Time To Talk With Iran

American and Iranian leaders are talking a great deal about each other -- when they should be devoting far more attention to talking to each other. Both sides are throwing sharp verbal punches with increasing frequency, amid news reports of a possible U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and continued efforts by Iran's leaders to advance their nation's nuclear capability.

While preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a bipartisan goal shared by just about everyone, the risks and perils of a war with Iran are little discussed in public by government leaders and are barely mentioned by the media. Americans continue to uselessly dissect the motives for invading Iraq -- when it is too late to do anything about it -- while failing to debate the far more fateful consequences of conflict with Iran when it might still be prevented.

There's no question that if Iran developed nuclear weapons the move would further unsettle the Middle East, put U.S. friends and allies at higher risk, raise fears of diversion of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, frighten Israel, and undercut American authority in the Persian Gulf.

At the same time, a U.S. attack on Iran would likely cause a spike in the price of oil, alienate Muslims, create a split within the NATO alliance, and lead to an increase in terrorism. It might even draw Iranian forces over the Iraqi border to attack U.S. troops.

And don't bring a man who isn't ready to die.

Sounds like a call for suicide missions.

Well, that's what our guys have historically done. They run their missions knowing there is no coming home. For the love of home; for the love of everyone back home. For their freedom.

But they don't target innocent civilians, the way our current enemy does. Yes, some innocents may be killed. BUT WE DO NOT TARGET THEM.

I'm telling you, you owe your freedom to these guys.

This is the same old crap we heard from the liberals during the Cold War.

Before dispensing his advice (which was usually some form of appeasement or surrender), the liberal policy wonk would first criticize both the U.S. and the Soviet sides -- tsk, tsk -- in order to appear "evenhanded" and to establish himself at a "morally superior" Olympian position from which to hand down his advice.

The liberal policy wonk would be wilfully blind to the huge moral discrepancy between the two sides, one being an aggressive, expansionist totalitarian dictatorship holding numerous countries captive under the heel of its boot, and the other standing for freedom and democracy.

However, the liberal policy wonk would get to gratify his ego by seeing his advice on the pages of the NYT or WaPo and feel important schmoozing at Georgetown or Upper West Side cocktail parties.

"And what would the nuking of an American city or cities likely cause?"

Global Chaos.

China is just evil enough, and rich enough, to let the world starve and sit there while its population dwindles to nothing.
China would eagerly watch America starve to death, and slowly inhabit her ports.

Yay communism and Che.

Asshole kids.

As usual, wonderful liberals are true to form. When Iran has treated everyone on the planet like clowns, liberals figure it's merely a sign that the Iranians are really interested in, you know, "coming to terms with the problem."

Such delusional stupidity should be illegal.

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.