Well written Jay. Unfortunately time after time Jim Shooter is proven right. Power, like adversity does not build character it reveals it.

I think the person that wrote that article forgets that many of these people don't behave in a fashion which we would consider logical.

You or I would not give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor would we start a nuclear war. But we don't believe we'd go to heaven with 72 virgins if we die as a result, nor do we consider it our holy duty to kill as many infidels as possible, women children and all.

Why does he assume the Mullahs think like we do? It just seems silly to me. Hell, they might think they can give a nuke to some terrorists and get away with plausible deniability. Or that the crazy lefties will prevent any retaliation if they do so. Is that a risk that's really worth taking?

Congratulations Jay! You earned the "Editorial of the day" over at my blog with this one. On a day with a good Thomas Sowell editorial, that is saying something.

P.S. You may want to clean up some of the typos. A post as good as this one deserves to be pristine.

Well said !

- MikeB

Clear message. The corollary speaks to what being the POTUS does to a man (or could do to a woman). And I am thinking back through our entire history, not just the recent. Too bad so many use the polarized lenses of partisanship to view their demons or heroes.

The article by Barry R. Posen, the MIT professor, is directed more at what we can do in response to a nuclear Iran. Basically, we have two options. Use military power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or use deterrence to contain Iran once it has nuclear weapons.

The first option, using military power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons creates it's own problems. With Iran having a strategic location at the chokepoint through which most of the world's oil tankers must travel, any attack on Iran would likely stop that flow. The U.S. would have to respond with strong military action on the ground to restore oil shipments. The mess in Iraq would seem inconsequential by comparison with the only hope for relief being either large new pipelines to bring the oil to new Red Sea ports or the complete military conquest of Iran. We would likely need to kill millions of Iranians, which I expect some see as a positive, be we would likely lose many thousands of solders as well.

On the other hand, a nuclear Iran would face total obliteration by nuclear weapons in response to any use and would also be subject to a preemptive nuclear strike from the U.S. or Israel should Iran cross some threshold of readying it's weapons for use.

We now see the wisdom of President's push to develop anti-missile technology. By the time Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons it's unlikely they could reach their target if we share our anti-missile technology with Israel.

It will cost Iran trillions upon trillions of dollars to develop a credible nuclear threat that can survive a preemptive attack and then get past our anti-missile technology. Iran could never rest as it would have to precede faster than the U.S. can develop counter measures.

It might actually be a good idea to let Iran enter a nuclear arms race with the U.S. as it will force them to expend all their oil wealth in a vain effort to reach parity with the U.S. Iran will have to increase it's oil production and ensure it's uninterrupted flow to pay for it's nuclear arsenal, which they dare not use. By mid-century Iran's oil wealth will be gone or not needed anymore and they will have spent their treasure on a useless weapons system.

"Some pundits talk about delivery systems, missiles, and that is a concern, but there is also another delivery system, and that is called Hizbullah, that is an extension of the Iranian government. You combine the Iranian nuclear weapons program with Hizbullah, and that is a pretty nasty mixture."

"With great power comes great responsibility"Stan Lee's most profound observation.
I agree absolutely, but what to do with a work-in-project like our President who is such an incurious leader, and so early on the learning curve.
In January 2003, the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, 'You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?'"
- former U.S. dilpomat Peter Galbraith

Only a few weeks ago Dubya was touting ."Democracy was on the march."when everyone with a whit of sense, knew that far from demcoracy being on the march, "Radical Islam was on the march." Now when the results of Administration experiments in pushing democracy are painfully apparent to even Condi Rice we revert back to type, and the big stick approach. This is probably happens when far from having 4 Mullahs in charge of our delicate foreign policy we have 4 born again rooted evangelicals in charge of our country's foreign policy in the Middle East: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Of course their mandate is not to learn from history, such as the British occupation of Iraq "the ungrateful volcano," as Churchill called it after the first World War.. but to change it. But in order to change history you must have a general idea of what you are doing. Typlified by such thinking as"There weren't any good targets to bomb in Afghanistan but plenty in Iraq."-attributed to Rumsfeld, may indeed show American great power, but isn't going to cut it, as great responsiblity to the consequences.

Here's a third example of what happens when you fail to honor the threat. Our troops were poised to take out renegade cleric al-Sadr almost two years ago but were called off the hunt by Bush after al-Sadr promised to behave... and it's al-Sadr's militia that is believed to be responsible for many of the 1300 killed in Iraq over the past week.

Totally agree with you Steve. This was a preventable slaughter.

In addition, right now as we speak, naive people are actually taking Sadr's talk of peace seriously.

Oh, the parallels of history:

"Iran is led by a Prime Minister who has a history of ordering and carrying out the executions of his enemies, both at home and abroad. He has been tied to the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of Iranian dissidents around the world. He has repeatedly proclaimed his belief in the Islamic version of Armageddon, has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and insists on unfettered research into nuclear physics -- saying it is strictly for peaceful purposes, but meanwhile asserting his nation's right to possess nuclear weapons. ..."

Meanwhile...

