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

Skip to comments.

The Case for Bombing Iran
Commentary ^ | June, '07 | Norman Podhoretz

Posted on 05/22/2007 8:01:45 PM PDT by T.L.Sink

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
A very thorough and realistic assessment of a new global enemy and why we'd better quickly get away from the old statecraft "foggy bottom" mentality of talk, talk, talk, and hope reason and sanity prevail. What's especially interesting is Podhoretz's conjectures about what Bush will do.
1 posted on 05/22/2007 8:01:46 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

I read this the other day. Noman nails it.


2 posted on 05/22/2007 8:03:20 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Al Qaeda knows Iraq's strategic value, yet the Democrats work day and night for our defeat there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; jveritas; jmc1969; FARS; Ernest_at_the_Beach; knighthawk; Marine_Uncle; SandRat; ...

Ping.


3 posted on 05/22/2007 8:03:50 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Al Qaeda knows Iraq's strategic value, yet the Democrats work day and night for our defeat there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
It is time to launch a massive air and naval air war against the Iranian terrorist regime nuclear sites, its military infrastructures, command and control centers, etc...
4 posted on 05/22/2007 8:10:44 PM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

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.


5 posted on 05/22/2007 8:31:29 PM PDT by Walkingfeather (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

ping


6 posted on 05/22/2007 8:32:37 PM PDT by Doctor Don
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

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.


7 posted on 05/22/2007 8:34:44 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.--has been))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

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.


8 posted on 05/22/2007 8:37:34 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.--has been))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
I thought we would have attacked them when we learned that this was their behavior:Apparently it will take something really radical, like attack our embassy... (hmmm) or threaten to wipe Israel off the map... (hmmmm) or refuse to talk to our Secretary of State... (hmmmmmmmm) or reject the IAEA while quickly enhancing centrifuge technology... (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)

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.

9 posted on 05/22/2007 8:39:13 PM PDT by gcraig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Norman is full of it. Edward N. Luttwak: "Three reasons not to bomb Iran - yet"

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.

10 posted on 05/22/2007 8:44:07 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
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.

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.

11 posted on 05/22/2007 8:50:41 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran....
Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran .....
Bomb Iraaaaaannnn !
Bomb Iraaaaaannnnn!

Bomb bomb bomb , bomb bomb Iran....


12 posted on 05/22/2007 9:12:06 PM PDT by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

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.


13 posted on 05/22/2007 9:24:37 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle; All; 1035rep; 1curiousmind; 4woodenboats; 5Madman2; 68skylark; AdmSmith; airborne; ...

Here are two very good reads on this subject:

Can USA avoid attacking Iran?

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/01/can-usa-avoid-attacking-iran-can-we.html

Iran - Justified Final Solution

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/08/iran-justified-final-solution.html


14 posted on 05/22/2007 10:12:23 PM PDT by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thank you FARS for the ping.


15 posted on 05/22/2007 10:14:26 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: devolve; FARS
Thanks for the ping FARS. Think I am running out of Iranian graphics that you haven't seen.


16 posted on 05/22/2007 10:16:41 PM PDT by potlatch (MIZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MIKAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fedora; Fred Nerks; ...
"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."

17 posted on 05/22/2007 10:19:42 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated May 22, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

18 posted on 05/22/2007 10:28:08 PM PDT by devolve ( _ignore_tax_the_illegal_alien_way?_ _Bush_selling_out_the_USA?_)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Makes a beautiful background, you could have some type of fighter plane fly across it.

Heading for bed, worn out today. Night.


19 posted on 05/22/2007 10:31:56 PM PDT by potlatch (MIZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MIKAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; All

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


20 posted on 05/22/2007 10:37:20 PM PDT by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: devolve; FARS

Sometimes I feel like the ‘Great Grand-mother’ of graphics, lol.

Those are some strange carrots, lol. Night!


21 posted on 05/22/2007 10:42:43 PM PDT by potlatch (MIZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MIKAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: devolve; potlatch

FYI & thanks.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/05/eagle-cometh-in-stealth-bearing-bombs.html

You sired a new one.


22 posted on 05/22/2007 10:45:53 PM PDT by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: devolve; FARS

Ahhh, that looks very nice there FARS. devolve does excellent graphics!

