Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: Making A Decision On Iran
Townhall.com ^ | 09/15/06 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 09/15/2006 11:10:51 AM PDT by Froufrou

Edited on 09/15/2006 11:20:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not ``leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.

The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ``It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''


(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: bombirannow; bombiransoilwells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2006 11:10:52 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

OK. They win.

We can't do anything or they will cause economic damage to our economy. I guess we can wait for the nukes or maybe just convert to islam.

/sarc


2 posted on 09/15/2006 11:13:01 AM PDT by Paloma_55 (I may be a hateful bigot, but I still love you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

If oil went above $100, Chavez would be selling it like hot cakes.


3 posted on 09/15/2006 11:14:38 AM PDT by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age.

And, last paragraph, page two, makes it clear: here are the choices, with the decision "no more" than one year away.
4 posted on 09/15/2006 11:18:08 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
You left out page 2.

-PJ

5 posted on 09/15/2006 11:18:14 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

Thanks for posting this. It was posted under a different title from a different source, but deserves a second posting.

Watch out for the Posting Police...;)


6 posted on 09/15/2006 11:19:30 AM PDT by oxcart (Journalism [Sic])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55; oldleft

I keep saying, what if we just quit consuming so much of the stuff? That's the only thing we ever cared about from them. If we stop using their oil, though, it would make them even madder. And Chavez would be hard put to sell us oil if we weren't buying from his buddies in the ME.


7 posted on 09/15/2006 11:20:05 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
It's about a half of an actual article and the article contains not only a description of the military option potential cost, but also describes the choice: high cost - now, or a catastrophic cost - later.
8 posted on 09/15/2006 11:22:42 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
OK. They win.

Who says?

9 posted on 09/15/2006 11:24:30 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Yo, Frouf,

At the moment, Hugo's oil can be refined at a limited number of refineries in the Caribbean and the US. If we bought more from him than we already do, we would have to bring other refineries online to process his oil. That would not be easy, as refineries are pretty much tailored to their particular feedstocks and it can take many months to switch them to efficiently handle new stuff.

Of course, we could build more refineries, but that is another story. There is absolutely no shortage of crude oil anywhere. The bottleneck is refining capacity to handle it.

10 posted on 09/15/2006 11:30:36 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (What does it matter if we’re all dead, as long as the French respect us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

I don't see why everyone is afraid of Iran.

If you look at a map, most of their oil assets are right along the coast, right next to Iraq. It is all located in flat terrain.

http://www.webcom.com/beacon/mapcorridor.html

We could probably shoot across the coast; south east from Iraq, south west from Afghanistan, and link up somewhere in the middle.

Simultaneously we begin a REAL shock and awe campaign to destroy all military and goverment assets.

We would take over management of the oil fields and ports. All funds generated from the sale oil would be turned over to any legitimatly elected government should one ever emerge.

The mullahs would be cut-off and their government would collapse. No more petro-dollars funding their mad dreams. The oil market would suffer a serious jolt, but would be back to normal in no time.

CYP


11 posted on 09/15/2006 11:35:56 AM PDT by Check_Your_Premises (Ceterum censeo <Islamofascism> esse delendam -Huerro the Elder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

"We can't do anything or they will cause economic damage to our economy. I guess we can wait for the nukes or maybe just convert to islam. "

That sums it up, I think. What we've really done is left the check to Israel. Iran WILL nuke Israel. The entire Muslim world is of one accord here in believing the cause of all their problems is Israel.


12 posted on 09/15/2006 11:38:51 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Or, Iran might just announce that the "The Great Satan and it's Pygmy Leaders has once against demonstrated their impotence and criminality" and that its nuclear programs were still intact - likely neither we nor anyone else outside of Iran would know if this were true or not.

As recent events in Lebanon reminded us, if your are the militarily stronger power, anything less than a convincing victory is regarded in much of the world as a defeat.

Events in Iraq have already reduced the credibility of our ground forces as a deterrent, a "failed" air attack on Iran would do the same for our air-power. Unless we are prepared to bring such an effort to a convincingly successful conclusion - something that could not be done by air-power alone, but which would likely require occupying the country and ferreting out well-hidden installations - IMO we should not start down the road of half-measuers.
13 posted on 09/15/2006 11:40:21 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
My sincerest good wishes for the EU -- it's between the proverbial rock and hard place. Russia/Putin on the North and East and Islam on the South and East. Not a pretty place to be. Presumably, I'd be doing a lot of double-speak to keep treading water for as long as I could, as well.

