Skip to comments.The Case for Bombing Iran
Posted on 05/22/2007 8:01:45 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Podhoretz thoughtfully examines all the conventional pros and cons of attacking Iran. He quotes Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world: "MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the Cold War. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran's leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of thir own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights."
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
I read this the other day. Noman nails it.
Nope. In 15 minutes blow every dam they have (all 42 of them) That will be enough to cause quite a bit of internal havock that they may think we are serious. They will then have to spend a crapload of money on fixing all that damage and hopefully some of the NUKE sites will be covered in hecter acres of water.
Our Government’s desire to please western Europe is one consideration behind the reluctance to take down Iran’s nuclear facilities and military forces. Western European nations (and certain people in our government) are full of wishful thinking about Iran targeting Israel exclusively (which thinking Iran continues to support).
Iran is befriending the Saudis and will soon control the Middle East after mounting nukes. Then Iran will target England after having installed many more guerrilla cells there and in the USA.
BTW, several other Islamist regimes will also obtain nuclear weapons as Iran does so. The mullahs have made quite a few promises to their friends. Nuclear exchanges will be inevitable in the near future, IMO.
I was kind of freaked out about the 6/6/06 date, but that came and went in the past without us attacking Iran. Now it is the summer of 2007 and if we intend to attack them then I figure we ought to should get attacking or it will be too late. See if we wait until either Hillary or Obama wins then I don't figure we would be in too preemptive a mood at the CIC level. I will never understand why we didn't handle the Syrian and Iranian problems at the same time that we hammered down on Iraq. The limited awareness and participation among the general American population is one of the biggest reasons that I left the military after 22 years.
I can't imagine why the security council isn't in an emergency session right now, trying to figure out how quickly we can stop these people. I guess they are too busy being irrelevant. I suppose our Senate should be debating the language of the declaration of war on Iran, but they are too busy keeping our borders open and making sure that we are attacked from within. CONGRESS YOU ARE DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, MY WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, AND MY COUNTRY.
I hope that the government operatives that monitor this website will begin to understand that they should start to let our congress know that Americans are ready to wake up to a new future where our children can smile with the optimism of opportunity. It will take guts to make the tough decisions that are ahead. If we stupidly ignore the existential threat represented by the lunatic hailing from the scorching sands of Persia, then the result will be a literal/metaphoric rejection of Israel. America must never reject Israel.
Iran is a past and future ally. We should seek regime change without alienating most of the Iranian people who are on our side. I am not ruling out bombing as a last resort, but we would be better served if we can support the domestic opposition and use covert means to get rid of the mullahs.
Iran is seen as a major threat by the Saudis. There is no love lost between the House of Saud and the mullahs. And the Saudis have much larger proven oil reserves and produce twice as much oil and have the capacity to produce three times what Iran produces. There is no way the Saudis would accept Iranian control over the Middle East. The Iranians are not Arabs and they don't share the same language or culture as Saudi Arabia. We will not let Iran take control of the Middle East.
Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran....
Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran .....
Bomb Iraaaaaannnn !
Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran....
Thanks for the ping. I have had to many folks pinging me today, while I had to work till 11PM. I am shot. I’ll just say. Almadijinda (sp?) (I’m very tired), is a duel use clown. He will press for anything that pleases the senior Mullahs, and at the same time thinks if we rain nuclear weapons upon their heads it will bring on the hidden iman. One cannot reason with clowns like these. Their assholes.
Here are two very good reads on this subject:
Can USA avoid attacking Iran?
Iran - Justified Final Solution
Thank you FARS for the ping.
"MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the Cold War. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran's leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again."
Makes a beautiful background, you could have some type of fighter plane fly across it.
Heading for bed, worn out today. Night.
ou are the “mother of all graphics” so you will give birth to more :-))
Look forward to them. Spices up the AntiMullah pages.
Did you like the carrots on the home page? http://www.antimullah.com