Victor Davis Hanson: The Multilateral Moment? Our bad and worse choices about Iran

NRO ^ | January 13, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

[meema]

VDH bttt!

[silverleaf]

A good well-reasoned article.

I suppose we are fortunate to have George W. Bush in the Presdiency at this moment in history. But oh, what we could have accomplished had the world stood up with us against madmen.

[sono]

VDH reality check for this Fri 13.

[loreldan]

This is one war I hope doesn't come, but if it does we need some real shock and awe. Let's get in there take out the nuclear program quickly and take control of oil facilities. Then let the Iranian population take care of the rest.

[dennisw]

righteous from VDH and too true for most to contemplate

[boris]

The only solution is for the U.S. to take out all their nuclear facilities. Which makes the cancellation of the "nuclear bunker buster" one of the stupidest acts ever enacted by Congress.

--Boris

[rock_lobsta]

So true. If the dems could only have worked with the President and worked out a policy that would be in our country's best interest before and during the Iraq war, we would be in a much better position to deal with a nuclear Iran.

However, the dems, flailing in their Anti-Bush temper tantrums, along with their accomplices in the media, have enabled Iran to take its hard-line stance against Israel and the west. We would not have the terrorism in Iraq if only the dems left our country's foreign policy on our shorelines.

[afnamvet]

A sobering analysis from VDH regarding the growing threat from Iran. An unspeakable horror that needs to be neutralized sooner rather than later.

[kellynla]

my vote: Embargo
Squeeze Iran like a pimple until she cries "uncle!"
We'll pay the price at the pumps but IMO Iran is not worth the cost of one American Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[stocksthatgoup]

Time to make glass!

[freeangel]

bttt

[pawdoggie]

my vote: Embargo Squeeze Iran like a pimple until she cries "uncle!" We'll pay the price at the pumps but IMO Iran is not worth the cost of one American Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine.

1. If we allow Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, a lot more than just one American serviceman or woman will be at risk. This isn't about "Iran" in the sense of trying to liberate or help or impose a government on that unfortunate country, it's about preventing madmen from using nuclear weapons. That's been "job one" for our military for a number of years now. 2. With the arguable exception of the "boycott" of (white) South Africa, name one "embargo" or sanctions regime in modern times that actually "worked". 3. You and I may be willing to "pay the price at the pump", but a lot of our fellow citizens, Chinese citizens, Europeans, etc. would look you in the eye and say, "What do you mean we, paleface?"

[kellynla]

like many on FR, you're great about criticizing others but you fail to propose a solution...

[usurper]

I think it is time that the EU step up to the plate and take the lead on something, yes even militarily. I know it sounds implausible, even funny, but with us in support they might even win one for a change. They certainly could use a victory to help their deflated self-esteem. A week Europe is not much help these days.

[Brian Allen]

<< A good well-reasoned article.

I suppose we are fortunate to have George W. Bush in the Presdiency ... >>

Oh that that supposition came even close.

I on the other hand - and to paraphrase Hansen - suppose that the American public must be warned that the election of a George W Bush was "not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come."

BUMPping

[silverleaf]

Beg to disgaree with the inference.

Bush doesn't even come close to being a "very bad choice" considering that our alternatives for US leadership (and therefore, world leadership) were Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

[Brian Allen]

<< Beg to disgaree with the inference.

Bush doesn't even come close to being a "very bad choice" considering that our alternatives for US leadership (and therefore, world leadership) were Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. >>

The only inference taken was the one, whatever it was, arrived at by you. So I guess you are disgaree-ing with yourself?

In 2000, after he became the Republican candidate, I supported, worked for and voted for candidate Bush and I [Took three months off and travelled nine thousand miles and back and] supported, worked for and voted to re-elect him President in 2004.

That said, I stand by my use of the Hansen analogy.

Perhaps if you read what Mr Hansen said - and my analogy - you and I might be roughly on the same page and/or in the same conversation.

Cordially - Brian

[pawdoggie]

like many on FR, you're great about criticizing others but you fail to propose a solution...

I didn't propose a solution because (so far) I believe that the Bush Administration is on the right track: heavy emphasis on diplomacy to either force the "world community" to do what you suggested (although that will not work), or to admit their powerlessness, which will free us to either (covertly) assist the Israelis or to "activate" the reported list of five thousand targets in Iran.