How to Stand Up to Iran

Real Clear Politics ^ | 03/28/2007 | Dick Morris

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping-a-ling.

[theFIRMbss]

>How to Stand Up to Iran


I'm not a big fan
of the Coulter person, but
she nailed down that one:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

[Dr. Frank fan]

I wish that something like "sanctions" would accomplish something against a foe such as Iran. I suspect that they will not.

[radar101]

And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor.

I can't stand Dodd or Lantos, but I'd follow Duncan Hunter anywhere.

[Recon Dad]

We should pass — and the president should sign — the Dodd-Lantos bill

"That's courageous"! How about targeting their staging sites across the border from Iraq.

[TomasUSMC]

mandating economic sanctions

---

Bull Crap.

Military Action on a WW2 scale is what is needed. In Iran AND IRAQ.

Today Fallujah was hit with Chlorine Gas Attacks. Tomorrow it will be a dirty nuke car bomb - and we will still do nothing.... because our troops are being used as police law enforcement and surrounded by hostile shiite millions.

Split Iraq up and get out
Nuke Iran
Let the Arab neighbors pick up the pieces with the understanding that if they continue to consider US infidels, they will become what they are picking up.

The Iraqis have chosen Islam over Freedom - let them have it.

[HitmanLV]

It's all we have right now. Public confidence in the admin's ability to wage a successful military adventure is very, very low. Dubya just doesn't have the stroke to get physical with Iran right now. A bitter pill for some to swallow.

[Turbo Pig]

They will do two things:

1) They will weaken them further financially, which will destablize them internally, and make it harder for them to wage war against us. They have already been hit hard by current US policy towards them, which is partially behind this current adventure they are in.

2) They will force them to react to our actions, rather than dictating the pace of the conflict developing, as they are attempting to do now. This will lead to greater risk of miscalculation on their part.

Sanctions should not be the end all, be all of US policy. They do, and should, play an important part, though.

[tired1]

morris shoud stick to sucking women's toes.

[GOP_1900AD]

Once in a while, the WW2 affected Jew in Lantos breaths a small breeze of sense into his sails. This is one such moment.

[MilesVeritatis]

BEWARE THE FURY OF A PATIENT WEST. WE ARE NOT AS DOCILE AS YOU THINK AND WE DO NOT FORGET. DOES THE NUMBER '444' RING A BELL?

[Issaquahking]

And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor.


A man with principles, running for president? Should be on out there on every station, instead,we only get the chirping of crickets from LSM when a man of principle and conviction comes along. We have a lot of work in front of us folks!

[BuffaloJack]

I have to agree with Ms. Coulter. It is the correct thing to do.

[elfman2]

People don’t take this seriously, thinking I’m aligned with the “nuke’m crowd”, but there’s an innovative solution to terrorism in Iraq that,
1) does not substantially escalate a regional conflict,
2) does not substantially compromise our values,
3) does not kill innocents, and
4) does not align the world against us.

We should of course give any captured insurgents who’ve entered Iraq a fair military trial if they are accused of supporting war crimes. And if they came from or entered though a terrorist nation, send them back to the parliament building of that nation from 10,000 ft.

Think I’m nuts? Think about it Very Slowly. What are those nation’s going to respond with? "Will they say:
- “stop bombing us with the people who came over to bomb you"?
- "stop terrorizing these suicide bombers"?
- "stop brutalizing these terrorist"?
- "stop making us look weak and complacent every time we complain"?

That single focused response, partnered with an effective information warfare campaign, would likely scare the crap out to terrorist recruits, even those who claim they want to die. It would demonstrate that we're as commited, certain, and brutal as our enemy. It would demonstrate our restraint in protecting the innocent. But Most important, it would generate tremendous press every time it is practiced, and every time our enemy tried to use it as evidence of our aggression, it would be impossible not to notice that each incident began with an aggressive act by Islamist war criminals.

Again, I’m not with the nuke’m or wrap’m in bacon crowd at all. This is much more focused, easier to morally defend, and just as effective in capturing world attention. Will it be done? Of course not, but it SHOULD be done. That’s all I’m saying…

[NavyCanDo]

Burn this quote in your memory.

"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims. Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map." Former president of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjai.

[Dr. Frank fan]

It's all we have right now. Public confidence in the admin's ability to wage a successful military adventure is very, very low. Dubya just doesn't have the stroke to get physical with Iran right now. A bitter pill for some to swallow.

Dubya could give the order to launch a military strike at any time. No one is talking about "adventures".

No one is talking about ground forces, for example.

Also, while you are probably right about public opinion (although I'm not sure the public wouldn't support action against Iran if it came to that), either way Dubya is not running for anything. So the only reason this would prevent him from doing something is... um... if he didn't want to be disliked. In other words, it would require political courage. Leadership.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Sanctions should not be the end all, be all of US policy. They do, and should, play an important part, though.

You make good points, and as long as the word "part" is operative there, that's ok with me.

[HitmanLV]

Could sink the GOP and a GOP presidential nominee even further.

[Ouderkirk]

We should of course give any captured insurgents who’ve entered Iraq a fair military trial if they are accused of supporting war crimes. And if they came from or entered though a terrorist nation, send them back to the parliament building of that nation from 10,000 ft.

I am going to assume that you are suggesting that these persons be repatriated without the use of a parachute.

Douse them with pigs blood and strafe the capitol buildings with them. Swoop in at Mach 1 and pepper the building with the porcine soaked jihadists.