The United States is led by a president who has a history of ordering the indefinite detention and sanctioning the torture of individuals, including minors, many of whom were later found to be bystanders rather than al-Qaida terrorists, and others of whom were tortured into giving their interrogators false information later used to justify the misuse of American armed forces in Iraq. He has disappeared American citizens without trial, festooned the globe with secret prisons that are tied to the deaths of an uncounted number of people, and ordered the secret wiretapping and surveillance of political opponents and God only knows who else (journalists, maybe?). His administration outed a covert agent working on non-proliferation issues, threatening her safety and the safety of everyone she ever dealt with, simply because her husband criticized the political policy of invading Iraq. He has repeatedly proclaimed that the United States is spreading freedom around the world, and that democracies are peaceful, yet his "democratically elected" administration ordered the invasion of a country that had not attacked and did not threaten us. He and his administration manipulated intelligence to justify a war that has killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis and more than 2,000 U.S. troops, and which has injured nearly 20,000 others. Two-thirds of our troops now apparently believe the mission should be brought to an end (NYT poll today). And he has propped up a dictator in Pakistan, an oligarchy in Saudi Arabia, whom, along with the UAE, he and his family have repeatedly taken money from, and to whom he is now prepared to hand over operational control of 21 U.S. ports (after having thrown open the U.S. southern border to an unlimited hoarde of barely paid corporate slaves. He decries the search for nuclear weapons by countries seeking a deterrent against Israel, which is armed to the teeth with them, while continuing research on next-generation nuclear weapons for our use.

What a world.

my patience with the likes of Jreid, are gone. But, I will be nice and not say what I really mean.

Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Of course their mandate is not to learn from history, such as the British occupation of Iraq "the ungrateful volcano," as Churchill called it after the first World War.. but to change it. But in order to change history you must have a general idea of what you are doing.
Posted by: Steve Crickmore at February 28, 2006 09:20 AM

Well said. Seems as though the American public is realizing this too, as the poll numbers below indicate. I can only say that it's about time everyone admits that the emperor has no clothes. Read on....

Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low

NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2006
(AP)

Fast Fact

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September's poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Full Poll: Bush, The Ports And Iraq (.pdf)

Full Poll: Katrina Six Months Later (.pdf)
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly - the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

In a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story.

Still, the incident appears to have made the public's already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.

Americans were evenly split on whether or not Cheney's explanation of why there was a delay in reporting the accident was satisfactory.

These are the type of people that the naive in our country, would gladly give nukes to:

Everyone has seen the videos of beheadings that Muslim Jihadis release. You see that during the most despicable acts imaginable, which is the cold blooded murder of another human being, they invoke the name of their deity Allah. This shows that they do not perceive this dastardly act as wrong. On the contrary, this is to them an act of worship. Their compass does not tell them that they are doing anything wrong. That compass is set by the Quran which everyone, including the foolish non-Muslim appeasers respect and call "holy". So in the Muslim mind, what you and I perceive as heinous and evil is divine. Just as you don't consider yourself to be a bad person for eating hamburger [as a Hindu would, as he has a different moral compass], a Muslim can kill the non believers with no compunction and he does not believe that what he does is wrong.
The life of a non-Muslim to him is worth as much as the life of a chicken is worth to you and me. We don't go around killing every chicken we see. In fact we keep them and feed them as long as they are useful to us. But we don't lose sleep when we have to slaughter them. So it is not that Muslims will necessarily go around massacring every non-Muslim. As long as these non-Muslims are useful to them, they are granted protection. In fact dhimmi means protected. The non-believers will remain protected, as long as they pay the Jizzyah "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60219.htm

Way to go Jreid and nick! Both of you have nailed all the Democratic talking points while completely ignoring the issues presented in the post.

Because Bush is evil, we should ignore a nuclear Iran? We should hand over Israel to Hamas? Is that what both of you are suggesting?

You both are either insane or off-topic.

Jreid,

Most of what you cite as fact are only left-wing assertions. That's what happens when people start believing their own propaganda.

And since I have already begun "hogging" this thread, one more post that I shamelessly stole from a comment at Blackfive. Gives new meaning to the words coming out of some of those who proclaim "peace":

I "borrowed" the below from Delftsman3, Émigré with a Digital Clue Bat. It hits the nail on the head for me. If you are a true believer of the faith, you are taught to kill all non-believers. How do you get around that? A moderate muslim is like a truthful politician, no such species exists.

"During the training session for maintaining my state prison security clearance, there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine the Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven.

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame."

Sorry Jay Tea. At least I didn't use any four letter words. :-)

Yes, Iraq is a mess right now, but no one can know if invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do without knowing the consequences of leaving Saddam in charge. What we do know is that the UN's oil for food program wasn't working due to rampant corruption. We also know Saddam was bribing officials in France and other nations to gain support to lift U.N. sanctions. Had that happened Saddam would have been free to rebuild his military, and you can bet that if Iran was going nuclear, so would Iraq.