Night to all, heading to bed!!


23 posted on 05/22/2007 10:48:03 PM PDT by potlatch (MIZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MIKAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_MAZARU_ooo_()_ooo_))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: potlatch
For those interested, ABC's Brian Ross is reporting that the President has authorized black ops against Iran.

But Brian has been very wrong before.

24 posted on 05/22/2007 10:58:46 PM PDT by cookcounty (No journalist ever won a prize for reporting the facts. --Telling big stories? Now that's a hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
25 posted on 05/22/2007 11:03:42 PM PDT by davidlachnicht ("IF WE'RE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcraig

Bump!!


26 posted on 05/22/2007 11:24:02 PM PDT by Defiant (A nation of frontiersmen needs a frontier, or it turns into.....Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar; All
Norman is full of it. Iran is a past and future ally. We should seek regime change without alienating most of the Iranian people who are on our side.

Utter nonsense.

The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.

And the extent of control and surveillance of the mullahcracy into everyday Iranian lives far exceeds even the worst excesses of the Shah's regime.

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.

Literally wipe that city from the face of the Earth, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there is to be an uprising against the mullahs, that will provoke it because if their 'holiest Muslim city' is suddenly reduced to radioactive rubble, they will of course blame the United States (and they already blame us for everything so what's the difference?), but they will also blame Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for bringing down such devestation upon them.

That's the plan: Nuke Qom, use nuclear-tipped bunker busters if necessary to take out the hardened nuke sites, destroy Iran's military resources (air, naval, land) with U.S.-based plus Naval-based airpower.

30 days, and Iran will truly become what they've always sought to be: a 9th century power.

And the world can breathe a little easier, if only for a little while.
27 posted on 05/23/2007 12:21:05 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thank you!


28 posted on 05/23/2007 3:28:39 AM PDT by Seadog Bytes (OPM - The Liberal 'solution' to every societal problem. (Other People's Money))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
There isn’t enough testicular fortitude in the Bush admin to launch a real campaign against Iran. Not gonna happen. The Iranians will have to use a nuke that can be traced back to them and then MAYBE we might do something if it killed enough Americans.
29 posted on 05/23/2007 5:20:30 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
We shall see.

PS: Many on FR like to use "manly" body parts to describe the strength of will, I have my theory about those folks and it is not pretty.

30 posted on 05/23/2007 5:32:41 AM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Well I could use other metaphors but they take more words and use more bandwidth. Would you prefer “commitment to action” or “a course for positive results”. Since W has only stood up to congress on one thing in the past five years and ONLY when he had no choice; I guess you think he has fortitude to stand up to Iran? And finally I don’t care much about what you think but I can tell you that in the ME strength is the only thing respected and they laugh their a$$es off (oops another body part) at our “weakness” and they way the WOT is being fought. They are right. With the current course of action they will win and we will loose. They are making terrorists faster than we are killing them, simple math.
31 posted on 05/23/2007 5:40:07 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Excellent articles...thanks.


32 posted on 05/23/2007 5:54:55 AM PDT by milford421 (U.N. OUT OF U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.

That just doesn't jibe with the facts on the ground. Iran is a cauldron of dissent and opposition to the rule of the mullahs who have wrecked the economy and oppressed the society. It is the young who are leading the opposition.

Iran: Coping With The World's Highest Rate Of Brain Drain

Given enough small taps, Iran regime will crack

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.

It is more of a gamble to make a military strike that will delay but not prevent Iran eventually getting nuclear weapons. It will mobilize the population against the US and increase nationalism. The Iranians can also buy nuclear weapons whether from North Korea or maybe even Pakistan. The danger Iran poses is the provision of WMD to terrorists not an overt attack against the US or Europe. That would be national suicide.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.

If there is a large, indescriminate attack against Iran with a large amount of collateral damage, then it will be counterproductive. FYI: Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, the mullahs do.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.

Now you are just plain nuts. The launching of a US nuclear attack against Iran and against an important religious symbol would invite worldwide condemnation and have far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims. And the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin.

33 posted on 05/23/2007 6:33:34 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gcraig
CONGRESS YOU ARE DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, MY WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, AND MY COUNTRY.

Don't be silly. It's hard work to stuff all that pork into a military spending bill, and have to re-do it all every couple months!

