Posted on 09/20/2001 2:59:25 PM PDT by veronica
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
TEHRAN, Iran
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Depends on whether the Defense Department or the State Department wins the internal argument.
I tried earlier to post this Rich Lowry article, but I am having trouble posting new articles today. It's worth the read.
Columnist Zev Chafets, in New York's Daily News, further disputes the "coalition" argument.
The conventional wisdom in the American foreign policy establishment is that the U.S. cannot go to war without a coalition. That's what Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued on the "Charlie Rose" show the other day. He said the coalition must include moderate Arab countries. That is exactly wrong. That last thing America needs, or should seek, is a broad international coalition. . . .
The only way to stop the next attacks from killing tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, is to take the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Islamic Axis and its terrorist surrogates. At least three--Iran, Iraq and Syria--already pose a lethal danger to Western civilization (or to put it in less abstract terms, to you and your family).
In this effort, chasing Osama Bin Laden is a waste of time. So is waging symbolic war on Afghanistan, which poses no strategic threat to America. The U.S. must launch an invasion of the most dangerous countries, defeat their (unelected) leaders and empty their arsenals. For that, it does not need military help.
As the Gulf War demonstrated, Arab armies aren't formidable, and the Iranian Army isn't any better. It is preposterous to suggest that American troops, along with those from countries that want to join us, can't militarily overwhelm and disarm the Islamic Axis nations.
"Moderate" Arab states have no place in such a coalition, and it is unfair to ask them to join. The ugly truth is that a majority of their people identify with America's enemies. Forcing Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia to join a genuine war effort would only topple those governments.
I don't remember all of the words, but we may all need to get familiar with them in the near future. I do remember that it spoke of turning Iran into a parking lot, and ended with a sound that was obviously a nuclear explosion. :>)
BTW, I still have my copy of Bomb Iran on a 45!
Never heard of it.
We may need, however, to have a bit of a mobilization similar to, though not on the scale of, World War II.
Also, we should consider that the Chinese could take advantage of the fact that our armed forces will be largely tied up thousands of miles from Taiwan. If the North Koreans coordinate with them, we'll have a formidable problem. This speaks to me of the need to mobilize somewhat, just as a precaution. This is why I believe that we need a declaration of war - the entire world should know that we are serious, and Bush will need the authority and money to do some very serious things.
BUMP
A declaration of war is critically important.
The very last sentence about the choice of "infinite justice" is very compelling. We clearly see this as a law enforcement situation rather than what it is. A war against us by most Islamic nations in which they are the only ones fighting.
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.