over when Amanut lives or stays or hides, that way any bone headed move will have him killed first. Could that deter him?
Then again maybe not...
"It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day."
The whole crux of his article, up until this point, is that Iran laughs at diplomatic/economic efforts, and Barry is too much of a wuss to stomach a war. So the only is to keep using these instruments of "soft" power? Haven't we learned from Afghanistan that the majority (not all) of these people simply do not want democracy and will send their children and ours to the grave to make that clear?
Sanctions and diplomacy can have no effect on a gov't that has NO CONSCIENCE. I don't want war with Iran, but looking at it with a cold eye - is there any other outcome, one way or another? There is no reason to presume that Iran will take control of nuclear weapons for the sake of diplomatic horse-trading. We can only assume they are acquiring them for the sake of using them. I don't relish the options for Israel, but, looking at this with a very VERY cold eye, if Israel fears it's own total destruction is imminent, a pre-emptive, gov't decapitating nuclear strike is not out of the realm of possibility. They would certainly become the most hated nation on earth, but, at this point, it's arguable that they are already, and an alternative nuclear holocaust is an utterly unacceptable possibility to Israel. If they truly felt that conventional strikes could not provide certainty, or merely kick the can down the road, I hazard to say that there is a very SMALL chance that a unilateral nuclear strike occurs. No outcome for Israel is worse than not-existing. If we see a missile test from Israel in the coming weeks/months, there may be no turning back.
God have mercy on us all.
There’s a huge problem. I don’t think it’s any accident or coincidence that Ahmanutjob is rattling the swords of war NOW, with the Marxist Muslim (another Jimmah Cahter) in charge. Where was the nut job for the past EIGHT YEARS? Keeping a lower profile, cause he knew that Bush wouldn’t back down from a confrontation, nor would Bush allow the US to lose that confrontation. Nutjob also knew that if it was Carter or Obama, or ANY DemocRAT in the office of CIC, he could be assured of not losing any conflict with the US. The DemocRAT President in charge would assure that, at least.
The problem Zero has is...his loyalties are torn. Whether to cater to the Saudi he bows to....and defeat Iran, or to lose a US war to Iran cause he hates the US. Decisions, decisions....
Obama will make sure we lose in Afghanistan...AND in Iran. He’ll throw anyone under the bus to accomplish his goal of destroying the USA. That’s my prediction.
No. At the heart of the problem is the American left and some Republicans, Eliot A. Cohen among them, who lobby for action and then, once we are committed, undermine our efforts.
Iraq could have been over in 3 years if they hadn't turned on the war.
Goes back before that too. For over half a century, some on the left aided, abetted, apologized for and were on the take from enemies of America. The history of the 20th century is the history of treason.
How they will finesse this with Obama in office, I don't know. But I'm confident if we do take action, America will be slammed by many of the Americans who now are calling for action.
Not making the call to ignore the problem. Iran should have been dealt with years ago. Bush tried to get it started with his Axis of evil speech and the reaction to that was ridicule and accusations he lied.
The writer of this article, Eliot A. Cohen is Exhibit #A in all this. He was vocal in his support of action against Iraq. I agreed with him. Then, once we were committed, once American lives were on the line, he turned on Bush and the war in Iraq. Everything we did was wrong. Bush blundered. Bush was full of happy talk. Bush didn't admit to errors.
So what do we do? Darned if I know. We should end Iran's nuke program of course. But, I suppose, we just have to be prepared now that it is likely Eliot A. Cohen and certain those on the left side will say we screwed it up once we do.
I keep reading that there will be a “sustantial” or “devasting” war and that this will engulf the region or even the world. I am wondering why there are some who think this. As others have pointed out we are already at war with Iran and have been for 30 years. I am sure they will try and ramp this up if we or the Israelis attack but just what are their capabilities? Are they any more likely than Saddam was to engage us in “the mother of all battles”? I just don’t see it.
I would expect a significant uptick in terrorist attacks in response to a hit on their nuclear facilities. They would probably launch rockets at our bases and Israel and probably with no more result than Saddam. Their air force is certainly no match for ours. Their navy can’t hope to match up with ours. I am doubt their land forces will not do much better than Saddam’s. So how does this turn into a large-scale regional war let alone a world war? I suppose Hezbolah and Hamas would strike at Israel but what’s new about that?
The biggest downside will be a large spike in oil prices. But if the oil shieks boost production even that could be ameliorated. I very much doubt the Iranians can close the Srait of Hormuz for any length of time if at all in the face of determined American naval and air forces.
Other than the timidity and fear of much of the west’s “leadership” I really don’t see anything in the way of a quick, decisive battle if our military is given the needed support. With a dud like Hussein in charge that is a large question.
Ummm....Boom.
“What’s up, Hiroshi? Let’s light this candle!”
The biggest problem with letting them have the bomb is that religious fanatics are not deterred by the concept of mutually assured destruction. Especially those who believe it is their moral duty to help bring about the end of the world.
Why aren’t Iranians rising up in numbers like they did during the overthrow of the Shah? If, as we have been told, the mullahs are so despised and hated, why do we see such comparatively small uprisings? It can’t be just a fear of retirbution, since the Shah’s regime killed plenty of protesters before he was overthrown.
The only logical reason would seem to be that a sizable percentage of Iranians still support the mullahs, and if that’s the case, the only real way to neutralize Iran would be a land invasion to physically overthrow the mullah’s regime and occupy the country, a scenario that is simply unthinkable.
We (or Israel) can bomb all we want for the next ten years, but until change occurs in Tehran, the mullahs will get their bomb.