34 posted on 05/23/2007 7:42:16 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
I’ll just say. Almadijinda (sp?) (I’m very tired)

It's spelled 'I'm a dim nut job'...

35 posted on 05/23/2007 7:44:13 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Sooooooo, what’s your theory???


36 posted on 05/23/2007 7:46:40 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
For those interested, ABC's Brian Ross is reporting that the President has authorized black ops against Iran.

Good thing our Fourth Estate Fifth Column is keeping it a secret...

37 posted on 05/23/2007 7:49:53 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gcraig
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.

Iran will probably hold off until after the inauguration.

"The world" always tests a new president's resolve and mettle.

This is assuming they don't pull an Atocha on us in an attempt to queer our election.

38 posted on 05/23/2007 7:55:30 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar; All
The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.
That just doesn't jibe with the facts on the ground. Iran is a cauldron of dissent and opposition to the rule of the mullahs who have wrecked the economy and oppressed the society. It is the young who are leading the opposition.


The 'facts on the ground' are not your friend. There may be groups of disgruntled youth leading some sort of opposition, but remember that it is the 'young' that rallied behind, and continue to rally behind Ahmadinejad, who organized the Basij brigades (children serving as human mine sweepers during the Iran/Iraq War) and retains much of his political power due to the Basij.

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.
It is more of a gamble to make a military strike that will delay but not prevent Iran eventually getting nuclear weapons. It will mobilize the population against the US and increase nationalism. The Iranians can also buy nuclear weapons whether from North Korea or maybe even Pakistan. The danger Iran poses is the provision of WMD to terrorists not an overt attack against the US or Europe. That would be national suicide.


I think that we need to have more faith in the abilities of the United States Armed Forces to take down Iran, than to play 'what ifs' about what Iran may do if we do NOT attack them preemptively. As for 'national suicide', embracing the Carteresque doctrine of 'don't use military force' virtually guarantees national suicide.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.
If there is a large, indescriminate attack against Iran with a large amount of collateral damage, then it will be counterproductive. FYI: Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, the mullahs do.


Ahmadinejad is the mullah's mouthpiece and figurehead, but don't delude yourself: he's got some substantial political power of his own.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.
Now you are just plain nuts. The launching of a US nuclear attack against Iran and against an important religious symbol would invite worldwide condemnation and have far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims. And the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin.


a.) Qom is only an 'important religious symbol' because the Islamofreaks believe it to be so. You know and I know that it is just one more fake idol of an ideological death cult.

b.) 'World-wide condemnation'? Who gives a damn? The world condemns America every day and every night for any and all perceived 'offenses' whether deserved or not. You need to stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks about us, and start promoting the idea that the rest of the world had damn well better start worrying about what AMERICA thinks of THEM.

c.) 'far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims', you say? That is exactly what we need to do, to create some 'far reaching effects' that will demonstrate to them that if they don't surrender (which they won't), they're gonna die, each and every last one of 'em, and they'll die at the hands of the United States military. It was radical Islam that launched this jihad against America, and so-called 'moderate' Islam failed to stop it.

(hey, you know the difference between a 'radical' Muslim and a 'moderate' Muslim? The radical Muslim will decapitate you with a rusty knife ala Nick Berg, the 'moderate' won't actually kill you, but he'll hide the rusty knife in his house until the heat dies down, lol).

d.) 'the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin'. Uh huh. And what do you think is going to happen when Tehran acquires even a rudimentary nuclear capability?

The bottom line is that there are nothing but bad choices before us, and if Munich taught us ANYTHING in 1938, the worst of all choices is to do nothing, and pretend that our enemies are going to choose the most optimistic scenario that we aspire to.

It's not going to happen. That's why we should have nuked Iran last week. Truman didn't worry about what the world would think of us after nuking the Japanese in 1945, and neither should we worry about it today regarding Iran.

This is an ideological struggle to the death.

Do we want to win, or do we want to die?

Choose wisely.
39 posted on 05/23/2007 8:05:41 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thanks for the ping!


40 posted on 05/23/2007 8:18:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
The 'facts on the ground' are not your friend. There may be groups of disgruntled youth leading some sort of opposition, but remember that it is the 'young' that rallied behind, and continue to rally behind Ahmadinejad, who organized the Basij brigades (children serving as human mine sweepers during the Iran/Iraq War) and retains much of his political power due to the Basij.