All the disinformation and revisionist historical accounts of the poor Muslims, the brutish Crusades, and the simple Russian peasants who just love their borst and vodka and have no thoughts to globalization. It's too much for most -- I can understand why some folks just pull the covers up and put the pillows over their heads. It's too much to combat and the only solution seems too heartless to contemplate to those of us who simply want to live as the Good Lord gives us direction.

I hate it when you have to choose between two evils. It seems unfair at the least and downright cheating at worst.
14 posted on 09/15/2006 11:46:12 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Check_Your_Premises
"All funds generated from the sale oil would be turned over to any legitimatly elected government should one ever emerge."

Would that be the government composed of the people who would be throwing flowers at our feet as we invaded their country and took over their oilfields?

Very likely, after such a occupation whatever government was "legitimately elected" would be even more anti-American than the current crop of Mullahs, so we would be looking at an open-ended occupation of Iran. That is, at the difficulties of our current occupation of Iraq, squared.

15 posted on 09/15/2006 11:46:30 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
I was always amazed when reading about our Civil War or WWI when everyone knew war was coming and nothing could be done to stop it. It is interesting to see it occur. In addition we boomer's have never sacrificed during war time; it appears we may soon.
16 posted on 09/15/2006 11:47:00 AM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Check_Your_Premises; Kenny Bunk

Good points, of course. All that nonsense about oil shortage in the 70's should remind us. We've got a new find off the Gulf of Mexico and Valero has a refinery on Aruba. Still, I wouldn't trust Chavez as far as I can spit.


17 posted on 09/15/2006 11:48:20 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

"Events in Iraq have already reduced the credibility of our ground forces as a deterrent, a "failed" air attack on Iran would do the same for our air-power. Unless we are prepared to bring such an effort to a convincingly successful conclusion - something that could not be done by air-power alone, but which would likely require occupying the country and ferreting out well-hidden installations - IMO we should not start down the road of half-measuers."

Agreed, if we don't attack with combined forces of air, ground troops, tanks, missles, special opps the works then we should bone up our intelligence like we did in the Cold War, secure our borders and put Iran on notice that a WMD strike on any of our allies guarantees a nuclear response from us.


18 posted on 09/15/2006 11:48:22 AM PDT by quantfive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
We need to acquire energy at the lowest possible prices in order to compete with other nations in our production and transportion of other goods, as well as to provide our citizenry a comfortable life.

If we boycott the unfriendly nations' oil, it will not lower the price they get, as other industrial nations will buy it.

Therefore, the only ways we can hurt them is by becoming more efficient in how we use energy, by alternative energies becoming more cost-efficient, or by developing U.S. oil reserves.

The market can do most of this the most efficiently. We should start our campaign by stopping the demonization of oil companies.
19 posted on 09/15/2006 11:49:37 AM PDT by kenavi (Save romance. Stop teen sex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican; Constitutions Grandchild

You're right. We haven't sacrificed, like our parents did. My mom had to save rations for meat and shoes. But we're Americans and we can do so, if need be. This is what makes us who we are [IMHO] and where others discount us. If we're pushed into a corner, watch out.


20 posted on 09/15/2006 11:51:43 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Constitutions Grandchild
It would be nice if the Lord decided to come back now and straighten all this out. It may be our only hope.

carolyn

21 posted on 09/15/2006 11:53:48 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
as well as to provide our citizenry a comfortable life.

Life is going to get very uncomfortable.

I suppose you'll be lining up to say it's Bush's fault.

22 posted on 09/15/2006 11:54:18 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

I agree to a point, but I say we've got to limit consumption. It's okay to drive an SUV, but take turns if you can. In my case, my Accord does not use much fuel. But, I can still help by taking the bus and parking my car except for weekends, for example. This would also cause higher resale for lower mileage.


23 posted on 09/15/2006 11:54:42 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas
As recent events in Lebanon reminded us, if your are the militarily stronger power, anything less than a convincing victory is regarded in much of the world as a defeat.

The Arab Press and MSM, but the "Arab street" knows that the Lebanese people would prefer not to have any more such victories.

24 posted on 09/15/2006 11:58:59 AM PDT by Maceman (This is America. Why must we press "1" for English?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
I say we've got to limit consumption

Sounds a bit like Jimmah Carter.

Remember those speeches about setting the thermostat at 68 and "tightening our belts" in the 70's?