EXDemocrat,

You would think an Imam would know that Jews and Christians are "people of the book" and not infidels under Islamic law. There's something phony about this Imam.

why anyone would believe a cbs poll is beyond me. they already are proven liars so why take any thing claimed by them to be true? no doubt that the "poll" sample was 60% democrat and 30% republican and 10% independent.
a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk for the US. we need to remove their threat to us using any and all means available and necessary at our disposal.
if it means using atomic weapons against them so be it. the opinion of the rest of the world is irrelevant. the rest of the world's combined military forces are not capable of defeating the US so their is no need for us to kow tow to anyone else when so large a threat looms against us from a lunatic state.

Mac, here are a few things from "the book". There are many, many more.

[al-Ma'idah 5:51]
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.
They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.

[at-Taubah 9:29]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from
among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

In this verse Prophet Mohammad is clearly instructing his followers never to befriend a Christian or a Jew. Because if they take a Christian or a Jew as a friend, they will commit a wrong deed and Allah's wrath will be on them.

Here 'People of the Book' refers to Christians and Jews. The 'Religion Of Truth' refers to Islam. So in the above verse Prophet Mohammad is instructing Muslims to fight and torture Christians and Jews (who do not believe in Islamic version of God) until they pay tax to Muslims for their existence. Muslims are also strictly instructed to make the Christians and Jews feel 'subdued'. Allah is truly benign !!!

[at-Taubah 9:30]
The Jews call 'Uzayr-a son of God', and the Christinas call 'Christ the Son Of God'. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but intimate what the unbelievers of old used
to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are decluded away from the Truth.

Here Prophet Mohammad is wishing that Allah's curse be on Jews and Christians. And what did the Christians and Jews do for such special favour from Allah ? All they did is that out of respect and love, they called their Prophets 'son of God'.

EXDemocrat,

Thanks for the quotes from the book. My understanding is that when Muslims would conquered some country the residents who were Jews or Christians were allowed to continue to practice their religion if they paid a tax and kept their place as second class citizens. Others were required to convert to Islam or be killed. Jews and Christians were treated differently than others.

Apart from all that, the thing that makes your story about the Imam hard to believe is the following...

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

I just can't see an Imam reacting that way unless he hung his head in shame because he allowed the guards to disarm him, and thus, he was not able to smite you down.

Like I said, I took it from a comment somewhere else. But, I believe the Koran speaks for itself. Not to mention, the treatment that these two groups receive in the ME as a whole.

Absolutely and remember that a suicide bomber with dynamite or blackpowder or plastique just makes a smaller bang than one with a nuclear device!

Those freaks could even build one in place ( many places ) that could be set off by phone. Once the know how is complete its as good as done.

So whats the better option?

Turn Iran into a lifeless desert or sit around waiting for their jihad bombs to start going off?

People just need to start thinking outside the box.

Am I the only person who thinks that Jay Tea's post rolled off the table when he ascribed the Wisdom of Ages to Stan "the Man with Waxed Back" Lee?? The Bible, the Talmud, Milton, Shakespeare, Gibbon and the Plato versions of the same quote might have prevented the sobering thought I had as I read Jay Tea's attributed source: "I am a virtual guest in the fruit cellar of the Bates Motel!"

So, bryanD (like Candy with an I?), rather than refute the message, you attack the man?
That was a long way of saying "I got nothin"

It's interesting how JayTea's somewhat simplistic analysis is followed by comments from ExDemocrat that are not just more simplistic, but outrageous in their implications, and no one says a word. If I read his comments correctly, ExDemocrat is saying that every Muslim is dedicated to the death or subjugation of all Jews and Christians, and therefore should be treated as a mortal enemy. Every Muslim? And I don't think selecting passages from the Koran makes the point, any more than selecting outrageous quotes from the Bible can be used to prove outrageous points. If what ExDemocrat is saying is true, we might as well start killing every Muslim we see, before they kill us first. Yeah, that'll solve all of our problems.

I also have a problem with constant references to the appeasement of Hitler, as if that one example means we should always meet our enemies with force. I think one can argue that Communist China has a pretty bad record for human rights, and certainly behaved as an enemy to the US for many years. Looking at how relations between the two countries are now, would you say it was a drastic mistake for us not to declare war on China, rather than "appeasing" them? How about the Soviet Union? Did it make more sense to contain them, or should we have done everything we could militarily to oveerthrow their government? This doesn't mean that I think every tyrant can be brought around. It's just that knee jerk references to Hitler, as though he was the only tyrant the world has ever known, are an easy way to justify the use of force, without having to recognize the unique circumstances of each situation. In the case of Hamas, we don't have to love them. But saying they "have never shown any signs of moderation, of reason, of compromise, of being willing to be a part of the civilized world," is somewhat belied by the fact that they chose to take part in the electoral process (which is supposedly one of our goals for the Middle East), rather than just seizing power at gunpoint. This doesn't make them good guys, but even terrorists get tired. I think it's a bit much to say that the only Palestinian governement we'll accept is one that wants friendly relations with Israel. How about engaging them and seeing if we can get them to renounce terror? I think that would do the Israelis a hell of a lot more good in the short run.

If I read his comments correctly, ExDemocrat is saying that every Muslim is dedicated to the death or subjugation of all Jews and Christians, and therefore should be treated as a mortal enemy.

You are not reading him correctly.