Ahmadinejad is not popular and many boycotted the election that put him in power. And the mullahs are having major problems with the economy.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran increased the price of gasoline by 25 percent Tuesday, faced by the same quandary that has sent prices at U.S. pumps soaring: Its lack of refinery capacity means it must buy gas on the world market. Public discontent has been growing in Iran in recent months as housing prices have doubled and prices for basic goods have tripled since last summer. Many drivers were surprised Tuesday morning to find gas prices had risen overnight to 38 cents a gallon from 30 cents, part of a major plan by the government to reduce state subsidies on gasoline.

Ahmadinejad is trying to divert public attention from what is happening domestically by creating an phony external threat. We would be helping him now by attacking Iran militarily.

As for 'national suicide', embracing the Carteresque doctrine of 'don't use military force' virtually guarantees national suicide.

I was referring to the Iranians. The Mullahs don't want to commit national suicide by overtly attacking the US or Israel or Europe. They want to maintain their power at all costs.

a.) Qom is only an 'important religious symbol' because the Islamofreaks believe it to be so. You know and I know that it is just one more fake idol of an ideological death cult.

We would be fools to "nuke" Qom. It would be seen as an attack against Islam worldwide.

Who gives a damn? The world condemns America every day and every night for any and all perceived 'offenses' whether deserved or not. You need to stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks about us, and start promoting the idea that the rest of the world had damn well better start worrying about what AMERICA thinks of THEM.

We don't need to alienate the rest of the world by launching a unilateral nuclear attack against Iran. There are other ways to achieve our objectives.

Uh huh. And what do you think is going to happen when Tehran acquires even a rudimentary nuclear capability?

Iran still needs to sell its oil. It is the main source of its national income.

It's not going to happen. That's why we should have nuked Iran last week. Truman didn't worry about what the world would think of us after nuking the Japanese in 1945, and neither should we worry about it today regarding Iran. This is an ideological struggle to the death. Do we want to win, or do we want to die? Choose wisely.

Iran is neither Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. It can never defeat us militarily. As I mentioned, the greatest threat they pose to use is their sponsorship of militant islamic terrorism. We cannot win the WOT without regime change in Iran. We just disagree on how best to accomplish that objective. Having lived in Iran 1977-79, including during the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini, I have my own firsthand experience to base my opinion. Iran was and will be again our ally. We should not allow the mullahs to bait us into an ill-timed military attack and bail them out of their growing domestic crisis. There are covert ways we can hasten their demise.

41 posted on 05/23/2007 9:48:50 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
There is no reason to bomb Iran yet. What have they done to us? I am not saying wait till a nuke hits but our military is very thin right now.

I will go ahead and put on the flame suit.

42 posted on 05/23/2007 9:51:48 AM PDT by JackDanielsOldNo7 (On guard until the seal is broken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

It is exactly what you are thinking.


43 posted on 05/23/2007 9:59:35 AM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Oh, I don’t fault Bush for lack of nerve - I fault Globalist Bush because he will use any means to further his agenda, which is NOT in the best interest of a sovereign and free America. The Bush goal is One World Government. And it looks like he’s getting it!


44 posted on 05/23/2007 10:09:09 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Oh? What am I thinking?


45 posted on 05/23/2007 10:45:25 AM PDT by null and void (Carter calling Bush worst president in U.S. history is like Michael Moore calling Ann Coulter fat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kabar; dennisw; All
Ahmadinejad is not popular and many boycotted the election that put him in power. And the mullahs are having major problems with the economy.

The 'election' was a farce anyway, you actually think Iranian elections are 'free and fair'? LOL

As for the mullahs having major problems with the economy, it doesn't appear to be holding up their drive for nuclear weapons, nor is it inhibiting their proxy war against our troops in Iraq, nor is there any let up in their state sponsored support for terrorism around the world.

Ahmadinejad is trying to divert public attention from what is happening domestically by creating an phony external threat. We would be helping him now by attacking Iran militarily.

Ahmadinejad doesn't give a hoot in Hell about public opinion, he's in charge, he has a political base, and the mullahs are happy to have him leading the way while they hide and stay out of sight.

As for economic difficulties in Iran as reported by HeraldNet.Com, it means nothing. Iran is not a capitalist democracy in the sense of a Western nation, if the Iranian people suffer hardship, they are told to bite the bullet, shut up, or they get a visit from the mullah's thugs in the dead of the night. That's the reality of what's happening 'on the ground' in Iran, and guess what?

That's pretty much what's been going on since the Assahollah seized power in '79.

We would be fools to "nuke" Qom. It would be seen as an attack against Islam worldwide.

Did you somehow miss 9/11 when 19 Islamic terrorists led the opening attack against US?!? Perhaps you need to check out following passages from the Quran:

Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Ishaq:326 “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”

Qur’an:8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughtered in the land.”

Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:326 “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Qur’an:7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.

[with a big thank you to Freeper 'DennisW']

We don't need to alienate the rest of the world by launching a unilateral nuclear attack against Iran. There are other ways to achieve our objectives.

Those 'other ways' consisting of the dubious approach of 'covert action', and/or inflicting unnecessary casualties on our OWN troops by going in with mostly conventional weapons, or perhaps you mean (har har) "diplomacy"?. Lookee here bud, America's goal is not to win some global popularity contest because we desperately need to be liked, America's goal is (or should be!) to defend our way of life, and that way of life is threatened by Islamofascism, and at this point in time, Iran is leading the charge. We have the means to wipe their asses out tomorrow morning, and we should do it. Neither Russia or the ChiComs in Beijing are going to risk a general nuclear exchange with us over Iran, they'll shriek, wail and scream bloody murder, but when faced with the option to up the ante and risk further American retaliation on THEIR vital interests?

Uh uh, they'll fold their cards. The United States is the only nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons in warfare, and it's time our friends and enemies alike got a reminder of that historical fact. Iran is that reminder, and we need to stop wasting time about it.

Iran still needs to sell its oil. It is the main source of its national income.

The mullahs and Ahmadinejad don't care. They are in the grip of Islamic 'end times ideology' and they believe that by bringing on armageddon, it will only hasten their entry into 'allah's paradise', in the meantime, they are going to continue to push the envelope to see how much they can get away with, and as Podhoretz pointed out, one of their most recent tests of Western resolve was the taking of those UK sailors hostage, and Britain showed itself to be utterly neutered and powerless. You think that's a good thing?

Iran is neither Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. It can never defeat us militarily.

It's not about defeating us militarily, it's about a regime in Iran that is the classic definition of the 'inmates taking over the asylum', and if they achieve a nuclear weapons capability, the world situation is going to be 100 times worse than anything that might have happened in World War II with Germany and/or Japan. Believe that.

As I mentioned, the greatest threat they pose to us is their sponsorship of militant islamic terrorism. We cannot win the WOT without regime change in Iran. We just disagree on how best to accomplish that objective. Having lived in Iran 1977-79, including during the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini, I have my own firsthand experience to base my opinion. Iran was and will be again our ally.

Someone who lived in Germany from 1937 until 1939 might have made the same statement, and while Germany did indeed become our ally, it wasn't until after the whole damn country was flattened by strategic bombing.

It's a quaint notion that Iran might return to those pre-mullah days when the Shah of Iran was in fact one of our best friends in the region and a force for stability. But your faith in Iranian society to do an about face, no matter how fast or how slow, is likely going to be misplaced because that nation is no friend of ours, the regime currently in charge is not going to go quietly, and the only way Iran is going to start behaving itself is for the United States to slap it down and HARD. If that means carpet bombing the damn place from one end to the other, so be it - they will have brought it on themselves.

We should not allow the mullahs to bait us into an ill-timed military attack and bail them out of their growing domestic crisis. There are covert ways we can hasten their demise.

Your faith in covert operations is misplaced.

The stakes are too high to trust the CIA to do in Iran what they helped to accomplish in 1953. In this case, lightning will NOT strike twice.

I say fuel up the B-1s and B-2s.
46 posted on 05/23/2007 11:38:23 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I mostly agree with your assessment. I would add that a declaration of war be declared if/when an attack is warranted. We must respond if a nuclear threat is made against Israel.

I doubt we will see a coaltion of countries to join us in this effort.