25 posted on 09/15/2006 11:59:05 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: what's up

I don't know about Jimmah, since I didn't listen to him then anymore than now. I do now that the termostat and belt tricks have worked for me in the past just as they do now.


26 posted on 09/15/2006 12:01:06 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
"But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.

Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.

The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed but at considerable cost. And it will take time -- during which time the world economy will be in a deep spiral."

This surprises me, because I thought that Krauthammer was smarter than this. Does he really think the US Navy will be in react mode in the Strait of Hormuz, waiting for the Iranians to start causing havoc before they do anything to "break the blockade"? I can't imagine the Navy doing anything other than preventing a blockade and securing the Strait for the 15 minutes or so that it will take to crush the Iranian Navy and every known and suspected threat along the Iranian coast.

27 posted on 09/15/2006 12:03:14 PM PDT by Axhandle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axhandle

Back up. Go back to the first paragraph, "closing the port," and keep in mind that there are trade agreements being broken here. If ships are attacked, it's an act of war, as well. Does it still sound stupid?


28 posted on 09/15/2006 12:06:26 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
we've got to limit consumption

Yes, my family has also had to cut back at times when the money flow was tight. As do most families at times.

It's the collective "we" that worries me...when the whole nation is told to cut back.

Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was into growing the economy, not cutting back on it like Carter lectured us about. This, in turn, allowed our military to prosper with increased funds and grow stronger to fight, not cut back and grow weaker.

29 posted on 09/15/2006 12:06:52 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: what's up

If we were to limit voluntarily, we'd be able to get along better with the greenbelt fanatics. Maybe make some converts in the prospect. They aren't all bad. Erin Brokovich can tell you that. Besides, many here were Dems once. And once only! LOL!


30 posted on 09/15/2006 12:09:42 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

I hope you're right. I don't share your optimistic view of the general public. I think most Americans (leftists and those too uninformed to vote) are too selfish to sacrifice for anyone else and too focused on their own instant gratification. One-third of this country carries all of the weight. The other two-thirds (leftists and other uninformed) are parasites who contribute nothing of value to the nation.


31 posted on 09/15/2006 12:10:29 PM PDT by Axhandle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Axhandle

Wish I could argue those points, but I can't. Liberals have managed to perpetuate the incessant howling of "me, me, me" throughout the Democrat constiuency. Blecht.


32 posted on 09/15/2006 12:13:56 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Back up. Go back to the first paragraph, "closing the port," and keep in mind that there are trade agreements being broken here. If ships are attacked, it's an act of war, as well. Does it still sound stupid?

I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.

33 posted on 09/15/2006 12:15:44 PM PDT by Axhandle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
If we were to limit voluntarily

I don't see a real need to make converts of the ecos based on bad economic principles. And I don't see a need to cut back. If individuals like you want to, or course, go ahead.

I believe, actually that the US oil industry should compete in a more muscular fashion with the Mid-East oil. The eco people have held us back for too long, causing a lot of the problems.

34 posted on 09/15/2006 12:15:55 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

iran and cheney will make an "A-bomb Truman" outta Pres. Bush


35 posted on 09/15/2006 12:16:41 PM PDT by 1234 (WHO is Responsible for ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up

I agree our own oil industry should be more aggressive. Had W been able to get backing in 2000 for Alaska drilling, things would be different now, I suspect.


36 posted on 09/15/2006 12:20:30 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Had W been able to get backing in 2000 for Alaska drilling, things would be different now

Exactly...this is the way to go not "tighten our belts" a la Jimmah (IMO).

Many of the bad countries would just benefit more from the depleted economy a collective "tighten your belts" approach would cause the US (ex. China).

37 posted on 09/15/2006 12:26:16 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1234

Why do you name Cheney?


38 posted on 09/15/2006 12:27:38 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1234

Why do you name Cheney?


39 posted on 09/15/2006 12:27:38 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CDHart
All the talk about Christians wanting a theocracy by those who have misinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the Constitution -- yet they say they love Jesus -- what do they think we'll be living under when He returns?

I would never have tried to go for broke the way Lucifer did -- who would want the job the Lord will have when he returns? All the mess to clean up! All the people to keep happy -- Oy! Now THERE's an EXCEDRIN HEADACHE! They'd have to hold a gun to my head to get me to return -- I'd put it off as long as I could.

I sure hope He gets here soon, I've been watching and hoping for as long as I've been alive.
40 posted on 09/15/2006 12:33:25 PM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Why do you name Cheney?

am guessin that V.P. has influence on Pres.; that's all.

