Skip to comments.Krauthammer: Making A Decision On Iran
Posted on 09/15/2006 11:10:51 AM PDT by FroufrouEdited 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 ...
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.
If oil went above $100, Chavez would be selling it like hot cakes.
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...;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Life is going to get very uncomfortable.
I suppose you'll be lining up to say it's Bush's fault.
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.
The Arab Press and MSM, but the "Arab street" knows that the Lebanese people would prefer not to have any more such victories.
Sounds a bit like Jimmah Carter.
Remember those speeches about setting the thermostat at 68 and "tightening our belts" in the 70's?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.
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.
iran and cheney will make an "A-bomb Truman" outta Pres. Bush
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.
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).
Why do you name Cheney?
Why do you name Cheney?
am guessin that V.P. has influence on Pres.; that's all.
LOL! Me, too! What a mess this poor old world is in.
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.
We'd better get some refineries too, since we ain't built any here since 1976.............FRegards
Actually I heard Iran has almost zilch in refining capabilities.
"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?
Read the whole thing -- it's even-handed.
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.
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.