47 posted on 05/23/2007 11:41:05 AM PDT by afnamvet (It is what it is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

You’re right - and, in fact, Podhoretz deals with just that issue in the article. That is, the “feel good” matter of a young, anti-mullah Iranian population. So, some dream on! Meanwhile, in reality the enrichment process continues.


48 posted on 05/23/2007 12:46:31 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Utter nonsense. The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.

You are over-stating your case. In fact, most of the Iranian people are pro western if not pro American. Surveys conducted by the Iranian government revealed this several years ago. Nevertheless, I think waiting on them to overthrow Iran is a fool's game. They may never wrest power away from the mullahs and in the meantime the clock ticks.

49 posted on 05/23/2007 1:24:56 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
As for the mullahs having major problems with the economy, it doesn't appear to be holding up their drive for nuclear weapons, nor is it inhibiting their proxy war against our troops in Iraq, nor is there any let up in their state sponsored support for terrorism around the world.

If the economy collapses, the mullahs will go the way of Soviets. The country will implode.

Ahmadinejad doesn't give a hoot in Hell about public opinion, he's in charge, he has a political base, and the mullahs are happy to have him leading the way while they hide and stay out of sight.

The people know who runs the country. It is not a matter of public opinion but public action. The political base erodes quickly once the society starts to fail. The Shah found that out.

Iran is not a capitalist democracy in the sense of a Western nation, if the Iranian people suffer hardship, they are told to bite the bullet, shut up, or they get a visit from the mullah's thugs in the dead of the night. That's the reality of what's happening 'on the ground' in Iran, and guess what?

LOL. The economic difficulties are not only being reported by Hardnet.com. Iran is not that kind of police state. There have been plenty of demonstrations and opposition. The bazaaris have long been considered the sine qua non of the regime's hold on power and still are. They were part of the original coalition along with the mullahs, intelligentsia and exiles that took down the Shah. Khomeini hijacked the Iranian Revolution in much the same way that Lenin did. The current government is not that secure and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei worsening health will set off a battle of succession, which may result in a battle between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad.

Did you somehow miss 9/11 when 19 Islamic terrorists led the opening attack against US?!? Perhaps you need to check out following passages from the Quran:

Nuking Qom is not the solution. You are madder than a March hare.

Lookee here bud, America's goal is not to win some global popularity contest because we desperately need to be liked, America's goal is (or should be!) to defend our way of life, and that way of life is threatened by Islamofascism, and at this point in time, Iran is leading the charge.

It has nothing to do with winning a global popularity contest. Hell, we wouldn't have any domestic support from the American people to launch a pre-emptive NUCLEAR ATTACK against Iran. What you are suggesting will never happen. We have to deal with the real world and not the world of of fantasy you seem to live in.

The mullahs and Ahmadinejad don't care.

Don't believe that nonsense. These people want survive. They convince the other poor fools including women and children to strap bombs on to themselves and sacrifice for the faith. You can bet that they won't nor will their children.

as Podhoretz pointed out, one of their most recent tests of Western resolve was the taking of those UK sailors hostage, and Britain showed itself to be utterly neutered and powerless. You think that's a good thing?

I'll leave that up to the UK to decide. The British Navy is going down to 25 capital ships. They really don't have the means to take on Iran in Iran. The capture of the Brits was probably pushed by the RG who wanted one of their agents back who was being held in Iraq. He was released just before the UK sailors were.

Someone who lived in Germany from 1937 until 1939 might have made the same statement, and while Germany did indeed become our ally, it wasn't until after the whole damn country was flattened by strategic bombing.

Iran isn't Nazi Germany. It has no ability to project power on a regional basis let alone a global level. It couldn't defeat the Iraqis in their 8 year war. Their military is a joke. Again, the only real danger they pose is giving WMD to non-state actor terrorists and making it difficult for us to trace back the source of the weapons so we can retaliate. It also gives them some ability to bully the region, but we will be there to counter it. The Iranian government views nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against our involvement in their internal affairs.

Your faith in covert operations is misplaced. The stakes are too high to trust the CIA to do in Iran what they helped to accomplish in 1953. In this case, lightning will NOT strike twice. I say fuel up the B-1s and B-2s.

Dream on Captain of the keyboard. You have the luxury of being Walter Mitty. The rest of us have to deal with reality.

50 posted on 05/23/2007 1:55:47 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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