41 posted on 09/15/2006 12:34:14 PM PDT by 1234 (WHO is Responsible for ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Constitutions Grandchild
"They'd have to hold a gun to my head to get me to return -- I'd put it off as long as I could."

LOL! Me, too! What a mess this poor old world is in.

Carolyn

42 posted on 09/15/2006 12:46:49 PM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
The Arab Press and MSM (may beleive this was a Hezbollah victory), but the "Arab street" knows that the Lebanese people would prefer not to have any more such victories.

We know this how?

Because Hezbollah has been ejected from Lebanon's government?

Because there have been massive street demonstrations against Hezbollah in Bruit (as there were against Syria two years ago)?

Because we are reading news reports of spitting and cursing villagers refusing Hezbollah aid in rebuilding?

Because the governments of most other Islamic states are issuing daily denunciation of Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon?

Because Lebanese public opinion is forcing Hezbollah to disarm?

No one likes to be on the receiving end of an fective air campaign against their country's basic infrastructure, or to be even temporary refuges forced from their homes.

But that's not the same as blaming Hezbollah for their situation.

For example a poll taken last week shows that the Lebanese population is split almost evenly of the question of whether Hezbollah should be disarmed – about the same as before the war – and The UN secretary-general was jeered in a Shiite suburb of Beirut last week – a pretty good measure of Shiite Lebanon's endorsement of UN hopes of disarming Hezbollah.

According to every report I've read – including those in the Israeli press - the fact that Hezbollah after weeks of punishing attacks of Israel was still launching missiles for as little a two miles north of the border increased their creditability on “The Arab Street” because they were absorbing punishing attacks but continued to respond with attacks of this their own.

You can't apply “western” standards when attempting to predict or understand the effects such measures upon "honor societies" - in this case it appears that the greater the damage inflicted by Israel on Lebanon, the greater the “honor” of the Hezbollah “resistance” and the civilian “martyrs” who died in Israeli attacks.

43 posted on 09/15/2006 12:54:18 PM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Check_Your_Premises
Yer # 11 - couldn't have said it better myself, and it'll happen within a year!

We'd better get some refineries too, since we ain't built any here since 1976.............FRegards

44 posted on 09/15/2006 1:19:31 PM PDT by gonzo (.........Good grief!...I'm as confused as a baby in a topless club!.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gonzo

Actually I heard Iran has almost zilch in refining capabilities.


45 posted on 09/15/2006 1:23:57 PM PDT by Check_Your_Premises (Ceterum censeo <Islamofascism> esse delendam -Huerro the Elder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

"so we would be looking at an open-ended occupation of Iran"

Not of Iran, just their oil fields. THat is my WHOLE point. We can forgo a messy occupation and nation building type venture. We cut off their funds and destroy their nuke capabilities. They will no longer have funds to support terrorism. They will no longer have a military to suppress the populace.

True they would be more mad at us than the mullahs, but who cares?

CYP


46 posted on 09/15/2006 1:28:24 PM PDT by Check_Your_Premises (Ceterum censeo <Islamofascism> esse delendam -Huerro the Elder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
There are many economic factors that are not being taken into account. Sure the West is running out of oil, cheap oil. At $100 a barrel, we have reserves that dwarf the demand, so a percipitous climb in oil prices would be very temporary, and it would gradually start coming down again. The question really is: "Just how dangerous are the Mad Mullahs of Iran?" If they are really dangerous, then we have the choice of the economic damgage of high oil prices, or of flattened major cities? I think the rapid pace of events will decide our course for us, and it won't be surrender.
47 posted on 09/15/2006 1:33:52 PM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

Read the whole thing -- it's even-handed.


48 posted on 09/15/2006 1:38:16 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Richard Axtell

Agreed. All the anti-Bush sentiments the Libbies have harbored and fed ad nauseum will make things even worse. I hope their stubborn stupidity won't drag us down any further.


49 posted on 09/15/2006 1:45:28 PM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

Does the recent price drop in gasoline have anything to do with our potential "energy independence"? We have 5 ethanol plant under construction in Ohio. (We can debate the efficency of products later.) But, with that and the recent oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, would cheaper product make it less attractive to invest in alternative fuels or new oil fields?

Iran? I'm still concerned about Russia!! Putin is doing a good job of creating a hedgemony by using Iran.


50 posted on 09/15/2006 1:46:03 PM PDT by griswold3 (Ken Blackwell, Ohio Governor in 2006- No!! You cannot have my governor in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson